NattarNew INTRODUCTION NATTAR AND THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGE IN SOUTH INDIA IN THE 18TH - 19TH CENTURIES MIZUSHIMA TSUKASA INTRODUCTION In the initial stage of the colonial rule in South India in the late eighteenth century the British administrators found the people called Nattar in some parts of their newly acquired areas. Nattars were mostly found in the districts of Chingleput, South Arcot, North Arcot, and Tiruchirapalli in the present Tamilnadu State. It is doubtless those administrators did not have sufficient knowledge about the origin and the nature of the Nattars whom they came across in the various stages in the course of enforcing colonial rule. Due to the lack of information about Nattar, each of the British administrators posted in the different parts of South India judged and treated them differently according to the local condition in the early days of their rule. In some cases they treated Nattar as revenue officer, Zamindar, caste headman, village headman, temple manager, contractor of textiles, and in others they simply or purposely neglected Nattar. As will be studied later in Chapter I, the progress of recent historical studies has clarified much about Nattar in the Chola period (9th-13th century A.D.) and in the Vijayanagara period (14th-16th century A.D.). It is so far understood that Nattars were originated from the pre-Chola period and were the key figures in the agrarian society as well as in the political structure of the Chola state. Regarding the Nattars in the Vijayanagara period, there is much controversy whether this institution survived or declined. It seems to be a general understanding, however, that their importance in the society was reduced to a great extent.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
NattarNewINTRODUCTION
NATTAR AND THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGE IN SOUTH INDIA IN THE 18TH - 19TH CENTURIES
MIZUSHIMA TSUKASA
INTRODUCTION In the initial stage of the colonial rule in South India in the late eighteenth century the British administrators found the people called Nattar in some parts of their newly acquired areas. Nattars were mostly found in the districts of Chingleput, South Arcot, North Arcot, and Tiruchirapalli in the present Tamilnadu State. It is doubtless those administrators did not have sufficient knowledge about the origin and the nature of the Nattars whom they came across in the various stages in the course of enforcing colonial rule. Due to the lack of information about Nattar, each of the British administrators posted in the different parts of South India judged and treated them differently according to the local condition in the early days of their rule. In some cases they treated Nattar as revenue officer, Zamindar, caste headman, village headman, temple manager, contractor of textiles, and in others they simply or purposely neglected Nattar. As will be studied later in Chapter I, the progress of recent historical studies has clarified much about Nattar in the Chola period (9th-13th century A.D.) and in the Vijayanagara period (14th-16th century A.D.). It is so far understood that Nattars were originated from the pre-Chola period and were the key figures in the agrarian society as well as in the political structure of the Chola state. Regarding the Nattars in the Vijayanagara period, there is much controversy whether this institution survived or declined. It seems to be a general understanding, however, that their importance in the society was reduced to a great extent. Regarding the Nattars in the post-Vijayanagar period we don't have any substantial study. Few of the historical research teaches us what actually happened to Nattar after the Vijayanagara period. On the contrary there are not a small number of early British documents informing the influential position held by Nattar in the agrarian
society and in the political structure of the time. They were deeply involved with the colonial administration, which itself is the indication of the continuity of the institution well into the 19th century. This finding naturally urges the historians to reconsider the process of historical development of South India for the several centuries previous to the British rule. By what factors the institution of Nattar survived for more than thousand years ? Or was it a revived institution under particular historical situation ? What was its relation with caste, local society, or state ? and so on. Coming back to the recent historical development for the last two centuries, there is yet another issue to be examined in relation to the study of Nattar. That is, to assess the significance of the colonial rule in the agrarian relations of South India by focusing upon Nattar. Nattars were found to be widely spread in various parts of Tamil area at least at the beginning of the 19th century. What has happened to them since then ? Have they disappeared or do they still occupy a certain position in the society ? To get a clue for this problem, I launched a field trip in 1984 to trace the descendants of the Nattars. The trip covering parts of Pondichery state, South Arcot, and North Arcot districts, however, ended in vain. There are recorded Nattars' personal names along with their villages' names in a few collectors' reports of the early 19th century. The villages visited by me were these villages. Though the chance to find out the descendants of the Nattars in the respective village was anticipated very high, almost any of the villagers interviewed did not know who the Nattars were or even what the Nattars were. The time gap or the historical change of the last two centuries was much bigger than was apprehended. In the mean time I was informed by some of my friends, who are the residents of the villages where I did village studies in 1979-80 and 1981-82, that they knew the area where a certain number of 'Nattar' families were residing. The area is located in the northern part of Tiruchirapalli District, which is reported to be the stronghold of the Nattars by the Collectors in the early part of the 19th century. In the same year the second field trip to the place was tried and several Nattar families were at last found out. One of the Nattars was said to have possessed more than several thousands acres and had a kind of 'Raja-like' authority till very recently. Though these Nattars were not the very typical ones that were expected in the sense they were the descendants of Telugu migrants coming to the area only in the 16th century or
in the Vijayanagara period, at least the survival of the notion of the Nattar authority and power could be traced in the present day. There would be ample possibility to find out many more Nattar families in other parts of South India if the research makes further progress. This book is a product of such an attempt as to fill the vacancy of the historical study on Nattar. The main issues to be pursued in the present study are, therefore, first to investigate the Nattars' social position, social roles, and power base in the pre-British period, and to trace the historical process faced by the Nattars from that time onwards. Nattars are here defined as one of the local leaders who took the leading role in the society in the pre-British period. The power, right, and the influence maintained by Nattar and other local leaders in the local society in the pre-British period were, however, consolidated or reduced to the right on each plot in the course of the British revenue administration. Nattars were deprived of many of their former functions as well as their privileges which had maintained their authority in the local society, and their control over the others had to be simply based on the lands they were allowed to 'own'. The process of the revenue administration on Nattar in the early British period has to be clarified in detail in its connection. There is yet another but more important subject to be tackled with. In the course of obtaining concrete information about the details of Nattars' functions and rights in the pre-British period or the 18th century, the author had to realize the necessity of setting about far more difficult task. That is, to advance the depressingly low level of socio-economic studies on South India in the 18th century. The recent debate on the mode of production in the colonial period has contributed little to the understanding of the historical stage of the period, which is, however, well anticipated by the simple fact that we don't have any dependable empirical works on the pre-colonial period. Most of the studies in this period were on the political history, paying attention sorely to the battlefields. Studies in economic fields are either on British revenue history or on the foreign textile trade, which never explains convincingly even a simple but critical fact why a handful of the British finally succeeded in establishing colonial rule. There was a process of more and more people to select one among the limited choices given to the society, which resulted as increasing the British power in South India. The choice of people is always rational in the given historical condition and one of the important tasks for historians lies in
clarifying its rationality by producing historical evidences. The second objective of the study is, therefore, to clarify the process of the socio-economic change occurred in the 18th century, which resulted in colonization, and to investigate the role of the Nattar and other local leaders in it.
These objectives will be pursued in the following four chapters. The first chapter is a preliminary one examining the former studies on Nattar in the period previous to the 18th century. Y.Subbarayalu, N.Karashima, and B.Stein's works about the Chola and the Vijayanagara period will be surveyed, and the several controversial issues will be taken up for discussion. Though the main sphere of the present study on Nattar is in the 18th century, many of the issues discussed in the former studies on ancient and medieval periods are relevant to it. At the same time this study hopes to contribute in clarifying the historical issues of earlier periods yet to be verified. A reader whose main concern is confined to the 18th-19th centuries may skip this chapter. As noted above, the British who acquired new territories had somehow to start revenue collection and faced with Nattar at various stages in their attempt. In the second chapter we will trace the early British revenue administration relevant to the Nattars in the three districts - Chingleput, South Arcot, and Tiruchirapalli (Trichinopoly) - and find out how they were treated. Though the discussion there has to become somewhat descriptive, many of the unknown facts will be disclosed and the Nattars' position in the pre-British period will be also indicated.
The third chapter is the main part of this study. Nattars' official roles, their relation with caste organizations, the problem of territorial entity, the details of their economic activities, the position of Poligars, and the growth of power of local leaders in the pre-British period will be studied. The last section is a concluding part on Nattar in particular. Theoretical implications of Nattar study in understanding the nature of historical development of South India will be discussed there. The fourth chapter is intended to clarify the relation between the growth of independence of local leaders and the politico-economic change of colonization of South India. A hypothesis that the accumulated wealth by Nattars and other local leaders through their participation in the rural-urban grain trade was the fundamental factor generating the political unrest in the 18th century will be presented and examined there. Assessing the economic significance of foreign
trade and the growth of urban centers in South Indian economy is another important subject, and in its relation an attempt to estimate the amount of rural-urban grain trade in Madras and Pondichery in the mid-18th century will be made. The last section of the chapter is for investigating the relation between the economic change and the political change of the period. Several case studies of the political movement in the period will be studied in clarifying the process of colonization of South India.
The source-materials utilized in this study was collected mostly in the India Office Library & Records in London and in the Tamilnadu Archives in Madras. As I think it essential to present the original sources for the readers' judgement, excerpts from the relevant sources will be produced as much as possible.
To indicate the date of the sources, numeric is usually used in the Notes. For instance, 18 June, 1790 is noted as 18.6.1790.
Some of the abbreviations frequently used are as follows:BOR Board of RevenueFSG Fort St. George (Madras)FSD Fort St. David (Cuddalore)P.F.C Pagoda, Fanam, Cash (gold currency)C.M.M Cullum, Marakkal, Measure (grain measure)Caw.Cul Cawnie, Culie (land measure) To indicate the location of the villages in the Tables, several Location Codes are used. In the case of 1971 Census Code, all the hamlets written in the one inch - one mile Taluk maps are directly taken and put into computer. They are then given the serial numbers. As there are usually more than two hamlets in one revenue village, each hamlet is given the hamlet code alphabetically. A reader can easily locate the village by using the 1971 Census Map of the relevant area. All the available village lists prepared at the beginning of the 19th century were utilized to find out the location of the concerned villages appeared in the evidences. Some of the old location codes used in this book are not in the original lists but are given by myself. As the original lists are so bulky that they could not be produced in this publication. As a sample, the list of Magan and villages in Chingleput prepared by Hodgson in 1799 with the corresponding Location Code of 1971 Census is attached in Appendix.14.
The following Caste Codes are used in the Tables: AC ACHARY GO GOWR NA NAIG PL PALLI AI AIYANGAR MM MUSLIM ND NAIDU RE REDDYAY AIYAR MP MUPPAN NN NAINAR SH SHASTRICH CHETTI MR MOODRIAN NY NAYAKKAN VD VADIANGD GOUNDAN MU MUDALI PI PILLAI WY WADAYEN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT It was ten years ago when I noticed the critical importance of Nattar for the first time and started the present study. As the work was interrupted by the two village studies in Tiruchirapalli between the years 1979 and 1983, it has taken me unexpectedly long time till this book is finally presented for the readers' judgement. In the course of this study I was helped by a number of people in Tamil Nadu, London and Tokyo. Mr.& Mrs.Vincent, Deputy Directors of Tamilnadu Archives, have been the best consultants during my archival study for the last ten years. The staffs of the Archives have also been supporting me by their timeless search for numbers of documents requested. Mr. Bashkaran again arranged my stay in the Nattar village. Mr. Natarajan, Mr.& Mrs.Natarajan took all the care during my stay in their village. Mr.Muttu Venkatachalam Nattar was so kind as to offer me accommodation. The field study in and around his village was one of the most exciting experiences in my life. Mr. Parameshwaran, Mr.Chellaperumal who accompanied me all the way during my field trip, and Mr.Asaithambi who was my Tamil teacher, gave me many advices. Prof.F.Gros of Institut Francais d'Indologi allowed me use the facilities in the Institute. Dr.Lairdinnore of the same Institute was also my good adviser. The field research around Pondichery would have been impossible without the assistance from the Institute. Mr.F.Heidemann, my colleague in another field research at Nilgiri spared precious time to make my research possible. The staffs of Japanese Consulate and all the Japanese families residing in Madras helped my family in many ways during our stay there in 1984-85. Without their support, the days in Madras would have been harder for my family. I am especially grateful to Ms.Geetha Murthy who has been assisting us since our first visit to Madras in 1975.
During my second visit to London the staffs of the India Office Library & Records let me utilize their well-maintained historical treasure. Prof. Burton Stein encouraged my study and gave me suggestions. Mr.IMAI Kenji of ILCAA prepared the computer programs and solved many technical problems by sparing lots of time. Prof. KOMOGUCHI Yoshimi guided me in analysing geographical factors. Prof. KARASHIMA Noboru has been guiding me from the very beginning of my tackling with India in the last fifteen years. I am also grateful to Japanese Education Ministry and the Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, for providing fund to do research in India and other countries for two years, and also for providing me the opportunity to publish this book as one of the publication series from ILCAA. I owe to many more friends and institutions whose names cannot be produced here. Finally I thank my wife, Chieko, and loveliest son, Chikara, who accompanied me even to the Indian village where the life is not easy, though exciting.
I. STUDIES ON NATTAR FROM CHOLA TO VIJAYANAGAR PERIOD
CHAPTER I. STUDIES ON NATTAR FROM CHOLA TO VIJAYANAGAR PERIOD
The main objective of this chapter is to survey the recent historiography on Nattar from the Chola to the Vijayanagar period and to have preliminary information for starting our argument in the following chapters.
The study of the Chola and the Vijayanagara periods has its long history and has produced fairly rich result on both societies. One of the distinctive features of the recent historical studies is to focus on the problem of basic unit (spatial, social, administrative or political) in the society, and in its connection Nattar has been highlighted. Another feature is the attempt to understand the historical change in its integrated development. As such trend of historical studies is agreeable to me, the present study of Nattar will be also taken up having this trend in scope. The works to be examined in this chapter are those of Y.Subbarayalu, Burton Stein, N.Karashima, K.R.Hall and others.
I-1. EARLY AND MIDDLE CHOLA PERIOD (9TH-12TH CENTURIES A.D.)
It seems to be a general understanding of the historians of the period to discern the structural change between the early-middle Chola period on the one hand and the late Chola period on the other. That is, most historians find the structural change in the late 12th-13th century. The change occured in the unit of administration, corporateness of the local assembly, the nature of political leadership, relation between the non-Brahmins and Brahmins, and almost all the spheres of the society, which were also closely related with the change of the Nattar's role in the society. We will examine the social situation before and after the change respectively and find out what occurred there.
I-1A. NATTAR IN Y.SUBBARAYALU'S WORK
Nadu - the Primary Unit Y. Subbarayalu, in his work titled "Political Geography of the Chola Country"Madras, Tamilnadu State Department of Archaeology, 1973., stressed the importance of the territorial-cum-administrative unit called 'Nadu' and the assembly called by the same term in the Chola period. This study was a turning point in the study of Chola period in the sense it gave the Nadu the prime position in the Chola state while locating the village in the secondary position. He states: "The basis of the political set-up, be it a Chieftaincy or Kingdom, was the Nadu. The Nadu-s, which evolved out of the groupings of agricultural settlements, preceded any organized political set-up in this area."Ibid., p.96., or that "The village, in the period under study, was the fractional element of the Nadu. It was a fraction of the society that the Nadu represented; it had its relation with the Governmental activities only as a part of the Nadu."Ibid.,p.89. These statements of Subbarayalu can be highly contrasted with those of Nilakanta Sastri who asserted: "The self-governing village was the unit of government,"The Colas, University of Madras, First ed., Vol.I, 1935, Vol.II, 1937, Repr. 1975, p.465. or "The organization which made for the continuity of life and tradition, held
society together, and carried it safe through the storms and turmoils of political revelution was the autonomous, self-sufficient village. It was the primary cell of the body politic, and the vitality of its institutions is well-attested by hundreds of inscriptions from all parts of the country."A History of South India, Oxford Univ.Press, First pub. 1955, Third ed.1966, p.164. Though Sastri also recognized the importance of Nadu and Nattar,The Colas, pp.503-505. he described the Indian villages as autonomous, self-sufficient ones or 'republics' like many British administrators in the 19th century.Sastri's study on Nadu may be summarised as follows; Territorial assemblies representing the Nadu were in existence. They were distinct from the assemblies of the villages and towns. They discharged important duties, particularly in regard to land revenue administration. They classified the lands, assessed the land revenue, and remitted taxes. They also endowed charities in their own names, and took charge of charitable endowments. In some parts of Tamil country they appointed a pujari in the temple, levied fine to be asigned to the temple, played an important part in the conduct of the affairs of the temple, &c. They were also found often co-operating with other corporations and with individual officials in the administration of justice and in other matters. They had a corporate character but the constitution of them is not clear. Nadu assembly may have been constituted by the representatives from the assemblies of all the villages and towns in the territory. (K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, Vol.I, 1935; Vol.II, 1937, Reprint. 1975, University of Madras, pp.503-507) Another historian to be named in this regard is C. Minakshi. In her "Administration and Social Life under the Pallavas",(Univ. of Madras, 1938, Revised ed. 1977) she also noted the importance of Nattars in Pallava period (7th-9th centuries A.D.). She states: "The village was the smallest Government unit under the Pallavas and had its sabhas and committees. In addition, the Nadu which was a larger administrative unit and smaller than the kottam, had its assembly called nattar, urar and alvar. The nadu apparently corresponded to the janapada of the Sanskritists and formed a vital constituent of the State... The importance of the nattar as a political body is well-recognised in the later Pallava inscriptions... The significant part played by the assembly (nattar), the rural administrative system during 8th & 9th centuries A.D...the Nattar was a constituent assembly that served as a check to provincial autocracy." (ibid., p.142).
Her statement on Nattars, however, ends here and failed to bring it to its due position in the historical studies of the period.
Nadu and Nattar According to Subbarayalu, 'Nadu' was the groupings of agricultural settlements formed by natural factors conducive to agriculture, and each Nadu was basically a cohesive group of agricultural people tied together by marriage and blood relationships.Subbarayalu, op.cit., pp.32-33, 36, 96. The people who occupied the dominant position in each Nadu were Nattars. Subbarayalu states that among the group-members in the Nadu assembly, Nattars, being the representatives of the villages of agricultural landholders (Vellanvagai) and being the prime landholders in the respective Nadu, presented themselves as the chief spokesmen of the people in the region.Ibid., pp.33-34, 39-40.
There are references to about 140 Nadus containing 1,070 villages in the Chola-Mandalam and about 65 Nadus cotaining 223 villages in the Naduvil-nadu area by A.D.1300. The Chola-Mandalam roughly corresponds to the present Tanjavur, Tiruchirapalli and part of South Arcot districts, and Naduvil-nadu to South Arcot, part of North Arcot districts and Pondicherry State. Ibid., pp.1-4, 20-22, 83-87.Their inherent influential position was well recognized by all rulers at the time, which he argues is evinced by the inscriptional evidences showing that only the Nattars had the final authority to endorse the royal grants of land.Ibid., pp.41, 96-97.
Nattar's Functions Nattars acted collectively without having heads. Their functions were mostly comprized of those relating to temple management and revenue matters. For instance they functioned as the nominal custodians of charities made by others, donated to temples, remitted taxes on the land granted while taking the burden of paying the taxes remitted, assisted temple management in leasing out temple land or in selling the same, and in some case they decided offence against the property or person and punished by confiscation of some land in favour of the local temple. In the revenue matters, as the Nadu was the state revenue unit, they were responsible for the taxes while acting as the negotiators for the Nadu.Ibid., pp.39-41.
The endorsement of the royal grants of land stated above was also one of the most important functions held by them. Nattar's Position in the De-Centralized Political Structure Regarding the Nattars' position in the political structure of the Chola state, Subbarayalu states: "Any powerful person able to command these groupings of agricultural settlements (Nattars:T.M) could become the ruling lord of the land."and presents fairly 'decentralized' image of political structure by concluding as follows: "Most of the functions of Nadu are locality-based and were self-sufficient without state interference. That is there was not much scope for a centralized 'bureaucratic' system to function in the localities - Nadus... This implication is diametrically opposed to the present notion of a 'Byzantine monarchy' of Rajaraja I and his successors."Ibid., pp.96-97. Subbarayalu's presentation of the Chola state as 'decentralized' one based on the highly localized Nattars' power was significantly different from the conventional view of N.Sastri and other historians, who had described the Chola state as Byzantine-type centralized state having its power base in the central bureaucracy and military organization. His image of decentralized Chola state was elaborated by Burton Stein and was presented with the distinctive term of 'Segmentary State' as we will see next.
I-1B. NATTAR IN B.STEIN'S WORK Burton Stein's work titled "Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India"Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1980. could be counted as one of the most important works on pre-modern South India because of its highly integrated scope on historical development of the region. Together with other articles published elsewhere, we will look into his arguments concerning Nattar again spotlighted by him in these works.
Segmentary State Stein uses the term, segmentary state, to describe the feature of the political relation in the Chola state. While denying the view that the Chola state had a central bureaucratic organization, he proposes that the Chola state
was a pyramidally segmented type of state. In this state the smallest unit of political organization was linked to more comprehensive units of political organization in an ascending order for various purposes, but that each unit stood in opposition to other, similar units for other purpose. This segmentary state can exist as a state only insofar as the segmentary units recognize a single ritual authority - the king.Ibid., pp.254-257, 264, 268-269. The Chola state was thus integrated primarily by the symbolic or ritual sovereignty attached to the kingship, not by its effective power,The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol.I., 1982, Repr. in 1984, Orient Longman, p.34.
Nadu - the Basic Segment In this argument Stein regards the Nadu as the basic segment of the society.Ibid., p.270. Mainly depending on Subbarayalu's work, he describes that in this state the scope of the constituent units was limited to well-defined and persistent ethnic territories or Nadus. The chiefs of the Nadu were Nattars, who were the leaders or spokesmen of the dominant ethnic groups within it. There the Nattars were the 'ruling class' with the power and authority to manage resources, and were differentiated from other people in many ways.Stein, Peasant State..., op.cit., pp.7, 131. These Nattars were linked together by their common dominion over the land. Their corporate entity was reinforced by marriage alliances, close social relations, shared religious and ritual affiliations, and common allegiance to locality chiefs who, in this period, were of the Nattar.Ibid., p.131. Actually the Chola rulers were, he asserts, the most powerful of all the Nattars in the Kaveri basin.Stein, Cambridge..., op.cit., pp.34-35.
Thus, Burton Stein stressed the importance of Nadus and Nattars while disputing the conventional notion of centralized state structure in the Chola period.Stein classifies three types of Nadus, i.e. central, intermediate, and peripheral, with distinctive leadership in each type. In the wealthy and populous central Nadu maintained by the reliable irrigational system, local society was most hierarchical in its organization, Chola influences and political authority were most evident, Brahmans were most numerous and accorded high status, and chieftainships were ritually assimilated to the Chola kingship. In the intermediate Nadus various agricultural groups, usually mobile, often
migrants from elsewhere, joined older established peasant groups. Here the differences among the groups would not take the form of rank or status distinctions, but of sub cast and clan affiliation among all of whom a rough equality was maintained under the rule of a chieftain (or occasionally, a minor king) of those belonging to the oldest, established peasant groups of the locality. Horizontal, rather than vertical segmentation was characteristic of this type. Villages might be dominated by one or another of the several blocs of peasant peoples of the macro region; each Nadu segment would be dominated by one of these blocs. Nadus of the peripheral type were scattered in which neither vertical segmentation, or hierarchy, nor elaborate horizontal segmentation prevailed. Here the Nadus displayed the strongest 'tribal characteristics, sharing a single common ethnic identity. They were ruled by strong chiefs and lateral linkages among locality groups. (Stein, Peasant State..., op.cit., pp.134-138)
I-1C. NATTAR IN N.KARASHIMA'S WORK Such argument as presented by Subbarayalu and Stein on the political structure of the Chola state, however, has not yet been concluded. N.Karashima, in his recent publication titled "South Indian History and Society - Studies from Inscriptions A.D. 850-1800"Oxford Univ. Press, 1984. refuted Stein's view on the political structure of the Chola state. We will examine his argument on the political structure of the Chola state and also on the Nattars.
Different View on Nadu's Autonomy and Nattar's Leadership Karashima studies the social structure of medieval South India mainly from the aspect of landholding. By the detailed inscriptional study on village level, he states as follows: "...villages were not primary units where social reproduction of the people was maintained and to which villager's social activities were confined. Instead, social reproduction must have been made possible only in an area larger than a village."Ibid., p.54. See also note 4, p.186. Karashima, however, does not clearly state what the 'area larger than a village' was. He states, "I shall discuss the size and characteristics of this larger area elsewhere."(p.55), but I could not find out his definition on this point in the book. Judging from his statement in various part of his book, he seems to think Nadu as the basic locality. See for instance, p.40.
Though Karashima does not positively accept Nadu as primary unit, he also refers to the importance of Nadu assembly in local administration.Ibid., p.39. What he differs from Subbarayalu's or Stein's argument is his negative assessment of Nadu's autonomy or independence in relation to the state power, and his assigning the leading role in the locality not to Nattars but to Brahmins.State's Effort for Centralization On the first point Karashima observes the efforts made by the state in the 10th -11th centuries. That is, to build up a centralized administrative network to integrate the state politically by destroying the barriers between Nadus and by incorporating them into the imperial administration. This is, he argues, inferred by the fact that many titles were often conferred by the state upon the people working in the Nadu administration or influential in the Nadu, or by the fact that Valanadu comprising of several Nadus were created together with the carrying out of land surveys.Ibid., p.xxvi. Thus, Karashima again stresses the centralized structure of the Chola state as Nilakanta Sastri did several decades ago.Karashima argument in this part sounds somewhat contradictory. He mentions that the functions of Nattar - such as remitting certain taxes in favour of some temple or granting certain privileges to some community - were more conspicuous in Pandyan or Vijayanagar inscriptions than in Chola inscriptions (ibid. p.xxvi). From this statement we get an impression the efforts made by the Chola state as mentioned above resulted without causing any effect. Actually the effort to establish the Valanadu system, which is deemed as aiming at facilitating the collection of royal revenues and at the same time exerting Chola political hegemony over the Nadu systems, seems to have failed in vain (see for instance, K.R.Hall, Trade and Statecraft in the Age of the Colas, Abhinav Publications, Delhi, 1980, p.204). It is urged to assess whether the state only attempted centralization or really succeeded in it.
Brahmin's Leadership in the Locality Karashima's stress on Brahmins' leading role in the locality is also contrasted with the view of Stein and Subbarayalu who give the locality leadership to Nattars. By the fact there was the tendency for the central power to establish at least one or two Brahmadeya villages in each Nadu, Karashima
seems to suggest implicitly that the villages were integrated into larger unit by the influence of Brahmanical ideas. He asserts that the representatives from the Sabha - the village-level assembly of the Brahmins - were probably members of the Nadu assembly, and that they exercised a considerable influence as the elite of the locality on the local administration by playing a leading part in the deliberation of the Nadu. As the Brahmadeya villages were granted to Brahmins by the king, he observes the implied intention of the state to enforce the royal order through Brahmadeya villages located in the respective Nadu. He concludes this issue by stating as follows: "the brahmadeya villages must have been the local nuclei of the Chola power structure, their function being to integrate and control the surrounding non-brahmadeya villages."Karashima, op.cit., pp.37-40.
Other Issues for Argument The difference of views between Karashima and the other two historians does not end in these two issues. As already implied by the above statement, Karashima thinks that1. village was the original unit, which was later integrated into a larger primary area by the Brahmadeya villages (as mentioned before, Karashima does not define what this 'larger area' was), and 2. establishment of the Brahmadeya villages destroyed or at least weakened the autonomy of the Nadu institution against the state. On the other hand Subbarayalu and Stein or either of them think in different way. They argue that 1. village was the fractional element of the Nadu,Subbarayalu, The Political Geography..., op.cit., p.89.2. Nadu was the basic peasant unit of the age and was the institution long antecedent to the political order established by the Cholas,Stein, Peasant State..., op.cit., pp.98-109, Subbarayalu, op.cit., p.96.3. the royal grant of Brahmadeya villages were few relative to the overall pattern of support to Brahman institutions,Stein, Cambridge..., op.cit., p.38. and4. the grants of Brahmadeyas themselves enhanced the Nattars' power by
validating the Nattar control, as the Nattar played a vital role in the support of brahmadeyas.Stein, Peasant State..., pp.229-230, 412-413.
Stein states that it was peasant-agrarian resources collected by superior locality groups (Nattars) and voluntarily granted to Brahmans that sustained the latter(Ibid.,pp.229-230). In the article of the Cambridge Economic History of India, Stein states more explicitly that the brahmadeya was established by the Nattars and other local notables in imitation of the support to canonical, vedic religion of the Chola dynasty and other kingly houses (Cambridge..., op.cit., p.38). As will be discussed later, K.R.Hall asserts the antecedency of the Nadu unit from the view-point of marketing area. He states from the fact each Nadu contained only one market-place or Nagaram that the Nadu was no more administrative device imposed from above but was a part of the basic fabric of the agrarian society of that time. He continues that the image of the Nadu as a local marketing territory whose constituent villages were served by a commmon nagaram market implies that each Nadu must have evolved 'organically' in the context of a developing peasant economy, and that its economic function were prior to all of the other functions - administrative, religious, and perhaps even kinship - for which it subsequently came to constitute a natural territory as well.(K.R.Hall, Trade and Statecraft in the age of the Colas, op.cit., 1980, p.187)
Further Verification Required As has been briefly surveyed, many of the issues in the early and middle Chola period needs further verification and this task should be borne by the historians on the contemporary period. At the same time we can notice that the study on Nattar would have crucial meaning to pursue this task, as Karashima suggests: "For a better understanding of this problem, it is crucial to elucidate the actual way the nattar ruled a nadu, and also the relation between the nattar and the king."Karashima, op.cit., p.xxvii. Anyhow it would suffice at this stage to point out the significance of the Nattar's study notified by most historians of the period.
I-2. LATER CHOLA PERIOD (12TH-13TH CENTURIES A.D.)
In contrast to the diversity of opinions found in the historical studies of the first period of the Chola state, there is a general consensus among the
historians to observe a structural change in the later Chola period or in the 12th-13th centuries. This does not mean, however, they take the same stand in interpreting the change. Far from that, there is again much controversy in understanding the historical development of the period.
I-2A. NEW AGRARIAN ORDER DISCUSSED BY N.KARASHIMA
Two Types of Landholding in Brahmadeya and Non-Brahmadeya Karashima analyses the historical change in the later Chola period (13th century) based on the studies on landholding. From the inscriptional studies on village level in the early Chola period he finds two types of village structure, brahmadeya and non-brahmadeya. In the brahmadeya village landholding by individuals did often exist and there were two strata of villagers - landholders and cultivators, while in the non-brahmadeya village land was generally held not individually but in common and the landholders themselves were the cultivators. To see it in other way, the individual sale of land in the non-brahmadeya villages, which were majority in the period, was strongly restricted because of the communal feeling among the body of cultivating landholders.Karashima, op.cit., pp.13, 15.
Karashima's conclusion on the class structure of non-brahmadeya villages that there was only one social stratum, landholders-cum-cultivators, in non-brahmadeya villages is based on only a few inscriptions and does not seem to be deduced as an inevitable one from them. For instance he reads two opposite meanings from the same phrase 'uludukondu' (should cultivate). In the case of ur, he concludes that the land was cultivated by ur members. In the case of temple priests he concluedes the land was more likely cultivated by agricultural labourers because 'priests themselves do not usually cultivate' (Ibid., pp.10-11). The problem whether the non-brahmadeya had only one stratum or not has a crucial meaning in the discussion about the emergence of caste notion, especially about pariahs and other agricultural labouring castes. The issue requires further verification with more evidences. Another point to be stressed is that we should not confuse the type of holding (i.e. individual or joint) with the tenure structure (landlord-tenant). Even if lands are held individually, the holding should be termed communal in case the lands are held exclusively by some community. For instance the lands in the two villages in the Tiruchirapalli District surveyed by me were owned
predominantly by the Reddi community excluding other communities in the 1860's. This does not mean the lands were held jointly. Actually the lands were held by many Reddiyar pattadars individually. (See MIZUSHIMA Tsukasa, Changes, Chances and Choices - The Perspectives of Indian Villagers -, Socio-cultural Change in Villages in Tiruchirapalli District, Tamilnadu, India, Part 2, Modern Period -1, ILCAA, March 1983)
Emergence of Individual Landholding in Non-Brahmadeya In contrast to such prevalence of communal landholding in non-brahmadeya villages in the early Chola period, there occurred in the same type of village frequent land transfers by individuals in the lower Kaveri Valley - the heart of the Chola country - towards the end of Chola period. It is also a striking difference that some people were found to have acquired a large extent of land in many villages and became big landlords or local chiefs. Many of them held titles indicating their important positions in the local or central administration.Karashima, op.cit., pp.17, 20-21. Karashima assigns two economic reasons for the explanation of such change in landholding in the later Chola period. First is the accumulation of wealth brought by the imperialistic expansion of Chola power, which was distributed to the people of the heart of the Chola country. Second is the increase in agricultural productivity made possible by the introduction of new agricultural techniques like the improvement of irrigational facilities. He also mentions as an administrative reason the absorption of Brahmins into the bureaucracy.Ibid., pp.20-21.
I-2B. B.STEIN'S VIEW ON NEW AGRARIAN ORDERPeriyanadu - Supra-Local Cluster The differentiation of the people and the emergence of local leaders having their power base in a wider area than a village observed by Karashima is also noticed by Stein, but from different aspects in different scale. Stein argues that during the 12th century many Nadus began to form clusters to deal with supra-local matters, such as control of trade, support of large temples, and defensive alliances. Such supra-local clusters are identified with Periyanadu (great Nadu) comprised of several Nadus.Stein, Cambridge..., op.cit., pp.36-37, Peasant State..., op.cit., pp.217-222.
While Karashima assigns to the Brahmadeya villages the integrative function of 'villages' into a wider area, Stein assigns to the Periyanattars the integrative function of Nadus into a wider area. Here is a clear difference of scale between the two.
Differentiation of Peasantry Along with the progress of integration of local Nadu institutions at higher spatial levels, there emerged ruling strate who were increasingly divorced from the locality peasantry. This resulted in the triple differentiation of peasantry. First is the differentiation of the Nattars from the ordinary peasantry, and second is the separation of a part of the Nattars from the rest as Periyanattars, who attained hegemonic authority over several contiguous localities by the 14th.Stein, Peasant State..., op.cit., pp.217, 223, 253. The relation between Nattar and Periyanattar is not explicitly defined by Stein. There seems to be a possibility that in some cases the same people could be designated both as Nattar and Periyanattar irrespective of spacial factor when the Nattars were powerful enough. It is also vague, as he himself admits, what the 'supra-local' region actually means. (See ibid, p.218) Continuity of Segmentary Society Stein, however, does not assign to such supra-local assemblies the intermediate role in a centralized state structure, which Karashima did to the local chiefs having titles given by the state. Rather he lays stress on the continuity of the Nattars cooperating within supra-local assemblies and find in the formation of the supra-local assemblies a further developmet of segmentary society. Stein states that Nadus were not replaced by the periyanadus but were incorporated by the latterIbid., pp.218, 223. Development of Urbanization and Commerce Another important dimension Stein observes in this period was the collaboration of the periyanattar with trade and artisan groups, which was closely related with the urbanization generated by temple construction. Along with a number of religious reforms in the 13th century, Stein perceives 1)the shift of main sphere of religious activities from the brahmadeya(-villages) to the temple(-cities) and 2)the direct involvement of non-Brahmins with the Brahmanical (Vedic) temples. He states that
Brahamadeyas ceased to be established during and after the 13th century. Instead many temples started to be constructed and was laid under the protection of periyanattars. Mathas and Brahman settlements also came under them in the period.Ibid., pp.230-234, 239. This progress of temple construction prepared the emergence of large, new temple centres which tended increasingly to become the dominant political, ritual, and trade places in the enlarged localities. The emergence of temple-generated urbanization was accompanied by town-centred trade. This not only enhanced the importance of artisans and merchants involved in it but freed many of them from older social contraints imposed by the agrarian-centred concerns of the Nadu localities. They acquired new importance in the increasing commercial activities in the period, and found it advantageous to co-operate with the dominant agricultural folk, under whose auspices temples were constructed.Ibid., p.244, Cambridge..., pp.38-39.
Growth of Supra-Local Leaders and the Decline of Chola State Simultaneously the periyanattars found it advantageous to co-operate with these townsmen and the powerful, itinerant mercantile groups with whom urban merchants were affiliated. While still dominating the agrarian affairs, these supra-locality rulers (periyanattars) extended the basis of their power beyond the locality peasantry from which they had emerged and beyond an earlier alliance with rural Brahmans. They found, Stein observes, in the weakness of the Chola overlordship and in the wealth and prestige of towns the means of enhancing their authority. Stein concludes that such changes produced an altered relationship of the supra-local leaders with the Chola overlords, which together with some other factors decayed the local institutions and finally the Chola state itself. He adds that this stratum of powerful men was to become merged in the new and highly martial power system of the coming Vijayanagara period.Stein, Peasant State..., pp.251-253, 443-444.
Stein refers to the increasingly powerful periyanattars outside of the Kaveri basin who began to exercise forms of political power, and to the cases some periyanattars were involved in succession wars and acted as kingmakers. But it is not clear by what occasions the corporateness of periyanattars was broken and individual leaders came to the scene later in the Vijayanagar period.
Periyanadu and Nagaram K.R.Hall further deepened Stein's argument in the aspect of the relation between the Periyanadu and the Nagaram or the commercial center in his work titled "Trade and Statecraft in the Age of the Colas".Abhinav Pulications, Delhi, 1980, op.cit. Hall hypothsesizes that the Nadu in the Chola period constituted the basic peasant marketing region. Each Nadu contained only one Nagaram or market place, which served as its nuclear market. Long-distance commodities and the itinerant merchants who conveyed them made contact in Nagaram with local merchants and other residents of the locality. During the 11th and 12th centuries many prosperous Nagaram became increasingly associated with these itinerant trade associations. The resultant commercial centralization expanded the marketing horizon of the Nagaram merchants beyond the Nadu, which weakened one of the most important purposes for the Nadu's existence. The Nagaram's existence thus became more tied to a supra-nadu level of economic integration.Ibid., pp.187, 190, 203.
Periyanadu as the Response to keep Autonomy Hall considers the formation of supra-nadu assemblies or periyanadu as the peasant societies' response to protect their autonomy threatened by the centralizing activities of the Chola monarchs. The State's intervention into the Nadus were exemplified by the former's attempt to enforce Valanadu, a supra-nadu unit of political integration. This attempt was intended to facilitate the collection of royal revenues, and at the same time to exert Chola political hegemony over the Nadu systems. The attempt was, however, failed due to the response of the local landholding elite, Nattar, who transferred their political dominance to the new periyanadu assemblies. On the other hand Chola rulers also intervened the Nadu-Nagaram cooperation by separating Nagaram from the Nadu and to treat the Nagaram as an autonomous revenue collection unit. Nadu and Nagaram thus found the common cause during the 13th century to establish a new regional order at the supra-local level or periyanadu. Hall concludes that periyanadu and their 'higher' marketing centers became the primary units of integration within the South Indian hinterland, which survived as a geographical unit well into the eighteenth century.Ibid., pp.202-205.
Summary The interepretation of the change occurred in the 12th-13th centuries thus differs from each other in crucial points. Stein's presentation of the shift of the main locus from the Nadu to periyanadu is yet to be verified. It is, however, a distinguished feature of the period that there occurred diversification among the peasantry who had lived in fairly homogenious entities till then. The emergence of powerful merchant communities promoted by the temple-generated urbanization was another important feature. The resultant extention of the people's activities into a wider area and the emerging local leadership in the extended area was the new dimension which prepared the decline of the Chola state and the political turmoil which followed it.
I-3. VIJAYANAGAR PERIOD (14TH-16TH CENTURIES) Be it a 'local leader', 'big landlord' or 'Periyanattar', a striking feature of the later Chola period was the emergence of leaders having their power base in a wider area than a village or in a supra-local level. With the establishment of Vijayanagar rule, which was entirely different from that of the earlier periods in the sense the rulers were foreign invaders coming from outside Tamil country, the area had to incorporate heterogenous factors. In the new agrarian situation Nattars were also subjec to significant changes. We will examine the changing position of Nattars in the Vijayanagar period and will attempt to elucidate their situation in the period just before the British period, which will be studied from the next chapter.
Nayaka in Vijayayanagar State The period between the fall of the Cholas in the latter half of the 13th century and the establishment of the Vijayanagar rule in the Tamil country at the end of the 14th century was the one of political turmoil. To borrow what Karashima remarks, it was the period when people experienced the effects of war among, and the rule by, various dynasties such as the Pandyas, the Hoysalas, and the Kakatiyas, and also the invasion of Muslim armies from the north and the intrusion of Vijayanagar warriors into Tamilnadu.N.Karashima, Nayaka Rule in North and South Arcot Districts in South India during the Sixteenth Century, Acta Asiatica, 48, 1985. p.4. The political structure of the Vijayanagar state which pacified such political instability, therefore, had to have a military nature and the warriors called 'nayaka' played the key role in
it. It is a general belief to think that the Vijayanagara 'war-state' had as its core element hundreds of great and small local military chiefs called nayaka.Stein, Cambridge..., op.cit., p.104.
Feudal Relation ? Though the historians on the concerned period seem to have a consensus in giving the key position to the nayakas in the Vijayanagar society, there is much argument whether 'feudalistic' relation can be observed or not. This argument is deeply related with each historian's view how to define the political structure of the Vijayanagar state. Between the two opposite views to observe centralized or decentralized political structure in the period, Stein locates that of asserting feudal character and rejects it as follows: "...the differences between this 'war-state' and others in Europe and Japan to which the label 'feudal' has been applied are so fundamental that the concept does not provide a useful framework for discussing the social order at the time."Ibid., p.105, Peasant State..., op.cit., p.405.
It is not clearly stated what is the fundamental difference, Anyhow, Stein anyhow criticises that the whole argument of the 'feudalism' in the Vijayanagar period is sorely dependent on a very limited evidence recorded by the Portuguese chroniclers without any inscriptional or literally evidence to support it. For instance, he asserts, there is no other evidence referring to payments by nayakas to the emperor or his officials, either are those referring to the 'feudal obligations' of nayakas.Ibid., pp.397-398. The other points Stein criticises are the lack of concrete information about the nayaka 'system' and the vagueness of the concepts of 'feudalism'. According to him the warriors who used the title of nayaka or amaranayaka, or to whom that title was affixed, cannot be defined easily in terms of particular office, ethnic identity, privileges and duties. The title 'nayaka' seemed to be freely adopted and widely used by local magnates without apparent connection with Vijayanagara armies. The approximate numbers and the size of nayakas' jurisdictions are also not known. As to the latter, he states that "Most historians of the period, while they may use terms such as 'feudatory' and 'vassal', do not seriously consider the conception." His overall judgement regarding the nayaka system and feudalism is that "the nayaka system as a system is as alien to the facts of Vijayanagara political relations as the conception of feudalism which derives in considerable
part from notions of a nayaka system."Ibid., pp.369, 379, 397, 405, 433. Stein therefore defines 'nayaka' as a powerful warior who was at times associated with the military enterprises of kinds, but who at all times was a territorial magnate in his own right. Ibid., p.408.
Continuity and Discontinuity in 'Segementary State' What Stein presents instead is his view to observe the basic continuity of the political structure which he termed as 'segmentary' state, with a certain discontinuities in its contents. The Vijayanagara kingship, like Chola kingship, was 'ritual' in respect to rule over peoples and territories of the macro region beyond the 'the home' territories. Locality units of the political system continued to be self-governing linked to imperial centres neither by resource flows or command.Ibid., p.367. It is not clear how the centralized bureaucracy maintained Brahmin administrators can be related to his argument of segmentary state. In the case of the Chola state, Stein presents the view of segmentary state which was maintained not by any central bureaucracy but ritual homage to the kings. In the case of the Vijayanagar state, however, he asserts that the fortifications usually under Brahman commanders was one of the two core elements of the Vijayanagara power and imperial control over the macro-region. He states: "....Brahmans became increasingly the instruments for enhancing imperial control through the direct political function of Brahmans as durgadhipatis,fortress commanders and governors. Many Brahmans from Maharashtra were introduced into the macro-region for this and other administrative purposes."(Cambridge..., pp.98, 104, 107) or, "It appears to have been a deliberate policy of the Rayas...that Brahmans had been given major political roles. Brahmans were the commandants of major fortresses and were considered territorial 'governors' by contemporaries..." (Peasant State..., p.371)
Though he states the only governing task for Brahmans to be responsible for was to check the fissiparous designs of the nayakas - this must be one of the 'major political roles' - , further studies is required to clarify the actual functions of the Brahmans working for the state.
On the contrary what he thinks discontinuities in the 'segmentary' state are the conception, size and complexity of 'locality'. The relation between the Nattars and the Nayakas are spotlighted by him from this point. As
mentioned above, there had emerged local leaders having their power base in a wider area in the later Chola period. Some of their descendents were merged with the chiefs created by the successive invasions of Vijayanagara warriors into Tamil country and were termed as 'nayaka' in this period.Stein states that most of the chiefs emerged in the later Chola period were permitted by the Vijayanagara rulers to continue their local control on the condition they neither constituted a locus of sovereigty to attract the allegiance of lesser chiefs nor granted such recognition to others beside they Vijayanagara rulers. (Cambridge..., p.102) Stein, however, stresses the distinctive character of the nayakas compared with the local leaders of the previous periods as follows: "...in the degree of power of these chieftainships, in the magnitude of local resources commanded and redistributed, in their independence from local social and cultural constraints, their ability to intrude into local society, and in their persistent independence from and occasional opposition to superordinate authority, this political category is unprecedented. These nayaka warriors constitute a level of power and authority not before seen in South India."Peasant State..., p.370. Stein's idea on this point is more concretly expressed in his analysis of locality leadership and land system. He states that with the incursions of Vijayanagar with its Telugu- and Kannada- speaking followers into Tamil Country from the 15th century onward, the locality leadership was passed over from the Nattar to Nayak, who was a military chief independent of the dominant landed groups of locality, a stranger supported by different followers..Cambridge..., p.110, Peasant State..., p.440.This change of locality leadership caused significant change in the land system and the earlier patron-client relation. In contrast to the ethnically defined corporate groups (Nattars), those who enjoyed specific land rights during the Vijayanagar time were not only a diverse body including members of the earlier Nadu population but also a variety of outsiders. Those who managed agrarian activities were well-differentiated, individual 'big-men', not the anonymous Nattar of Chola times. Regarding the patron-client relationship in maintaining the village functionaries he observes an end to the corporate authority and control of the Nattar body by the shift from the earier broad locality patron-client system of the Nattars to the allotment of special village
tenures.Cambridge..., pp.109-111.
Nadu or Periyanadu to Village Another relevant change Stein refers to is the shift in organizational locus from the Nadu or Periyanadu localities to constituent villages. He argues that the earlier forms of ethnic organization (i.e.Nadu) had decisively weakened prior to the Vijayanagara period, which made most of the descendants of the ancient Nattar content or compelled by Vijayanagara times to reduce the scope of their control to quite atomized villages, though some few had risen to positions of chieftanship within older Nattar communities.Stein points out that the orientation of nayakas' power was bifurcated. He states the authority and power of the nayakas was in the intermediary level between the macro regional kingship and the micro regional peasant society, and was oriented both upward and downward. Ibid., p.417-418, Cambridge..., p.111. These structural elements emerged in the Vijayanagar period freed land from the exclusive control of nattar and also freed villages from supralocal, territorial (nadu and Periyanadu) control. Stein remarks: "the nayaka authority in Tamil country certainly hastened or perhaps even completed the demise of local institution."Peasant State..., pp.408, 418.
Karashima's Argument on Feudalism Karashima, on the contrary, attempts to revive the argument on the 'feudalism' by his recent article.Nayaka Rule in North and South Arcot Districts in South India during the Sixteenth Century, op.cit. Based on the inscriptional evidences on the several nayakas, he produces some crucial evidences the lack of which Stein criticised in arguing the infertility of the 'feudalistic' interpretation. What are relevent to the present study in Karashima's argument in the article are the following three points. First is the close relationship of the nayakas to the king. He argues that some nayakas were stated to be working as king's agents, and in many cases nayakas were given territorial division (sirmai) by the king for their keeping a certain military contingent. There are also many inscriptions in which nayakas seek the permission of the king for some matters such as tax remission and land grants. Second is the existence of subinfeudation among the nayakas. He tries to prove it by the evidences of granting exemption of taxes or bestowing territory (sirmai), and by the
frequent use of the phrase 'for the merit of', between the king and the nayakas and between the nayakas. He also takes the last as a kind of expressing fidelity to the superior. The third is the rise of a new type of landholders. He states that the noticeable feature of landholding at this time is the multiplicity of the landholding class in terms of the different communities they belong to. At the same time the appearance of the individuals, even at the village level, in the previously homogeneous organizations is a new phenomena not known in the Chola period.Ibid., pp.15-18, 22-23. Karashima admits the possibility that the nayakas got the king's permission only as a gesture. Ibid., p.16.
Nayaka - the Feudal Lord After presenting the above analysis by which he locates nayakas in the feudal structure, Karashima asserts that the very distinctive feature of the period is for the nayakas to have their own territory (sirmai) as nayakattanam. The Vijayanagar warriors in the 14th and 15th centuries were big officals without having such territory for management.In this sense, he concludes, the nayakas of the 16th century displayed more clearly the character of a feudal lord and he interprets the 16th century in South India as the period when feudal relations developed to a certain degree.Ibid., pp.24, 26.
Issues for Further Study Such argument of Karashima as described above differs from the former studies in the sense his argument is based on the inscriptional evidences. There are, however, several points to be discussed in his analysis. The first relates to the sampling of the nayakas. It is known that there existed nayaks of various sizes. At the bottom was the village-level nayaka.Stein, Peasant State..., p.407. As he selected the nayakas who appear frequently in the inscriptions of the time, those selected seem to be quite big nayakas.Karashima, Nayaka Rule..., p.5. If so, it would be quite natural for him to find a close relation between such big nayakas and the king. It would be important to clarify whether same type of relation could be found in the smaller nayakas. For this purpose it would be crucial to find evidences showing the actual size of territory (sirmai). As he himself admits, sirmai means 'land' and can be applicable to any size of land. The term does not informs us any concrete image.Ibid., p.15, footnote 21. The second is the social structure in each sirmai. He states that it is a
dintinguished phenomena that the nayakas had sirmais as their nayakattanam. But it is not clear what this phrase actually means. Was the sirmai only a kind of jurisdiction given to the nayakas who must have performed the military duty and been rewarded some share for the duty or was it an exclusive territorial landownership? If the latter was the case, it would be crucial to clarify the relation in landed rights between the nayakas and the local magnates in the respective sirmais, and to verify the interests of the latter being excluded from the locality. On the other hand if the former was the case, nayaka should be defined as a military officer, not necessarily feudal lords. His right (sometimes described as kani) in the territory is one among many rights to fees enjoyed separately by many others, possibly including Nattar, Periyanattar, village functionaries and others. Or can we discern various types of nayaka control in the different regions ? Whatever the naming of the social structure in the Vijayanagar period would be, it is most important to find out how the resources in each locality were controlled, and how it was linked with the political sturucture of the time.Stein, Peasant State..., p.374. For this purpose the clarification of the role and position of Nattars in the local society would contribute.
Though Nattar is not located centrally in Karashima's argument, the four inscriptions on Nattars' activities cited in his article make it possible to elucidate about their position in the local society.Karashima's definition of Nattar in the period is not clear. He states as follows:
"Nattavar or nattar of this period need not always be taken as the leading landholders of a certain territory but there seems to be little doubt that they had certain rights to the land through the offices they held in the administration of the locality and derived some earmarked portion of income from the land, even if they were not not landholders in the proper sense of the term." (Nayaka Rule..., op.cit., p.22) The contents of the inscriptions can be briefly summarised as follows: The first inscription records the donation of the protection fee of a market to some temple by an agent of nayaka and by the Nattar. The second one records an agreement of the Nattar and mahajanas (usually leading Brahmins, see Chapter.II-3) given to the king, the nayaka (kings agent), the nayaka's secretary, and their future successors. The previous Nattars and mahajanas had imposed some taxes on the Kanmalas. As the kanmalas in other places were exempted from those taxes, the nattars and
mahajanas of this area decided to grant the same privilege to the Kanmalas of the place. The third inscription records the grant of two villages by the nayaka and the Nattars of two localities to the nayaka's secretary. The last records the donation of a village to a temple by a nayaka, Nattars of the 17 parrus (localities), and a local officer.Ibid., pp.11-13. From these four inscriptions, it can be observed that Nattars in the 16th century were still quite influential in granting villages, fees, and exempting taxes. The second inscription shows that they were the final authority to grant the exemption of some taxes. It is also inferred from the third and fourth inscriptions that the Nattars of the several localities jointly acted in these matters. Though the final verification should be borne by the historians of this period, the above evidences apparently show the continuity of Nattars' eminant power both in the local and supra-local affairs. We have been surveying some of the important studies relevant to the present study, Nattar, from the Chola to the Vijayanagar period. Most of the points crucial to understand the historical development in the period are still under serious controversy. We will expect the steady and productive historical studies based on the evidences by the historians on the concerned period. Regarding the problems of Nattar proper, there are also many points to be verified in the two periods. The very problem of the Nattars' power and social position in the later Vijayanagar period is almost neglected and requires urgent investigation, which will contribute to the understanding of the historical development in the pre-modern period in South India. The study on the Nattars in the 18th-19th centuries to be carried out in the following chapters may as well contribute to this purpose. We will come back to it later in Chapter.III-4.
II-2. SOUTH ARCOT When most of the region now under South Arcot District was acquired by the Company in 1801, Nattars were widely found all over the region and the treatment of them became one of the central issues in the revenue administration as was the case with the Jagir. There are two other places which came much earlier than other area under the Company's management. They are the Bounds of Fort St.David (in and around Cuddalore) and Tiruvendipuram (east of Cuddalore) acquired by the Company in 1690 and 1750 respectively. These two are among the earliest areas managed by the Company in South India. Luckily the British made the survey of these two
places in the 1770s and recorded the situation of the revenue administration, land use and other details of all the villages in both areas. Especially the record of Tiruvendipuram has much information about Nattar and needs elaborate analysis. As the objective of the present chapter is to trace how the Nattars were treated in the early revenue administration in the British period, the analysis of their rights and roles will be done later in Chapter III. Here we will confine our investigation to the administrative history on the Nattars in the period. As Tiruvendipuram and the other region of South Arcot belonged to the separate administrative units and were treated differently for most of the period covered by this study, Tiruvendipuram will be studied at first and the other region of South Arcot next.
Tiruvendipuram before 1750 Tiruvendipuram adjoined the Company's territory, but it is not known clearly how Tiruvendipuram had been managed before 1750. Judging from the following accounts, Havildar, who was a Nawab officer, was appointed there and several renters managed the area. This can be partly known from the following account recorded in 1733 in the Consultation of FSD. It runs as follows: "the Nabob...complains...that Vishvenada Reddy &ca. of the Company renters have brought away from out of the country Moodue Reddy one of their renters, in a forceable way and therefore desires he (the Deputy Governor of FSD:T.M) will send them (Vishvenada Reddy &ca.:T.M) to one Periah, Renter of the Trivendaparum Country to account for it."FSD Consultations, 31.12.1733.
Judging from this account Vishvenada Reddy, &ca. seemed to be the renters of the Company territory, while Moodue Reddy and Periah acted as renters of the adjoining Nawab territory. Two years later - in 1735 - it is recorded that Cotum Ramia was the the Havildar of Tiruvendipuram.FSD Consultations, 16.8.1735. He stopped the water course running into the Company's territory, so that the Company's renters pleaded to the Deputy Governor of FSD to take steps. It is not clear whether such renters as Moodue Reddy and Periah were placed under Cotum Ramia, or the renter of the Nawab territory was called Havildar.It is recorded on 30 October 1742 that there was a letter from Ragoapuntooloo, the Havildar of Tiruvendipuram, addressed to the Deputy Governor and to Shadashavarow, the renter of the Bound villages, appealing the default of revenue payment of Veshnad Reddee (FSD
Consultations, 30.10.1742). According to the letter Vishenad Reddee, who is stated to be the renter of the Company's territory in the acccount cited above, took the rent of the Tevnapatam country for two years.
Acquisition of Tiruvendipuram in 1750 and Nattar First time the Tiruvendipuram country was proposed to be granted to the English East India Company was on 16 November 1749 when they received a letter from Muhammed Ali Khan (the Nawab for the English. To be abbreviated as M.A.Khan hereafter), proposing the matter.FSD Consultations, 16.11.1749. It was written in the letter that M.A.Khan had sent a sannad (written document to grant land or post) for St. Thome and would send another sannad for the Tiruvendipuram country when he received the desired assistance from the Company. Fearing Chanda Sahib (the Nawab for the French) would subdue everything for the French before the arrival of Nasir Jang (the Nizam for the English) unless the English Company assist M.A.Khan, the Company decided to send him as many men as possible. In February 1750 the Company obtained the long-expected Phirmaun for the Tiruvendipuram Country from M.A.Khan. It was speculated in the Phirmaun that the country was to be delivered to the English 'on condition they (English Company:T.M) come and join us (M.A.Khan's side:T.M) with a force and other necessaries whenever they may be called for upon Circar's business'. The Company immediately sent a detachment to hoist the colours lest the French dispute the occupation by getting the same type of Phirmaun from Chanda Sahib, the Nawab for the French.FSD Consultations, 26.2.1750. The Phirmaun has the date of 31.12.1749. Two weeks later the French Governor at Pondichery, Dupleix, wrote to the English Company protesting the removal of the French flags from the villages. Dupleix also asserted that the villages had been mortgaged to the Comnpany for 1,200 Rupees and that the French Dubash, RangapouleThis person is Ananda Ranga Pillai. (See The Private Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, Vol.I-XII, Madras, 1904-1928, 10 March 1750), had obtained several villages in the area as a present. The Company neglected the French's protest about the mortgage and the Dubash's villages, but replied as to the removal of flags that there had been no such flags by sending the declarations of the 'principal inhabitants' of Tiruvendipuram. The names of the inhabitants written in the two declarations are indicated in Table.II-2-1. It is important that some of them (a, c, e, f in the Table) are also
referred as Nattars as we will see later.Report and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, 30.6.1775, Printed in 1888, p.10. Extract from the Minutes of the Cuddalore Consultations, 30.8.1775, No.14. Though there was another letter of protest from Dupleix, the English Company started to receive the revenue collected from that month through the Havildar of Tiruvendipuram. FSD Consultations, 10.3.1750, 31.5.1750, 24.9.1750.
TABLE.II-2-1NAMES OF THE INHABITANTS IN THE TWO DECLARATIONS=================================================================A. Principal and other Inhabitants B. Principal Inhabitants ----------------------------------------------------------------- a. Sambasheva Redy a. Sambasevah Redy b. Termalaya Pilla b. Termalayah Pillah c. Wishnadah Redy c. Wishnadah Redy d. Vencatapety Redy d. Vencatapetty Redy e. Janardana Redy e. Janardanah Redy f. Sevenaga Redy f. Sevanagah Redy g. Pauley Redy g. Paley Redy h. Perma Ninar i. Shamey Naick j. Amagary k. Wedy Redy =================================================================Source: FSD Consultations, 3.3.1750.
Offer to lease the Country by Six Persons in 1750 In October 1750 there was an offer from six persons to farm the Tiruvendipuram country for five years and eight months at 8,000 Pagodas per annum. As the offer was considerably higher than the revenue collected till then since their occupation (831 Pagodas for the period of eight months), the offer was accepted and a cowle to the seven renters (another person joined)
was made out. The content of the cowle is shown in Appendix.1. The names of the seven renters, who were later called as Nattars, were as follows:Ibid., 5.10.1750, 5.11.1750.
a. Sambasheva Reddeec. Vishvenada Reddeed. Vencataputty Reddy - He is newly added in the cowle.e. Janardeen Reddeef. Shevenaga Reddeex. Malleirum Permall Pillay. Jaganada Reddee
Conditions in the Cowle of 1750 It is to be noticed from the Cowle that the following conditions were regulated for renting:1. The renters were banned from receiving duties and fees from the Pagoda, Bramins, and Reddys or Chief inhabitants.2. The renters were not allowed to assign or receive Juncan (customs) more than before.3. They should allow the migrants to move in and to build upon.4. They should not exercise judicial authority but to apply to the President and Council for justice.5. Their interests would be protected by the Company.6. They can freely lease out or cultivate the lands.It is to be notified that the Nattars were here acknowledged as landlords. This point will be discussed later in Chapter.III-4.
If we see these conditions from another angle, it may be said that the renters were expected to promote cultivation (3, 6), allowed to enjoy the usual Juncan (2), but were banned from excercising any judicial authority (4) or levying anything new (1, 2).
Renters were Nattars It is also to be noted that the renters recorded in this cowle were Nattars. In the Report of Tiruvendipuram covering the years of 1763-1772 (to be abbreviated as Tiruvendipuram Report), it is written that there were originally
six Nattars in the area and the names of the male descendents of these six were as follows:Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, Printed at the Collectorate Press, 1888, pp.9-10.
a. Chundashaira Reddyc. Vishvanadda Reddye. Jeanty Reddyx. Mylarumperoomal Pillaym. Kistna Reddyn. Datatry Reddy
If we compare the lists of the people appeared in the various sources so far, the result becomes as indicated below.
Principal Inhabitants Renters in the Nattars in the in the Declaration of Cowle of 1750 Tiruvendipuram Report 1750 of 1775 -----------------------------------------------------------------a.Sambasevah Redy a.Sambasheva Reddy a.Chundashaira Reddyc.Vishnadah Redy c.Vishevanada Reddy c.Vishvanadda Reddyd.Vencatapetty Redy d.Vencataputty Reddye.Janardanah Redy e.Jannardan Reddy e.Jeanty Reddyf.Sevanagah Redy f.Shevenaga Reddy b.Termalayah Pillah x.Maleirumpermal Pilla x.Mylarumperoomal Pillayg.Paley Redy y.Jaganada Reddy m.Kistna Reddy n.Datatry Reddy-----------------------------------------------------------------
It may be known that at least four of them are overlapped with each other. The others are also supposed to be related with each other - most probably father and son. It is therefore apparent that all of them were Nattars. The conflict between the English and the French gave much difficulty for the English Company to collect revenue from Tiruvendipuram. On 26 December 1752 the Tiruvendipuram country was assaulted by the French soldiers and sepoys.FSG Diary and Consultations, 26.12.1752. It is again
recorded on 9 April 1753 that the renters of the Tiruvendipuram country had not paid the half year's rent on the pretext of the losses and damages sustained by the Marathas.FSG Diary and Consultations, 9.4.1753. The renters did not pay any rent from December 1752 till February 1754FSG Diary and Consultations, 4.2.1754. See also Petition from the Renters of Trivendipuram country, in Letters to Fort St.George 1752-53, No.65., when an enquiry was made and it was decided to make them take oath as to their losses.FSG Diary and Consultations, 25.3.1754, 29.4.1754, 20.5.1754, 28.5.1754, 25.6.1754, 15.7.1754, 25.8.1754. Finally the renters were admitted the allowance to the amount of Pagodas 8,882.25.60.
New Renter Took the Farm in 1756 A month before the expiry date of the lease, it was ordered that a notice was to be given for letting the Tiruvendipuram country at outcry for one year.FSG Diary and Consultations, 25.5.1756. On the day of the outcry, the following clause was decided to be added to the cowle: "That the renter deliver into the Company's warehouses at FSD before the expiration of the month of March fifty Garse of the best Paddy of the January crop at the rate of thirty Pagodas per Garse."(FSG Diary and Consultations, 22.6.1756) At the outcry the cowle for one year commencing the 12th day of July 1756 was cried down to Linga Chitty, who bade the highest amount of 6,100 Pagodas.FSG Diary and Consultations, 22.6.1756. According to the accounts on 30 May 1759 and on 18 September 1759, however, this bidding is stated to have been undertaken by Linga Chitty collusively against the secret agreement between Linga Chitty and the inhabitants. The accounts run as follows: "The Hon'ble Court of Directors...directed an enquiry to be made concerning the Trevendeporam Farm which...was collusively purchased in 1756 by Linga Chitty for Pagodas 6,100 when at the same time he was commissioned by the Inhabitants of that country to bid for them as far as Pagodas 9,000... That the Gomastah of Sadashaverow Reddy, inhabitant of Trevendeporam and chief of the Reddy, supplied to Linga Chitty some time before the sale of the Farm to be security for him in case he should be the purchaser...That Linga Chitty consented to be his security on the usual terms
provided a cerain sum of money were deposited in his hands, upon which the Gomastah wrote to his master for orders. But before he received them, the Farm was put up at outcry and purchased by Linga Chitty on his own account having no commission from any of the Inhabitants of Trevendeporum to purchase it for them."FSG Diary and Consultations, 30.5.1759. "Upon the examination...touching the Trevendeporum Farm said to have been collusively purchased by Linga Chitty in 1756 in prejudice to Sadashaverow Reddy... Sadashaverow (Reddy)...has sent up one of his Gomastahs... He...says that his master did give Linga Chitty a commission to bid for him at the outcry as far as Pagodas 8,500 for that Farm that after the Farm had been cryed down to him at Pagodas 6,000 (6,100 ?:T.M), his Vakeel (agent:T.M) applied to him for the said Farm but could get no other answer..."FSG Diary and Consultations, 18.9.1759. Unfortunately there is no other account what was the actual situation on this matter. So far as these two accounts indicate, there was secret agreement between Linga Chitty and Sadashaverow Reddy and other inhabitants of Tiruvendipuram in bidding at the outcry to the amount of Pagodas 8,500. Linga Chitty, however, bade on his own account before the agreement was finally concluded and neglected the agreement after he succeeded in bidding at Pagodas 6,100. The trouble was made known because the inhabitants of Tiruvendipuram could not take the farm.As to Sadashavarow Reddy whose name appeared for the first time in the above statement, his name appears as the mediator of the right and left hand castes' dispute at FSD in 1740 (Letters to Fort St.George, 1740, No.87). He is also called as one of the renters of the Tiruvendipuram country in 1753 (Letters to FSG, 1752-53, 4.4.1753, No.65). It is to be noted that from this time till 1785 the outsiders (probably the inhabitants of Cuddalore town) became the renters of Tiruvendipuram, and some change in the nature of the relation between the renter and the Nattars can be observed. Previously, the renters were the representatives of the locality who were called 'Principal Inhabitant' or 'Nattars'. On the other hand the renters appointed afterwards were outsiders obtaining the rentership through public auction. On 29.4.1760 Ramalinga Pillah proposed to farm the bounds of FSD, Cuddalore, and the District of Trivendipuram for the amount of 21,500 Rupees for the remaining part of the year to expire on 11 July 1760. Ramalinga Pillah is called Amuldar in the account of 20 May 1760 (FSG Diary and
Consultations). When the term of the rent was expired in July of the same year, Tiruvendipuram was let out by public outcry and Sadasheverow (he is not the same person called Sadasheverow Reddy. see Letters to FSG, 1740, No.87) took the farm for Pagodas 8,000 (FSG Diary and Consultations, 15.7.1760, 29.7.1760). Though it is not yet verified, he seemed to take the lease till 1766 (Letters to FSG, 1765, Nos.166, 195, 205). According to the account on 27.10.1766 (FSG Public Consultations), Vishwanauda Reddy is called 'the late renter of the Bound villages and Trevenduporam country'. It is not clear whether Vishwanauda Reddy was the renter of the area in 1766 or not. As he was one of the renters of Tiruvendipuram, whose name appeared both in the declaration of 'Principal Inhabitants' and in the cowle of 1750 cited above, he could be called as 'the late renter'. Most probably Sadasheverow continued to be the renter till 1766 when Muttu Krishna Pillai obtained the farm (FSG Public Consultations, 27.10.1766). In 1766 the two farms were rented to Muttu Krishna Pillai for five years. Two Cowles with the date of 1.8.1766 given to him are contained in the Cowle books of the Revenue Department. One is for the Bounds of FSD and the other is for Tiruvendipuram (FSG Public Consultations, 3.12.1771, Revenue Dept., Sundries, Cowle Books, 1766-73, Vol.18). The lease was to continue from 1766 to 1771 and the rents of the two farms were Pagodas 5,500 for FSD and Pagodas 9,400 for Tiruvendipuram. The change in the nature of rentership is known by comparing the contents of the cowle given to Muttu Krishna Pillai(a renter of the farm in the years 1766-71) in 1766 from that given to the renters in 1750. The contents of the cowles given to Muttu Krishna Pillai in 1766 are quite simple (See Appendix.2), specifying only the following three conditions:1. tanks , sluices, and gutters should be compleatly and effectually
repaired in three years from the commencemnent of this cowle, and the farm would be immediately taken up from him in case of his neglect of this,
2. any losses caused by the Marathas or other enemies would be allowed,3. he was to keep at his charge a proper sibbendy to keep peace and good order, and prevent the depredations of the poligars.Revenue Department, Sundries, Cowle Books, 1766-73, 1.8.1766, Vol.18, 1766.
It is observed that the provisions specified in the Cowles have very superfluous contents compared with the former one given to the renters in 1750. This change of the nature of the renters may partly explain the change of
policy towards the Nattars in the region to be discussed below.
Nattars' Privileges Abolished in 1768 In January 1768 the President and Council ordered the abolishment of the rights and privileges of the Nattars. The privileges which had been enjoyed by them seemed to be as follows:Tiruvendipuram Report, p.10. The details of the Nattars' privileges will be examined in Chapter.III.1.
landlord rent from the lands cultivated by either ulkudi or parakudiAccording the the Tiruvendipuram Report, the definition of ulkudi and parakudi was as follows: "Oulcudies are those who have themselves as well as their ancestors constantly resided within the Farm; the Peracudies are those who are occasionally brought into the Farm to cultivate such lands as are unoccupied by the Oulcudies." (Ibid., p.8) - 10 per cent of produce* from the paddy lands watered from the rivers, yaries and tanks and cultivated by either the ulkudies or parakudis, 10 per cent of the amount of the rents from the lands rented by either the ulkudies or parakudies on a fixed rent,2. higher allowance (Warum) in the crops from the lands cultivated by themselves - 50 per cent of produce* from the paddy lands watered from the rivers, yaries, and tanks (usually 40 per cent for ulkudi and 45 per cent for parakudi), two-thirds of produce from the paddy lands watered by the use of Pecotas from wells (the share for ulkudi and parakud was same or two-thirds), 3. special deduction of rents on the fixed-rent lands rented by themselves - 25 per cent deduction,4. right of mortgaging lands to the amount of their privileges,5. fees on all the goods upon which Juncans are levied, and6. inam (Maniam) lands. (* The per centages are after the deduction of the joint charges.)
The immediate reason of the direction of abolishing the privileges was the frequent transfers of land rights in the area, which had troubled the newly appointed renter to a great extent. "It seems to have been usual in the Trevendupooram country for the chief inhabitants of the villages to mortgage the rights of cultivation to the Company's merchants and others, which when a new renter is appointed is very prejudicial to the Farm, and a source of continual disputes between the renters and the merchants... It is said that many of the Company's grounds in
the Bounds of St.David and the Trevenduporam country have been made over or given away to the people under the hand of the late renter."FSG Public Consultations, 27.10.1766.
Under this circumstances it was directed that such mortgages or sales should not be done without the knowledge of the renter and the Company's approbation. It was also directed that any grants of ground without certificates should agree with the renter for the rents thereof. The Chief at Cuddalore was accordingly directed to make enquiry about such lands possesed by private people in order to confirm or cancel them. In case the person cannot produce any certificate, his rights in the lands were to be abolished.FSG Public Consultations, 27.10.1766, 10.11.1766. The order of abolishment of the Nattars' privileges in January 1768 seemed to be the result of this last measure. The Nattars, as we will see later, could not produce written certificates proving their long enjoyed privileges at the time, so that their rights were resumed. The British could not understand the situation of the society where there was no need for the Nattars to produce or keep any written documents. They had enjoyed their rights customarily for long generations and their vested power in the locality had been well known in the society without question. And it is also to be noticed that the Nattars actually continued to enjoy their privileges even after this official abolishment in 1768, which is quite understandable. In the Report of Tiruvendipuram submitted in 1775, it is stated that 'neither of...privileges as we are informed Moodukistna the late renter deprived them of, nor the present renter to this time has deprived them of, notwithstanding the order of 1768.'Tiruvendipuram Report, p.11. The role of the renter is stated as follows: "The government officer posted in the Farm was Amuldar, who collected the Government's share of the revenue in the whole farm. Polygar, watchers, and all the village servants were placed under him. The Amuldar's duty includes that of settling the best method for improving and cultivating the lands, which he usually performed by the advice of the Nattars. In the case Yaries, Tanks and water courses needs minor repair, the Amuldar obliged the Nattars and other husbandmen of those villages benefitted by the water to send a number of coolies on the government account. When there is a renter, he is invested the same power as an Amuldar (Ibid., pp.3-4). In the years 1771-1776 the farms of FSD and Tiruvendipuram were rented to Sadasheve Row. The rents of the two farms were 6,600 Pagodas for FSD and
12,600 Pagodas for Tiruvendipuram. The contents of the cowles given to Sadasheve Row are same as those given to Muttu Krishna Pillai in 1766.Revenue Dept., Sundries, Cowle books, 1766-73, Vol.23, 1.8.1771.Report of Tiruvendipuram Farm in 1775 In June 1775 the famous Report of the Tiruvendipuram farm covering the years 1763-1772 was submitted. As was mentioned above, it is stated in the Report that the original number of the Nattars was six and those who were deprived of their privileges in 1768 were their descendents. The descendents of each of the original Nattars claimed the particular villages. The name of the eldest male descendant and their claimed villages were as follows:Tiruvendipuram Report, p.10.
1. Kistna Reddy 3. Vishvanadda Reddy Manamadavy Tondamanattum Annavelly Allapaukum Patchancopang Ramapooram Chinnaganganamcopang Treminiculy Murdaud Vadagumbum Wargalput Pudupetta Keelacopang Tirtoriare
2. Mylarumperoomal Pillay 4. Datatry ReddyAllaganuthum Mundagaput Cudecaud Nellatoor Wottary 5. Jeanty ReddyTrevendeepuram Toataput Arisheperiancopang Sundaravandy Carupedytundo 6. Chundashaira ReddyArriavetrty Veerapermal Nellore
ここまで、チェック済み
The Nattars were entitled to enjoy such privileges from the respective villages as noted above. If we reproduce them, they were as follows:1. landlord rent from the lands cultivated by either ulkudi or parakudi - 10 per cent of produce from the paddy lands watered from the rivers, yaries and tanks and cultivated by either the ulkudies or parakudis, 10 per cent of the amount of the rents from the lands rented by either the ulkudies or parakudies
on a fixed rent,2. higher allowance in the crops from the lands cultivated by themselves - 50 per cent of produce from the paddy lands watered from the rivers, yaries, and tanks, two-thirds of produce from the paddy lands watered by the use of Pecotas from wells, special deduction of rents on the fixed-rent lands rented by themselves - 25 per cent deduction, right of mortgaging the land to the amount of their privileges,
fees on all the goods upon which Juncans are levied, and6. inam lands.
On the other hand the duties stated to be done by the Nattars were as follows: 1. to use their utmost endeavours to have all the lands of the villages cultivated either by themselves or others, and2. to keep the water courses in good repair jointly with the other cultivators at half the expense.
Another important service assigned to the Nattar was the transaction with the Government. It is stated that every transaction with Government had been carried on only by the eldest male descendants of the six original Nattars or in the name of the descendants from the same stock. They should, whenever required by the Amuldar or renter, attend him in his Cutcherry (office) and inform him of the state of the several villages.
Request for the Revival of Privileges by Nattars Some time before the Tiruvendipuram Report was prepared, the Nattars had submitted a petition to the Chief at Cuddalore requesting the revival of their ancient privileges. The summary of the petition is recorded in the Report. It seems they could produce certificates proving their long enjoyed privileges. By producing the cowles from the Amuldars of the country (nawab ?) government, and from Governor Saunders and the Council of FSD in 1750, the Nattars requested at least the revival of 2, 3, and 6 among their former privileges noted above. It is to be remembered that they had enjoyed their privileges despite the order of 1768. Their request here should be understood as the demand of reconfirmation of their long established privileges.
On receiving this report, the Committee of Revenue recommended the grant of the Nattars' former privileges and ordered the Chief Council to restore them. Accordingly the Chief Council acquainted the renter and the Nattars of Tiruvendipuram that the following privileges corresponding to those of 2, 3, 5, 6 are to be restored to the Nattars:As to the village-wise privileges of the Nattars thus restoredin 1775, see Extract from the Minutes of the Cuddalore Consultations, 27.8.1775, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806.1. the allowance of 50 per cent on the produce of those lands cultivated by them in share that are watered by water courses from the rivers, yaries, and tanks ,2. 25 per cent deduction in the rent of those paddy and small grain lands cultivated by them on rent,3. their former customary fees on all the goods on which Juncans are collected, and4. their inam lands in each village specified in the accounts.
In restoring the privileges to the Nattars, the Board of Fort St. George directed that all the Shrotriums or Inams granted since 1750 and those without proper authority should be taken away.Madras Revenue Proceedings, 12.7.1775, Letter to the Committee of Revenue, 28.7.1775. Letter to the Chief and Council at Cuddalore, 27.8.1775, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. Extract from the Minutes of the Cuddalore Consultations, 30.8.1775, ibid.
Another but more important change is the disappearance of the 10 per cent landlord rent from other cultivators. There is no explanation why this was abolished in the records. As will be discussed in the next chapter, it was a popular notion among the British administrators of the period that the state is the owner of the soil. The landlord rent received by the Nattars clearly contradicted this notion, so that the Committee of Revenue must have neglected the Nattars' request for it.
Privileges Again Abolished in 1779 The change of policy towards the Nattars did not end here. On 9 February 1779 their privileges were again temporary abolished.Letter from Collector of Cuddalore and Pondicherry to the President and Members of the Board of Revenue, 25.3.1806, No.14, Copy of the Advertisement, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. The reason of this change is not known at the moment. New Renters in 1781
In September 1781 two cowles of Tiruvendipuram and of FSD for the term of one year were granted to the new joint-renters, Streeshelaputty and Ramnaswamy, both of whom were likely to be outsiders of the area. The rent in each farm was Pagodas 7,000 for Tiruvendipuram and Pagodas 3,500 for FSD. Compared with the former cowle granted to Sadasheva Rao in 1771, the cowles granted in 1781 had many new regulations on the renter's activities. Some of the regulations specified in the cowles were as follows:The contents of the two cowles are almost same. A Cowle granted by the Right Hon'ble George Lord Macartne President and Governor &ca. Council of FSG and Its Dependancies to Streeshelaputty and Ramaswamy, 30.9.1782, Revenue Department, Cowle Books, Vol.33, 1781.1. To give the officers and servants of the villages their privileges according to the accounts of the Chief and Council of Cuddalore.2. To give to every other inhabitant every right or privileges he may by custom be entitled to in order to encourage others to come and reside in the district.3. To raise the banks of all the Yaries or Tangels to the height described by the President and Council. The expense is to be upon the renters' account. Nattars and Conicoplies are to certify the account.4. Not to cut down any trees on the circar lands.5. Not to collect any Juncan on cattle, fowles, fish or fuel passing through the district to FSD.6. Not to give any privilege without the leave of the government. Not to make any alterations or innovation in the customs of the farm should any of the officers or servants die without heir. The produce of their Inams must be accounted for to Government.7. To take measures for cultivating the waste lands.8. To keep a separate account of the sums of money annually collected for the repairs of the Tanks and of the application thereof.9. Not to require of the inhabitants to buy the renters' share of the grain at an advanced price as is done in some places but are to receive it in kind. 10. When the government orders the procurement of coolies, bullocks & ca., the renter will divide the whole in his district, and the inhabitants assess themselves. No one is to take by force the cattle or the servants of the husbandmen.11. To keep at the renters own charge a proper sibbendy to keep peace
and good order, and to prevent the depredations of the Poligars . It is not clear why there were added many restrictions on the renters' activity. Judging from the newly added regulations, especially those of 1, 2, 9, and 10, we can suspect some antagonistic relation between the renters (outsiders) and the inhabitants. The renters must have oppressed the inhabitants by levying and charging from the inhabitants, for which the latter naturally protested by appealing to the Government. The Government, therefore, must have taken the preventive measure to restrict the renter's activities by adding new regulations in the cowle. Restoration of Nattar and Grant of Five Per Cent Privileges in 1785 Since the abolishment of the Nattars' privileges in 1779, Nattars seemed to have requested the Board for their reinstatement to their office and the privileges thereof. In December 1785 the President and Council decided to reestablish the office of Nattar. After 'having maturely considered the duties of a Nattawar and the degree of responsibility and trouble of that office...as an encouragement to the Nattawars faithfully to fullfil the trust reposed in them, particularly in exerting their utmost efforts to increase and improve the cultivation', the President and Council decided to annex to the Nattarship an allowance of five per cent upon the net annual revenue of the district, in lieu of the privileges formerly enjoyed by the Nattars till 1779. The certificate was issued on 1 January 1786.Letter to the Hon'ble Board, 7.1.1786, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. Petition of the Nattawars of the Trevenduporam District, 31.7.1805, ibid. Extracts of FSG Revenue Consultations, 16.7.1807, ibid.
The details seemed to be recorded in the Cowle granted to the Nattars by the Chief and Council of Cuddalore dated 27 August 1779 and a certificate of G.I.Hoissard dated 1st January 1786. But neither of them could be located in the Tamilnadu Archives. The contents of the certificate with the date of 1.1.1786 must be overlapped with the Letter to the Hon'ble Board with the date of 7.1.1786 examined here. According to this decision, the six Nattars became entitled to receive the allowance of five per cent upon the net revenue in proportion to the number of shares each of them had been entitled to before that office was abolished in 1779.The allowance continued till 1806 when the Tiruvendipuram country was divided into zamindari estates and was given to the Nattars. The names of the
six Nattars, those of the villages represented by each Nattar, and the number of shares he had been entitled to before 1779 are indicated in Table.II-2-2 together with the male descendents' names who are stated to have claims in the villages in the Tiruvendipuram Report of 1775.Copy of the Advertisement, 7.1.1786, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806.
Graham's Village Settlement in 1801 In 1801 most of the area under the present South Arcot District came under the Company's management.Before this year the Company had managed the country temporary. After the peace made with Tipu Sultan in Fusly 1192 (1782-83), the Nawab of Arcot assigned over his countries in Fusly 1193 (1783-84) to the Company and the Company's management continued for three years. The country was returned to the Nawab in Fusly 1196 (1786-87) but was again placed under the Company's management in Fusly 1200 (1790-91) under two collectorships. The country seemed to be rented out to several renters. In Fusly 1202 (1792-93) the country was returned to the Nawab. (Letter from Garrow on the Settlement of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusly 1212, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803) The Southern Division of Arcot was now formed and Captain Graham was appointed as the first Collector. The settlement which he enforced was the Village Settlement or the Lease System having each village as a basic revenue unit. According to Garrow who succeeded Graham at the end of 1802, Graham's Village Settlement was with the Nattars, with the head inhabitants or with strangers. To show who the renters selected by Graham were in the Village Settlement of Fusly 1211(1801-02), Garrow sampled out ten villages from each Tahsildary and prepared the list showing the renters' names and their status. Table.II-2-3 is the statement Garrow prepared.
TABLE.II-2-2SHARE OF THE SIX NATTARS IN TIRUVENDIPURAM BEFORE 1779 ========================================================== NATTARS AND SHARE NATTARS IN THE REPORT BEFORE 1779 OF 1775 ----------------------------------------------------------1. Sambasheva Reddy 13 1/2
Manamadavy Kistna Reddy Vaurcaulputtoo Kistna Reddy Maroodaudoo Kistna Reddy Keelacopam Kistna Reddy Chennaconganamcoopum Kistna Reddy Annavally Kistna Reddy Putrchiancoopam Kistna Reddy Trevenduporam Mylarumperoomal Pillay Asparyancoopan Mylarumperoomal Pillay 2. Tremalrow 13 1/2 Carooopuddy Toondoo Mylarumperoomal Pillay 3. Sadashava Row 13 1/2 Ariahvetty Mylarumperoomal Pillay Alliganattam Mylarumperoomal Pillay Coodecauoo Mylarumperoomal Pillay Otary Mylarumperoomal Pillay Treemanicooley Vishvanadda Reddy Treetoriyoor Vishvanadda Reddy Tondamaunuttam Vishvanadda Reddy Vaddacummal Vishvanadda Reddy Poodoopatta Vishvanadda Reddy Ramaporam Vishvanadda Reddy Allapaukum Vishvanadda Reddy 4. Sevenaga Reddy 10 Mundagaputtoo Datatry Reddy Nellatoor Datatry Reddy 5. Jaindy Reddy 3 3/4 Totaputttoo Teanty Reddy Soondravandy Teanty Reddy 6. Sundrasagara Reddy 5 3/4 Veeraperumaunellore Chundashaira Reddy ---------------------------------------------------------- 60 shares==========================================================Source: Letter to the Hon'ble Board, 7.1.1786, Petition of the Nattawars of
the Trevenduporam District, 31.7.1805, Extracts of FSG Revenue Consultations, 16.7.1807, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. Tiruvendipuram Report, pp.9-10.
TABLE.II-2-3RENTERS NAMES IN THE VILLAGE SETTLEMENT BY GRAHAM IN 1801===================================================================== VILLAGE RENTER---------------------------------------------------------------------1. POLORE Auleyacaud Vencataram Reddy Nattar Vadurdavaudy Moodoomulla Reddy Nattar ?????moor Ecanda Reddy Inhabitant Yadooputtoo Moodoomulla Reddy Nattar Enjemade Soobau Reddy Inhabitant Cheptamcolum Moodoocamarapa Reddy Inhabitant Satumcaud Keelaputtoo Eresandepillah Inhabitant Maunundel Ambiah Inhabitant Seervaloor Sasharow Inhabitant2. GENGEE Toennoor Nellanconjee Wodien Inhabitant Permundoor Aupandaninary Inhabitant Pennataungum Sashiah Inhabitant Rettanay Sooondarayah Head Inhabitant Settamoor Appondininary Inhabitant Nercanum Vencataramiah Inhabitant Sembade Kaulpiah Inhabitant Nullambalapettah Nadupah Naig Inhabitant Pummalan Ausoonagherry Goundah Inhabitant Bootamungalum Kistningar Inhabitant3. VEERAPOORAM Coandungy Valoor Ragavengar Head Inhabitant Poolloor Vencayah Mahajanam Manacoopum Valoor Ragariengar
Semmar Jyaviah Inhabitant Nuttum Appasawmy Nattar Aunuttoor Jyaviah Inhabitant Parungoor Tatachary Inhabitant Aumoor Paupe Reddy Inhabitant Valakay Narrain Reddy Inhabitant Yamapare Soondayah Head Inhabitant4. ELAVANASOOR Parygoorekey Sevaramiyah Iyah Soobiah Head Inhabitant Canungoor Parytumbe Wodayan Head Inhabitant Maunbaukum Madookistnah Reddy & Head Inhabitant Soobiah Reddy Head Inhabitant Susanoor Appoo Moodaly & Head Inhabitant Pulla Moodaly Head Inhabitant Vapoor Nulla Naik Pundarum Nattar Maudoor Chinniah Pillay Head Inhabitant Nodayanachee Kanogo Roy Nattar Ereyoor Velaperumal Woodyar Head Inhabitant Veeracholavarum Salumbarada Wodyan & Head Inhabitant Tandavamoorty Wodyan Head Inhabitant Veergauvoor Soobaroy Woodyar Head Inhabitant5. VECRAVANDY Cusba Veeravandy Brummudasum Chinnadoo Wodayan Inhabitant Poodooputtoo Vencataramanacharry Nadoocoopum Colapa Naig Inhabitant Valoore Ramyachar Inhabitant Padrapullore Gooroorajiah Inhabitant Padrey Moodoorama Reddy Nattar Moodiyenbacum Samiah Inhabitant Amoor Eresagounden Inhabitant Audunnoor Annaviengar Inhabitant6. ELENGAUD Sashingar Cusba elengaud Pannoor Senevasengar Coattay Appandaninar
Vellavalum Seervaloor Samingar Baudoor Salavade Narain Reddy Tyar Nemmaley Nulloor 7. TRINOMALE Naurtampoondy Andepaninary & Inhabitant Coope Naig Inhabitant Andompullum Letchman Naig & Head Inhabitant Jahcooty Goundan Head Inhabitant Auroonagery Mungalum Mootoo Wodayan Head Inhabitant Kaunjee Kistna Reddy Nattar Malavanacumbaudy Sooba Reddy Inhabitant Yarayoor Vencataramiah Nattar Soracolatoor Vencata Soobiah Inhabitant Canaganoor Aurnachella Naig Inhabitant Seerpanundul Areybadraninary Head Inhabitant Naugukoody Nagapa Naig Inhabitant ===================================================================== Source: Report of Garrow on the Nature of the Administration of the Revenues under Captain Graham in Fusly 1211, 18.9.1803, in South Arcot District Records, Vol.178, pp.365, 388.
Garrow's Raiyatwari Settlement in 1802 Garrow who succeeded Graham in 1802 assumed the charge of Cuddalore and Pondichery along with Tiruvendipuram. Tiruvendipuram was now incorporated in the Southern Division of Arcot. He had been a Secretary to the Government and was a vehement supporter of Raiyatwari Settlement under the influence of
Read and Munro. When he assumed the collectorship, he had 'resolved to adopt altogether a different plan by making every inhabitant who possessed a plough come forward and enter into engagements with me for the rent of his portion of cultivation in the village'.Letter from Garrow to the Board, 7.12.1802, in BOR Proceedings, 13.12.1802.
The principle of the Garrow's Raiyatwari Settlement was described by himself as follows: "A fixed rent in money upon a given extent of land is the basis on which my settlement will be made, with a reference to the fertility of the soil, the consequent produce, the ryot's share, and the price that grain upon an average has borne in the market for a period of years."Letter from Garrow on the Settlement of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusly 1212, Para.185, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803.
Based on this principle, Garrow issued Patta (title deeds) in nearly half of the villages which had been assessed.1,964 villages out of the 3,351 villages. (Letter from Major Macleod, the Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, in BOR Proceedings, 20.8.1804)
Resistence of the Head Inhabitants Garrow's plan of introducing the Raiyatwari Settlement, however, could not be realized so easily. Garrow 'took particular pains' in explaining to the inhabitants his motives to destroy the potail's (head inhabitant's) influence which prevailed strongly on the part of the potail over the inferior inhabitants, and which reconciles him to various impositions of an undefined nature.Letter from Garrow to the Board, 7.12.1802, in BOR Proceedings, 13.12.1802. But no sooner his intentions were put in practice than the potails (head inhabitants) of 126 villages ran away to Conjiveram in the Jagir. The leaders of the potails then proceeded to Madras to appeal to the Board against the terms of the settlement. As a result, the Board directed Garrow to leave the potails in the same undisturbed enjoyment of the advantages they had hitherto held.Ibid. It was only after hearing the Garrow's explanation that the Board approved his settlement and directed the engagement with the inhabitants of those villages whose potails had seceded.Ibid. See also BOR Proceedings, 15.12.1802.
The opposition movements of the head inhabitants, however, occurred
frequently at least till 1806. In the letter to the Board recorded in the BOR Proceedings dated 18 July 1803, Garrow mentioned another case of the strong opposition of the Brahmins in Trevettore.Letter from Garrow on the Settlement of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusly 1212, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803, Paras.39-40). See also Letter to the Collector in the Southern Division of the Arcot, Paras.2-4, in BOR Proceedings, 9.3.1804, Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, and Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
Despite the strong oppositions from the head inhabitants, Garrow did not change his mind. According to him, the village settlement was the very cause of the poverished situation of inferior raiyats. He wrote to the Board in July 1803 as follows: "No cause has operated strongly to reduce the cultivating inhabitants to the depressed state they are now in than what is termed village rents...it is by no means calculated to diffuse property to encourage industry or promote improvement. The principle inhabitants of a village always absorb the profit if there is any, and if there is a loss...it never falls upon a renter, but upon the cultivating inhabitants of the lower description... This evil is inseparable from the (village lease:T.M) system nor can relief while it prevails be granted to the suffering inhabitants", and that "the only remedy that can be applied is the introduction of an immediate intercourse with each cultivating subject in the country."Letter from Garrow on the Settlement of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusly 1212, Paras.39-40, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803. Nattar in Graham's Village Settlement There were two important aspects in the enforcement of the Raiyatwari Settlement. One was the direct revenue transaction with the raiyats excluding the intermediaries, and the other was the integration of various fees, allowances, taxes into land assessment. Both of these aspects were deeply related with the treatment of Nattars, and Garrow also noted it in his several reports. In his report criticising the Graham's Village Settlement of Fusly 1211 (1801-02), Garrow reproached the Nattars' oppression upon the inferior inhabitants as follows: " When the Nauttawars were renters , the collections have as in the Nabob's time been unbounded. The Nautawars have been the
course (curse ?:T.M) of the country. Their intereference in the district, the terror they are held in by the lower inhabitants, has enabled them to make their collection without opposition. And it is from this cause that they have been courted during the Nabob's Government and were in some instances under our own when they have rented. It is in vain to think that the inhabitants have benefitted. Examination of accounts is fruitless unless the true ones can be got at and which are kept by Curnums in the employ of the Nauttawars themselves."18.9.1803, in South Arcot District Records, Vol.178, p.365-.
Deprivation of Nattars' Influence in Raiyatwari Settlement In his attempt to enforce the Raiyatwari Settlement, Garrow naturally attempted to deprive the Nattars of their influence. Nattars were spread all over South Arcot and were found to have enjoyed privileges. The privileges which Garrow found the Nattars to have enjoyed are listed in Table.II-2-4 and the names of the Nattars who had enjoyed high warum are shown in Appendix.3. The amount of Nattar's privileges deprived by Garrow was Pagodas 3693.7.34.
TABLE.II-2-4PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY NATTARS -----------------------------------------------------------------1. Fees (Natawar Roosoom): Fees enjoyed by the revenue servants and others. Nattars of certain villages imposed upon the inhabitants upon pretence of defraying their expences while they attended the Cutcherry instead of the inhabitants. This was resumed when their offices were abolished and when it was thought they were no longer required.2. High Warum (Natawar Waratoondo):Higher share in the produce. Nattars were allowed in some instances a high warum on their Nunja Landsa, and charged a low Teerva on their Poonja cultivation. During the Nabob's government favoured persons enjoyed a
Warum of 60 per cent. Garrow reduced to the general standard of 40 or 45 per cent.3. Inam:Tax free lands. Those inam lands enjoyed by the Nattars without authentic sunnuds were resumed by Garrow.-----------------------------------------------------------------Source: Letter from Garrow on the Settlement of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusly 1212, Paras. 68, 107-110, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803.
Nattars' Five Per Cent Allowance Stopped Nattars of the Tiruvendipuram district could not escape the Garrow's denunciation, either. The 26 villages of Tiruvendipuram had been rented by Sambaseva Reddy, a Nattar of the district, for the sum of 10,500 Pagodas for the years 1798-1802. In October 1802 Garrow also leased out the country to the Nattars of Tiruvendipuram by villages, as there was not enough time to prepare for the Raiyatwari Settlement. Garrow, however, stopped the payment of the five per cent allowance (Garrow called it as Nattar Roosoom) which the Nattars had enjoyed since 1786.The amount to be given as their allowance in Tiruvendipuram was Pagodas 662.3.44 out of the total revenue from the area or Pagodas 13,192.27.21. The same allowance in other areas were as follows (in Pagodas): Arcot - 35.20.31, Vellore - 179.35.41, Tervuttore - 595.33.4, Elengaud - 99.33.60, Polore - 698.33.7, Total - 1,609.20.63.(Letter from Garrow on the Settlement of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusly 1212, Paras.144-154, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803, pp.7722, 7743) The Nattars protested against this measure, and was somehow given back the allowance for Fusly 1212 (1802-03). But Garrow strongly asserted in his letter to the Board the abolishment of the allowance. He states: "If it was granted to secure their influence and to induce them to become answerable for the revenue of their villages...it might answer the temper of those times...but now that such influence is neither sought for nor found necessary it is an useless burthen on the inhabitants and... As I propose to form a ryotwar settlement... I feel no want of the influence of these people and earnestly recommend the abolition of the roosoom as an act of public favor to the inhabitants...if it should be thought just to continue them I would recommend that it be a deduction from the sirkar rent rather than an addition of the inhabitants. "Extract from the Report of the Chief and Council at
Cuddalore of the Trevenduporam Farm , 30.6.1775, Paras.144-154, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806.
Board Ordered Investigation On receiving this Garrow's report, the Governor in Council directed further investigation about the Nattars' claim before passing a resolution depriving the Nattars of their allowance.Letter to the Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 8.8.1803, in BOR Proceedings, 8.9.1803. At the close of the following Fusly year, Garrow again stopped delivering the five per cent allowance for Fusly 1213 (1803-04). He kept the amount, Pagodas 604.11.19, in deposit and left the decision to the next Collector. The money was left with the following note: "The amount collected, on account of Russooms of the Nattawars of Trevenduporam Talook, to this day, which is in deposit, but should not be disbursed, without an enquiry and authority".Letter from the Collector of Cuddalore and Pondicherry, BOR Proceedings, 10.2.1806, in Board's Collections, Vol.242. The disposal of this Nattars' allowance in Tiruvendipuram became one of the main issues in the preparation of the Permanent Settlement of 1807 in this area.
Macleod Succeeded Garrow in 1804 In December 1803 Garrow was transferred from the office on his half way to the Raiyatwari settlement and Macleod overtook the collectorship on 1 January 1804, with the same objective of enforcing Raiyatwari Settlement as his predecessor's.Letter to the Collector in the Southern Division of the Arcot, 9.3.1804, in BOR Proceedings, 9.3.1804, Paras.8, 14. Letter from Macleod, the Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, on the Settlement of the Revenues for fusli 1213, in BOR Proceedings, 20.8.1804. For continuing the Raiyatwari Settlement, Macleaod started fixing the assessment of every village in the district. In the villages which had been valued and where the Pattas were issued to the villagers, Macleod had to make the accounts anew as the money rent of each ryot had to be changed according to the cultivated extent of the respective years. In the other villages which had not been valued, Macleod took the average of five years' collection on the cultivated extent of Nunja, Punja, and Garden lands to form the assessment of each village for the coming Fusly year. The distribution of the assessment
among the ryots was left to the village Curnums.Letter from Macleod, ibid., Paras.6-8.
Opposition against Macleod's Settlement In the course of fixing assessment in each village, Macleod also had to face the head Inhabitants' opposition like his predecessor. The head inhabitants, 'opposing the system of individual assessment and the high rents of the last year', persuaded the inhabitants to limit the extent of cultivation so that the gross assessment was to be reduced. As a result the revenue from the district greatly decreased in Fusly 1213 (1803-04).Ibid., Paras.10-13. Macleod's criticism, therefore, was again directed towards the head inhabitants. He states that these heads of villages had 'shares in ten or twenty villages at the distance of perhaps thirty miles asunder. They even pretend to have divided among them the whole lands of villages, in which there may be more than one Meerasdar (village landholders, see Chapter.III-4) and they prevent the occupancy of any part of their imaginary shares without their concurrence.'Ibid., Para.25. Macleod finally suggested the abolition of the fees attached to their office.Ibid., Paras.24-26. The following were the fees allowed in the Macleod's settlement:===============================================================To Gramattan or Head of the village 2 1/4 per cent Curnum 2 1/2 Toty 1 1/4 Shroff 1 Smith 1 Carpenter 1--------------------------------------------------------------- 9 per cent===============================================================Source: Letter from Macleod reporting on the Settlement of the Revenues of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusli 1213, Para.34, in BOR Proceedings, 20.8.1804.
Nattars' Privileges Proposed to be Abolished The same measure was taken by Macleod against the Nattars. In the course of his settlement Macleod allowed five per cent remission in favor of Bramins and Moormen (Muslim),It seems Garrow had allowed this remission and specified it in the pattas issued to them. (BOR Procedings, 23.4.1804, Para.7) but did not admit the Nattars' claims for special privileges (Inams, favoured rates in the Warum, Marah and Russooms). He asked the instrution of the Board whether their claims should be resumed either in part or in whole.Letter from Macleod, 19.4.1804, Para.8, in BOR Proceedings, 23.4.1804. The BOR in reply wrote back to him that he should prepare and submit a list of the Nattars with a statement of the perquisites enjoyed by them from villages for considering the Nattars' services and privileges.Ibid. As will be discussed later, this order was neglected by the two collectors, Macleod and his successor Ravenshaw, who were keen in suppressing the 'fraud', 'unauthorized collection', and 'oppression' of the Nattars and the other head inhabitants in the district. Anyhow the privileges of the Nattars had been virtually stopped at the time of Garrow's collectorship or in the year 1803. The exception was the Nattars of Tiruvendipuram, which was going to be placed under the separate administrative unit from the main part of South Arcot.Tiruvendipuram Separated
In February 1805 Macleod was directed to transfer Cuddalore and Pondichery to Fallofield who was appointed as the Collector of them. Macleod was also directed to submit proposals for dividing the Tiruvendipuram into estates previous to the transfer.The order was informed at the end of August 1804. (BOR Proceedings, 27.8.1804) The latter task seemed to be taken by Fallofield as Macleod resigned his post soon.J.H.Garstin, Manual of the South Arcot District, Madras, 1878, p.241. We will for the time being follow the Nattars of Tiruvendipuram in the revenue administration there, and come back later to the main part of South Arcot.
Nattar and Permanent Settlement in Tiruvendipuram In March 1806 Fallofield, the Collector of Cuddalore and Pondicherry, made a report on the state of the district of Tiruvendipuram for the introduction of Permanent Zamindari (Mittahdari) Settlement.Letter from Fallofield, 25.3.1806, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. His plan was to divide the villages into the seven estates as shown in Table.II-2-5.
Fallofield at the same time had to take decision about the disposal of the five per cent allowance which had been stopped by Garrow on 11 July 1803 and was left to his decision with a note as stated above. Fallofield had received a petition from the NattarsThe names of the Nattars who petitioned were as follows:Kistna Reddy, Sashachella Pillah, Sadashevarow, Woomapatia, Chundarasagara Reddy, Vencutasooba Reddy.A few of the names appeared already among the names of the Nattars of this area. in the previous year (with the date of 31 July 1805) regarding this matter. The Nattars requested in the petition not only the payment of the Nattar's allowance but also another contribution collected for the maintenance of a Chatrum (rest house for travellers) by stating as follows:1. The allowance of five per cent upon the net annual revenue of the district was reinstated to the Nattars in lieu of the privileges they had formerly enjoyed and had been paid to them until 1803 when it was stopped.2. The Nattars built Chatrum near the Pagoda of Trepapalore where twenty-four Brahmin Travellers were daily entertained. The inhabitants paid a contribution towards that charitable establishment of two per cent in addition to the amount of the public revenue. The Government collected that contribution and paid the amount thereof to a person who had charge of the Chatrum. This collection had not been delivered to the Nattars since 1804, either.Petition of the Nattawars of the Trevenduporam district, 31.7.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806, No.12. According to Fallofield, the Nattars' five per cent allowance for Fusly 1214 was Pagodas 316.10.36, so that the total balance in deposit amounted to Pagodas 920.21.35. Fallofield asked an order from the Board. It was because the future proprietors of the estates should pay this allowance to the Nattars if the grant of the allowance was sanctioned. Regarding the collection for the maintenance of the Chatrum, he mentions the following four points:Letter from Fallofield, Collector of Cuddalore and Pondichery, Extract BOR Proceedings, 10.2.1806, in Board's Collections, Vol.242.1. An allowance of five per cent after deducting the joint charges on the crops has for a long period been invariably made by the Nattars and Raiyats of this district from the produce of all their lands, for the performance of the ceremonies of the Pagodas, as well as for the support of indigent Bramanies, going in pilgrimage between Benares and Rameswaram.2. A proportion of three per cent out of the five per cent had been settled
on the principal pagodas from time immemorial, and the remaining two per cent by a deed of gifts signed by all the Nattars and Raiyats of the districts in the year 1756.3. Under the Nawab rule, the Amuldars (Amildars) usually collected this money. After it came into the possession of the Company, the renters did the same, and paid 3/5th thereof to the head Bramanies entrusted with the care of the Pagodas, and the remaining 2/5th to one of the principal Nattars to be apropriated by him for the support of the indigent Bramanies travelling through the villages.4. Macleod, the late collector, collected the five per cent allowance for the Chatrum and paid the proportion of three per cent therefrom to the overseers of the principal Pagodas, but withheld the remaining two per cent in deposit. The amount was Pagodas 222.7.40. The same for Fusly 1214 were kept in deposit. The amount was Pagodas 134.18.76. The Total sum was Pagodas 356.26.36.TABLE.II-2-5DIVISION OF TIRUVENDIPURAM INTO ESTATE PROPOSED IN THE PERMANENT ZAMINDARI SETTLEMENT===================================================================ESTATE AND VILLAGE LOCATION ESTATE AND VILLAGE LOCATION CODE CODE-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Allagynuttum 6. TondamanattumAllagynuttum CU162 Tondamanattum CU229Mundagaput VI220 VadagumbumNellatore CU166 Patchancopang CU215Chinnaganganamcopanga CU196 7. Trevenduporam
2. Veeraperumalnellore Trevenduporam CU207Veeraperumalnellore CU021 Ariusheperiancopang CU209Tertoriore CU011 Carupedytundoa CU210
3. Arriavetty Toataput CU189Arriavetty Murdaud CU186Aulapaukum CU234 Wargalput CU187
4. Chinnamanaickapollam Sundarawandy CU153Chinnamanaickpollamd CU097 Keelacopang CU150
Naideputd CU131 Vettucoluma.b CU2125. Manamadavy Mavedypollamb CU156
Manamadavy CU152 Pillalyb CU158Tremanaiculy CU154 Comarapettab CU208Wotary CU157 Cottavaukumc CU205Ramaporam CU155===================================================================Source: Letter from Fallofield, 25.3.1806, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806.Note:1. Location CodeCU - Cuddalore Taluk VI - Villupuram Taluk2. a.b.c.da. These villages had been long deserted and the villagers had moved to some other villages.b. These villages and Ponnidancopang were Shrotriums of Occul Naig, the Poligar of the Tiruvendipuram district. Occul Naig paid to the Company a fixed rent of 250 Pagodas per annum. c. This village was an Agraharam and was held by Brahmins.d. These two villages were transferred by the Nawab to the Company in 1762, but had been rented separately from Tiruvendipuram Farm. These were habitated by weavers and famous for its manufacture of coarse long cloths and bazar cloths.3. There was another hamlet, Pudupetta, occupied only by fishermen and their families. There was no arable land belonging to it. On receiving this letter, Board of Revenue requested the Governor in Council the permission to repay both of the allowances.Extract Letter from BOR to Bentinck, Governor in Council, 11.12.1806, in BOR Proceedings, 30.12.1806, ibid. The Governor approved the allowance to the Pagodas and Chatrums and directed it to be collected in future by the proprietors of the estates and be paid to the persons in charge of the Pagodas and Chatrums, subject to the inspection and control of the Collector.Extract Report of the BOR, 25.2.1807, Paras.193-196, ibid. The Governor, however, expressed doubt about the allowance for the Nattars as it had been granted 'for the
performance of services which are no longer required.' Though the Governor approved the payment of the amount kept in deposit to the Nattars, he directed at the same time to devise some other means for 'compromising their claims upon the Government which they may in your opinion have derived from the period of their services without subjecting the Government to a perpetual expence on their account'. The Governor also directed that the amount should be added to the permanent assessment, and in the event of its being confirmed to the Nattars, disbursed from the public treasury.Extract Letter to BOR, 31.12.1806, in BOR Proceedings, 29.1.1807.
Permanent Settlement Ready for Tiruvendipuram In the meantime the final preparation to enforce the Permanent Settlement in Cuddalore and Tiruvendipuram had become ready. The rents of Cuddalore estate and the six estates in Tiruvendipuram was fixed Pagodas 5,000 and 9,800 per annum respectively. The Marahs and Russooms were added to the permanent rent and the amount was to be paid by the Collector to the officers entitled to receive them. It was also decided that the allowances to be given to the Cuddalore and Tiruvendipuram Pagodas (temples) were Pagodas 420 and 280 respecitvely and to be disbursed under the control of the Collector.To the President and Members of BOR, 31.12.1806, in BOR Proceedings, 29.1.1807, p.745.
Nattars Proposed to become Proprietors of the Estates On 24 Februay 1807 the Nattars of Tiruvendipuram submitted a petition. In it the Nattars asserted that the reason of the original grant of the privileges by the kings of Gingee was that, under the uncultivated state of the area at the time, 'the Rajah was induced to hold out such liberal encouragement to the ancient ryots or Nuttawars of other districts as might probably excite them to repair to and settle on the Farm, and convert progressively into arable land.'Letter from the Acting Collector at Cuddalore and Pondicherry, in Extract Revenue Consultations, 16.7.1807, Para.4, ibid.
The Nattars at the same time proposed to become the proprietors of the six estates of the district and were willing to pay the permanent Jummah (assessment) 'provided they (estates :T.M) are not put up to sale, and that the
receipt of the five per cent on the revenue shall still be enjoyed by them.'Ibid., Para.16. After stating the services performed by the Nattars and their ancestors such as 1)clearing the grounds from wood and jungle, 2)deepening and repairing the Yarees, tank and water channels, 3)encouraging labourers to settle on the lands and providing cattles and ploughs & c., would be no longer required, the Acting Collector of Cuddalore and Pondicherry proposed to pay Pagodas 250 annually to the Nattars for the period of ten or fifteen years as the compensation.Letter from the Acting Collector at Cuddalore and Pondicherry, in Extract Revenue Consultations, 16.7.1807, Paras.6-7, ibid. The amount, Pagodas 250, seemed to be calculated as half of the allowance (2.5 per cent of the permanent rent of Pagodas 9,800).The average amount of the five per cent allowance had been between Pagodas 500 and 600.(Ibid., Paras.9-10)
Final Decision of the Government The government finally decided to give the estates to the Nattars on condition of their relinquishing all future claims to the privileges except the five per cent commission amounting to Pagodas 490. The amount of Pagodas 490 will be given to each of the present incumbents in proportion to his share by way of pension for life. The Collector was instructed to propose this resolution to the Nattars.Advertisement, 27.7.1807, Paras.14-17, in Boards' Collection, Vol.242. Letter to the BOR, Diary of Revenue Consultations, 1.8.1807, ibid. Extract of Report of the BOR, 10.10.1807, Paras. 354-372, ibid. Extract Revenue letter from FSG, 21.10.1807, Paras. 107-111, ibid. This instruction was communicated to the Nattars by Fallofield. The Nattars delivered a representation, whereby they agreed to the terms proposed to them, but requested at the same time that it should be specified in the government Sunnad that the estates were conferred on them without purchase in liew of the privileges they had hitherto enjoyed. Fallofield also suggested to the Board that each estate should be granted separately to the Nattars, not granting all the estates jointly to them.Letter of Fallofield, South Arcot District Records, Vol.191, pp.75-77. It seems the village names belonging to the respective Nattars were recorded in the representation. This is not available at the moment. The villages in the respective estate are known. They were as follows:================================================
==== ESTATE VILLAGE----------------------------------------------------
ALLAGYNUTTUM TONDAMANOTTUM Allagynuttum Tondamanattum Mundagaput Annavelly Nellatore Cudicaud Chinnaganganamcopang Pudupetta Patchancopang
VEERAPERMALNELLORE Vadagumbum Veerapermanellore Ponniancopang* Tirtoriore
ARRIAVETTY TRIVENDUPORAM Arriavetty Trivenduporam Aulapaukum Murdaud Arisheporiancopang
CHINNAMANAICKPOLLAM Canipedytundo Chinnamanaickpollam Wargalput Naideput Sundaravandy Keelacopang
MANAMADAVY Tooataput Manamadavy Pillaly* Tremaniculy Comarapetta*Wotary Mavedypollam*Ramaporam Vettucolum* ====================================================Source: Madras Revenue Proceedings, 28.4.1806, pp.2138-2175.Note: * These were the shrotrium villages belonging to the Poligar and composed a separate estate.
At the end of the year 1807 the estates of Tiruvendipuram were transferred to the Nattars and the estate of Cuddalore was offered for sale.
Nattars after Permanent Settlement in 1807
After the Permanent Settlement was enforced, many of the estates called Mittah (or Muttah) were either sold, divided by inheritence, or resumed by the Government for auction due to the arrears of revenue.Madras District Gazetteer, South Arcot, Madras, 1906, pp.322-323. The BOR Proceedings in the 1820s contain many of the correspondences reporting the transactions.See for instance, BOR Proceedings, 25.5.1818, 12.1.1826, 13.2.1826, 29.9.1828, 10.10.1828.
There can be still found the remnants of the estates (called Mittahs) in this area at present, but the scale of the Mittahs has become so small that the Mittahdars are hardly distinguishable from other landholders.
Nattars in the Main Part of South Arcot On the other hand the Nattars in the main part of South Arcot had experienced compleatly different treatment, or rather they were not given any special treatment or care despite the Board's order in 1804 mentioned above to submit a list of the Nattars with a statement of the perquisites enjoyed by them.BOR Proceedings, 23.4.1804.
Ravenshaw's Raiyatwari Settlement In March 1805 Ravenshaw was appointed as the Collector. He had been an assistant of Munro and was again an vehement supporter of the Raiyatwari settlement. What Ravenshaw did as soon as he assumed the office was to discover and recover the concealed revenue by the Nattars and the other inhabitants. He, however, soon found that 'every attempt at discovery was resisted by a general opposition'.Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, Para.3, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805. Ravenshaw reported the details of the frauds as follows:
"Such were the means taken by the Nautawars and Curnums to prevent a discovery of the fraud they committed, that they might well think themselves secure. The chief work of falsifying the accounts was of course left to the curnums, who have in consequence been permitted in many cases to
assume the powers of Gramatans, and raise money by Tuffreks on the villages, to bribe the public servants making the settlement. The silence of the Tahsildars and their people, also of the surveyors has, I am confident, been secured by the Gramatans in the same way. The inhabitants were appeased by a promise of sharing in the plunder. Fields in many places were ploughed up, and the straw on all was cut short, in order to prevent discovery..." (Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, Para.2, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805) The people who jointly opposed Ravenshaw's effort to discover the frauds were the Nattars, Curnums, Gramattans, and the other inhabitants. The scale of the frauds was such as 'some hundreds' of curnums came forward and confessed when the frauds were discovered by him and the 'measures' were taken. The total discoveries in the concerned five districts (taluks), he reported, amounted to Pagodas 50454.1.53.Ibid., Paras.5-7.
Opposition against the Recovery of Concealed Revenue The recovery of the concealed revenue was no more easy than its discovery. Ravenshaw confesses: "the realization of the concealed revenue is opposed with as much determination as the discovery of it was."Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, Para.8, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805, Para.8. To show their resistence, many Gramattans absconded with all their property. In some cases Gramattans persuaded the inhabitants of their villages to accompany them.The Gramatans sent frequent messages to the ryots that "if they remain in their villages, they will be held answerable for all balances that it will be much better for them to abscond with their cattle to the Jaghere where Zemindars have promised to give them land, where at any rate they can avoid paying the dues of Government, and remain quiet, till they can make their own terms with the ruling authority in this province." (Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, Para.8, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805)
The zemindar of the Jagir referred here is Chimiah Moodely. (Letter from Ravenshaw, 18.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 24.6.1805) Though Ravenshaw warned the Gramattans or Curnums that their whole property would be liable to confiscation, none of the Gramattans returned. Table.II-2-6
shows 'the most notorious Gramattans and others' - actually they are called 'Nautwars' in the list -, and Table.II-2-7 is the list prepared by Ravenshaw showing the villages where 'the greatest frauds existed'. It is stated those arrested were punished either by fines, 50 lashes per day on the following four market days, or confinement of 12 months in irons.Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805, Paras. 9-13.
It is to be noted that both of the terms 'Gramattans' and 'Nattars' were used by Ravenshaw as denoting the 'head inhabitants' or 'heads of villages'. By the fact that five out of six Nattars recorded in Table.II-2-6 appear in Table.II-2-7 as Gramattans, or by the fact that the Nattars in Table.II-2-6 are called Gramattans, it can be judged that Ravenshaw used both terms without much precision and Nattars were included in the term 'Gramattans' in his usage. This is also confirmed by the fact that the leader of the Gramattans' opposition movement is reported to be Muttu Mulla Reddy (Moodoomulla Reddy), a Nattar of Tindivanam. Ravenshaw wrote to the Board on 18 June 1805 to issue the order to arrest him: "Moodoomulla Reddy, a Nautawar of Brumah Deishum in Tindivanum Talook, has been one of the chief offenders in defrauding Government. This year he has also resisted my authority by absconding, and I have great reason to suspect him of having instigated other inhabitants to secede."Letter from Ravenshaw, 18.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 24.6.1805.
TABLE.II-2-6 NATTARS OF TINDIVANUM TALUK WHO RESISTED AUTHORITY BY ABSCONDING============================================= NATTARS VILLAGE---------------------------------------------Moodooramah Reddy MellapaukumSoobah Reddy PunthamungalumRamalinga Reddy AhshoreMoodoomulla Reddy Serwardy
Cundapah Reddy KotywakumVencatakistna Reddy Mollyshore=============================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805.TABLE.II-2-7LIST OF THE CURNUMS AND GRAMATTANS IN 30 VILLAGES IN SOUTH ARCOT WHERE THE FRAUDS WERE FOUND BY RAVENSHAW================================================================ VILLAGE CURNUM GRAMATTAN----------------------------------------------------------------1. VARDAVOREVillenellore Amrah Pillay Wootianag Reddy Coonychembud Chitumbara Pillay Ramah ReddyTrimungalum Chitumbara Pillay Appanayangar & Ayahsamy ArengarPoolichypullum Soobramania Pillay Survana MoodelyMaduraypaukum Chitumbara Pillay Vencatarama ReddyKeerimambaukum Appak Pillay Kayshau Reddy2. VILLUPOORAMWortoor Tandaveroy Pllay Visoovanda ReddyTrivamattoor Tandaveroy Pillay Mootiah PillayWickerwandy Kootiah Pillay Jugganaut ReddyAnnangoor Sangra Pillay & Sashayah & Mootiah Pillay Appvayah3. TRIVADYMelputtumbaukum Cattithitha Pillay Mootoo Vythea PillayWegahboottey Vythenada Pillay Comarasamy PoodiachyShirewatoor Mootiah Pillay Narrainayah & RamasamyCurrumboor Palicondah Pillay Ayamayengar4. TRIVANELLOREAnatoor Yenathitha Pillay Moodooveerah ReddyNuttum Thoylah Pillay Gooroova RajayahShendnaud Poorooshotum Pillay Ramanja Naicken
Shendmungalum Soobroyah Pillay Rachilla Reddy & Reddyapah ReddyYennadarymungalum Appah Pillay Ayahwayah5. TINDIVANUMWillavarum Vencatachellum Pillay Mullapah Reddy & Mootoo ReddyKillyenoor Soobrayah Pillay Comarapah Reddy & Ramalinga ReddyCondaoor Soobrayah Pillay Seenevasa AyengarRuttancy Cootiah Pillay Sangiaee AyahgMelpaukum Vencatachellum Pillay Moodoorama Reddy*Pundamungalum Armogum Pillay Soobah Reddy*Ashoor Mootana Pillay Soobah ReddyKottypaukum Nullatomby Pillay Condapah Reddy* & Tharah ReddyShervardy Nullatomby Pillay Mootoomulla Reddy* & Colakar CovendenDivanore Vencatachellum Pillay Rahee Gopallah PillayAhgoor Vencatachellum Pillay Vythenad Moodely & Mootoo Wodian ================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805.Note:* - They are recorded as Nattars in Table.II-2-6.
Gramattans' Oppression upon the Lower Classes In December 1805 Ravenshow submitted the detailed accounts of the Gramattans' embezzlements and over collection along with several evidences to prove their oppression upon the lower classes.Letter from Ravenshaw, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.Gramattans' extra assessments described by Ravenshaw were as indicated in Table.II-2-8:
TABLE.II-2-8GRAMATTAN'S EXTRA ASSESSMENTS =================================================================1. Rent of land, which the Gramattans persuade the Curnums not to bring to account but which they collect for themselves.2.
Rent of land, which has been remitted by government on account of the crops having failed, commonly called Shaver, but which the Gramattan has nevertheless collected from the ryots.3. Rent of land, deducted from the circar accounts by the Curnums as 'Sunnud enam Land' but which has turned out to be circar land, the Teerwah of which the Gramattans collected.4. Money advanced (to:T.M) the Gramattans for repairs of Tanks &ca., which work they make the villagers do, and never pay them for it.5. The allowances to village sibbendy vizt. Totty, blacksmith and carpenter, which the Gramattan has collected but not paid those people.6. Cooputum or a fee in grain extorted by the Gramattans under the late Government from the cultivators of Enam and other lands. It has since been abolished, but the Gramattans nevertheless collect it.7. Excess of collections above the circar demand made from the ryots on account of topes, &c.8. Fees collected by Gramattans from owners of cattle in another village which come to feed in his village.9. Fees from shop keepers &ca., in his village.10. Fees from ryots of another village who want to cultivate in his village.11. Fees from the ryots of his own village, on the plea of his being surety for payment of their rents.12. Fees from the ryots of his own village for settling disputes among them.13. Collection from the sale of trees belonging to government for building houses, firewood, &ca. =================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
According to Ravenshaw's description, Gramattans were just like petty poligars controlling their villages entirely, and their vested interest was so profitable as to have salable value. He also stated that the Raiyatwari Settlement was particularly aimed at confining the Gramattan to the cultivation of his own lands, and to the enjoyment of the allowances for his performing the duties of Puttah Monigar.Letter from Ravenshaw, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806, Paras. 4-7.
Ravenshaw thus carried out the Raiyatwari Settlement enthusiastically with the individual raiyats while eliminating the power of such local chiefs as Gramattans.Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, in BOR Proceedings, 17.7.1806.It can be taken quite natural that the Board's order to investigate the Nattars' privileges in 1804 mentioned above was never carried out by Ravenshaw if his objective in enforcing the Raiyatwari Settlement rested to suppress the head inhabitants' influence.At first the reason was not found why the requested report on the Nattars' privileges was not found in any sections of the Government records despite my search in the India Office Library & Records and in Tamilnadu Archives. Later I noticed that neither Macleod or Ravenshaw prepared the report intentionally because of their stand towards the Nattars.
Board's Order for Village Settlement in 1808 Meanwhile the opinion to introduce the Village Lease System became more and more stronger in the Board of Revenue at Madras as the investigation of Tanjore Commission progressed. In May 1808 the Board ordered Ravenshaw and all other collectors in South India to prepare for the Village Lease System. Ravenshaw seemed to be quite puzzled with this change of policy and enquired to the Board as follows: "I shall be glad to to know whether it is a leasing system by villages, for one or more, and how many years, or a permanent system , that is proposed."Letter from Ravenshaw, 10.5.1808, in BOR Procedings, 13.5.1808.
Village Settlement and After Anyhow the Village Settlement was introduced in 1808 for the term of three years and then for 10 years after that. It seems the oppressions of the renters were still found under the Village Lease System.N.Mukherjeee, The Ryotwari
System in Madras 1792-1827, Calcutta, 1962, p.95. The Nattars' role in the revenue administration or in the local society, however, could not become the topic of special attention in the revenue administration any longer. Their rights and privileges were discussed in the general issue regarding the treatment of inam or maniam.See for instance, Letter to BOR, 28.7.1825, in BOR Proceedings, 29.5.1817. Along with many other fees and privileges enjoyed by others, their long established rights were confined to the ownership of land plots. When the Raiyatwari System was finally enforced in the 1820's, some of them must have become big landowners. It is to be noted, however, that their status given in the Raiyatwari Settlement differed compleatly from what it had been before. To say in other words, Raiyatwari system was aiming at causing this change, which is clear enough by the above investigation.
II-2. NOTES
II-3. TIRUCHIRAPALLI
II-3. TRICHINOPOLY Trichinopoly (Tiruchirapalli) came under the Company's management in 1801. From the beginning of its rule till the final enforcement of Raiyatwari Settlement in the 1820s, the only system experienced was the village settlement, with many variations of terms of lease, types of rent, ways for assessment, and the treatments of privileged tenures. Another feature of the revenue administration to be noted in Trichinopoly was the distinctive application of regulations to the two types of ecological zone - dry region on one hand and wet region on the other. The southern portion of Trichinopoly is located along the Cauvery River and is known one of the richest irrigated regions in South India for rice production. The northern half is a dry area where the dry crops such as Cumbu, Cholam are raised and where the cattle raising is an important industry. Each of the region had its own distinctive social structure and the British administrators had to apply their regulations differently.
Nattars and Wallace's Village Settlement in 1801 In 1801 Wallace was appointed as the Collector of Trichinopoly and started his administration. Early in the next year he reported the progress of the revenue administration in the district - Village Settlement - and referred to the treatment of Nattars in some parts of the district. In Valiconda each village was rented separately to 'its head inhabitants or Nautaurs'. The only condition given to the renters was to collect the revenue without interfering in the cultivation of the lands. He states the reason of specifying this condition as follows: "...the Nautaurs of this district (Valiconda:T.M) are from the privileges they have long enjoyed more wealthy and more independant than any other class of people in this division. They have been accustomed to look upon themselves more as chiefs than subjects, and to regard their payments rather as a tributary peishcush than the just right of the circar. They have been in the habits of entertaining a number of followers, and of never attending personally on the public servants with the principle of whom they communicated by the means of their vakeels (agent) who constantly attended at the district cutcherry (office) not less for the purpose of being the channel of communication between the Amildar and their masters than for that of watching and counteracting the plans of the former."Letter from Wallace to BOR, 22.1.1802, in BOR Proceedings, 13.9.1802, Para.94.
It is inferred from this account that the Nattars had possessed quite independent power in the area and had been watching for a chance of counteracting the Government authority. The same type of Nattars were also found in Wodiarpollam (Udaiyarpalaiyam). Wallace states the reason of the extortions that the inhabitants had been induced to submit at the time he took chage of the area as follows: "...by renting out the district (Udaiyarpalaiyam:T.M) to the inhabitants of each Magaunum, the Nautaurs or head men became in a measure the managers of each Magaunum, the amount collected from their lands was purposely made light in order to induce them to second the plans of the managers while the whole severity of the rent fell on the poorer classes of land holders. As long as the head inhabitants of the districts appeared contented
with the arrangement the poorer were obliged to pay what was demanded of them without murmur, or if they dared to complain, fines, corporal punishment, or confinement was the result."Ibid., Para.134.
Nattar and Magaunum One of the important implications of this statement is the link of the Nattars' power base with the territorial unit 'Magaunum'. The 'Magaunum' is the unit having certain number of villages in it. The analysis of this unit will be done in the next chapter. At the moment it would be sufficient to note that the critical reason for Wallace to enforce Village Settlement was to eradicate the influence of such people having power in the several villages as Nattars. This is well expressed by the Wallace's following statement: "Altho' well aware of the trouble and delay which this mode of settlement (Village Settlement) would involve, and however desirous I was to come to a speedy settlement so as to forward the result to your Board, I yet saw the necessity of making a separate settlement with each village in order that I might prevent the undue advantage, which had I settled the amount of each Talook or Maugaunum, the head inhabitnats might take of the share of the rent than they ought in justice to pay..."Ibid., Para.183.
Abolition of Nattars' Privilege by Wallace The process of revenue assessment by Wallace was to classify the lands into several classes by the nature of soil, to calculate the average produce of the village for a series of years, then fix the assessment of each field variable in its rate according to the crops raised.Dickenson Report, 27.8.1827, in BOR Proceedings, 3.9.1827. Letter from Saunders, the Collector of Trichinopoly, 18.4.1825, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1825.
Wallace describes his method of fixing the total assessment in the wet taluks in Fusly 1212 as follows. In these taluks (Iloor, Laulgoody, Vittoocutty, Conaud) the settlement was formed on the 1,15,984 cawnies of Nunjai cultivation. The produce of 18,71,236 cullums of paddy (16.1 Cullums per Cawnie) was taken as the total produce from the lands, in which the Government share was 8,87,350 Cullums (47.4 per cent). Then the Government share was commuted to Star Pagodas 2,37,854.41.59 and the amount was the revenue for the year from the Nunjai lands of the taluks. The
estimated selling price in the town of Trichinopoly was taken at 21 1/2 Star Pagodas per Madras Garce of the different sorts of paddy produced in these districts, and from this standard price, the established cost of transport from each village to Trichinopoly was deducted in the settlement with the ryots.(Wallace's Jammabandi Report of Trichinopoly for Fusli 1212, in BOR Proceedings, 21.3.1803, p.2830-) In the course of assessing the village rent, he found that 'the Nautwars, or head men of the villages' had paid only half the tax levied on the other inhabitants in the dry part of the district. He regarded this exemption as an 'abuse' and abolished it in his settlement. He remarks: "After an investigation I have not been able to trace any good reason for this exemption. It appears that the Nautars had originally been answerable for the persons of the other inhabitants, but of late years this have been merely a pretext for the continuance of the favorable tax to them. As this exemption in favor of the Nautaurs appeared to me even originally to be merely an abuse, and as from the plan of security which I have adopted as to the payment of the revenues of the current Fusly, the interference or responsibility of Nautaurs has become wholly unnecessary, I have in the settlement with them put them on the same footing as the other inhabitants."Ibid., Paras.197-198. On receiving the Wallace's report on the abolishment of Nattars' privileged tenure, the Board judged his arrangement needs the confirmation from the Governor and also recommended to make an enquiry about it.Letter to Government, BOR Preoceedings, 28.9.1802, Paras.12-13. Two months later the Government as well as the Board expressed their satisfaction in abolishing the Nattars' privileges.Letter to the Collector of Trichinopoly, 26.11.1802, in BOR Proceedings, 26.11.1802.
Nattars' Privileges Revived in 1808 There had been no particular change of policy towards Nattars of Trichinopoly from this year to 1808, when the Nattars' privileges of the half assessment was revived in Turaiyur Taluk under the collectorship of Garrow. In 1808 Garrow reported to the BOR the Nattars' request to revive their privileges in Turaiyur region. He states that the 'Natamkars' (Nattars) of Turaiyur claimed the privilege of reduced assessment (half or a quarter) on their own cultivation. The Nattars stated to him that they and their ancestors had long enjoyed this privilege till the beginning of the Company rule. They
also represented that if the privileges were restored to them, they would not only make up the revenue annually but contribute to the resources of the district by increasing cultivation. Garrow accepted their request and recommended the revival of their privilege to the Board.Jamabandi Report for Fasli 1218 of Trichinopoly, Tamilnadu Archives, ASO(D) 354, p.8. Their privileges were revived.It is interesting to note that Garrow, who was a vehement supporter of Raiyatwari Settlement when he was in South Arcot, now accepted the Nattars' request. There was a distinct change of attitude towards Raiyatwari System and Village System around this time. See for detail, N.Mukherjee, The Ryotwari System in Madras 1792-1827, Calcutta, 1962, pp.65-96. This type of special reduction of assessment was not confined to the Nattars in the Turaiyur Taluk. Saunders, who was the Collector in the years 1823-26, reported in 1825 about the prevalence of special rates of assessment in all the dry region of the district.Letter from Saunders, 18.4.1825, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1825, Paras.24, 25. See also Dickenson's Report, 27.8.1827, in BOR Proceedings, 3.9.1827, Para.35. Table.II-3-1 shows the special rates found by Saunders to be in force in the year 1825. TABLE.II-3-1PRIVILEGED TENURES IN TRICHINOPOLY FOUND BY SAUNDERS IN 1825================================================================
1. Woodiarpolliam and ArialoreMahajanum and Bramin - 3/4 Pooravada or stranger Bramin - 9/16Resident Ryot - whole Ryot of a neighbouring village - 3/4
2. Terriore Mahajanam - 1/2
3. ValicondahNautaurs - 1/2
4. Dry villages in the two wet taluks of Laulgoody and Iyalore Brahmin - 1/2 Ryot of a neighbouring village - 1/2================================================
================Source: Letter from Saunders, 18.4.1825, Paras.24-25, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1825. See also Dickenson's Report, 27.8.1827, Para.35, in BOR Proceedings, 3.9.1827.Note:1. The special rate was allowed only in the Punja land.2. In some villages in the Valiconda(-poorum) Taluk Bramins were reported to have the privilege of being assessed 3/4th of the ordinary assessment whether the land be Nanja or Punja.The Mahajanums enjoyed light assessment in other parts of the district, too. There is an evidence indicating that the heads of villages in the Vittycutty Taluk were given inams lands which had been obtained through the influence of the Mahajanums. It runs as follows: "...in 30 villages of the Vittycutty Talook there were Enams in land enjoyed by the heads of villages... The Enams do not appear to be attached to the office of heads of villages but are supposed to have been obtained through the influence of the Mahajanums... Mr.Onslow...suggests that a light assessment should be imposed upon such portions of them as are now held entirely rent free in the same way as lands in other parts of the district enjoyed by Mahajanums." (BOR Proceedings, 16.11.1843, Paras.72-73)
MahajanumBefore following the revenue policy towards Nattar further, it would be
necessary to investigate the relation between Nattar and Mahajanum, who are included among those enjoying privileged tenures in the Table. The title 'Mahajanum' appears very often along with Nattar in the records of Trichinopoly of the period. Mahajanums were mainly found in the wet villages. This is quite natural as Brahmadeya villages had been donated to the Brahmins in the rich wet areas. Travers, the Collector of Trichinopoly, reported in 1809 about the Mahajanums' opposition against the village assessment in the wet area. It is known by the following report of Travers that the Mahajanums were mainly found in the wet villages (Neeraunrumbum), and that they were the head inhabitants there.
"...all these indulgences are possessed not by the immediate cultivator of the soil, who with his family are compelled to it, but by Bramins and others who having usurped authority are Moochelka to dispute with the officers of Government about the rent, and to pay to the Government part of the resources they exact from the labour of their subordinates; such is the situation of the Mahajanums in the Neeraunrumbum Talooks, whereas the situation of the renter and the management in the Caudaurumbum (dry:T.M) Talooks of Areaylore, Wodearpollam, and Torriore is quite the reverse...whereas the labor of the unfortunate Puller (agricultural labourour caste:T.M), in the wet districts goes towards enriching the Mahajanum under whom he may be deemed to subsistence of a little grain. I do not think the Mahajanums have so much reason to complain as the renters in the neighbouring dry talooks, who certainly sustain the same disadvantage with regard to the Buzar price and do not possess equal advantages with the Head Inhabitants of the wet Talooks..."Letter from Travers, the Collector in Trichinopoly, in BOR Proceedings, 11.12.1809. Mahajanums were, however, found not only in the wet area but also in the dry taluks of Trichinopoly as shown in the following account: "the number of circar villages in this district (Vittycutty :T.M) [is] 61...of this number 30 villages are wet or Neeraumbum and 25 dry or Caudarumbum. Amongst the latter number...there are 15 villages that have some Nunja or wet lands, the Puttahs for which have hitherto been given to the Mahajanums or Meerassadars and two or three Nautwar or Head ryots of each village united, the ryots being considered responsible for the revenue of the dry cultivation, and the Bramans for the wet...in the 15 dry villages where there is a mixture of wet and dry the Bramins have invariably refused to come to terms and the villages in consequence have been rented to the other Puttadars who are Natwars or Head rytots..."Letter from Travers, the Collector in Trichinopoly, in BOR Proceedings, 11.12.1809.
It seems Mahajanum was usually used as a title for leading Brahmins. For instance it is recorded in the Inam Commissioner's Proceeding in 1861 as follows:Proceedings of the Inam Commissioner, 14.12.1861, in Selections from the Records of the Madras Government, New (Revenue) Series, No.1, A Collection of Papers relating to the Inam Settlement in the Madras Presidency, Madras, 1906, pp.236-238.
"A considerable extent of Government land in the Taluqs of Torayur, Arialur and Udayarpalayam is held by prescription by Nattars and Mahajans or Brahmin communities on the favorable rate of one-half or three fourths of the old assessment." Another evidence from a village in Iyalore also indicates that Mahajanums belonged to the Brahmin caste. "In the village of Naugianellore in this Talook a custom exists which is not to be found in any other village in the district. Both Mauhajunams (Brahmins:Dickenson) and the ryots are assessed with only 1/2 teerwa."Dickenson's Report, 27.8.1827, Para.93, in BOR Proceedings, 3.9.1827.
It is, however, to be noted that the leader of the opposition movement in the wet area reported by Travers cited above is stated not a Brahmin but a man of Mudali caste coming from Malabar only recently even though he is called as Mahajanum. Travers continued as follows: "The leader of this party I suspect to be a Malabar man of the Moodely cast who from having commenced life in a low station has advanced himself by degrees to be one of the principal renter in this province, I have been informed that he possessed himself of the lands he now holds from some Mahajanums who from folly or distress were obliged to apply to him for pecuniary aid, in return of for which their lands have fallen a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of principal and interest on loans granted merely for their accommodation. It is only a few years since that this man had not one cawnie of ground whereas at this moment he is the Mahajanum of nearly 5,000
Cawnies."Letter from Travers, the Collector in Trichinopoly, in BOR Proceedings, 11.12.1809.
It cannot be judged from this account that the leader was really the man of Moodily caste, as there is a possibility that this man coming from Malabar is suspected by Travers to have concealed his caste identy. Further evidences are required to verify whether Mahajanum were consisted of only Brahmins in the region. Judging from the contents of this account, it may be generally observed that Mahajanums were linked to the wet area and wet lands in the dry area whereas the Nattars were linked to the dry area. Another contrast can be also observed that the Mahajanums were linked to the Brahmins whereas the Nattars were linked to the non-Brahmin raiyats.
Attempts to Deprive Nattars' Privileges After two years of the reinstatement of Nattars' privileges or in Fusly 1220 (1810-11), Travers, the Collector after Garrow, reported to the Board that the resources of the Taluk had so much fallen off in consequence of the tyranny and oppression practiced by them that he had found it necessary to compel them to pay the full amount of Teerwa in the same way that Wallace had done before.Dickenson Report, in BOR Proceedings, 3.9.1827, Para.39. His report, however, was not taken notice of by the Board of Revenue at Madras. Next time the privileges enjoyed by the Nattars became the matter for discussion was at the time when Saunders was a collector. In 1825 he reported to the BOR the various privileges prevalent in the district as was indicated in Table.II-3-1. He thought these practices were the cause of abuses. For instance Brahmins had enjoyed the privilege of the half assessment not only on his own lands but also on the lands which they newly acquired and which had been assessed fully preivously. He therefore requested the Board to assess the land at its full value and then grant such remissions as person, by prescriptive right, appeared to be entitled to.Letter from Saunders, the Collector of Trichinopoly, 18.4.1825, Paras.26-28, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1825. His proposal was, however, again
neglected by the Board. Saunders's attempt to deprive the Nattars of their privileged tenures was followed by his successor, Dickenson. After Dickenson was appointed as a collector, there came numerous complaints to him from the Tahsildar as well as from the inhabitants complaining the 'acts of oppression committed by these people (Nattars:T.M) and of their disinclination to pay obedience to any legitimate authority.'Dickenson Report, in BOR Proceedings, 3.9.1827, Para.41. At the time Garrow restored the former privileges to the Nattars in 1808 he took Moochilkas (written oath) from them, in which the following conditions were specified:1. they engaged not to extend the limits of the land they were then permitted to hold on the payment of 1/2 teerwa, 2. in consideration of the benefits bestowed upon them they would by all means in their power encourage the extension of the cultivation of the circar lands,3. they would assist in the collection of circar dues, and 4. they would only employ their own servants in the cultivation of their lands, never availing themselves of the services of the circar ryots for that purpose.Ibid., Para.41.
These Moochilkas were, however, not found at all despite the search for them by Dickenson. Dickenson suspected that the Nattars destroyed the documents through some servants of the Cutchery by bribery. He remarks: "The consequence is that they have made such encroachments, that the greater part of the villages in which they hold lands has now fallen into their hands, the whole of their cultivation being carried on by person who before cultivated as ryots of the circar, and so far from their being of the slightest service to the public officers of the Government, they by their oppression of the other inhabitants, by preventing them from grazing their cattle on the waste lands of the villages to all of which they appear to have assumed a right and by other means, are the eternal cause of disputes and trouble. They moreover appear in great measure to answer the description given of them by Mr.Wallace since they seem to set the authority of the Tahsildar at defiance, and by their show of independence to encourage all others in every
possible way to oppose authority."Ibid., Para.41.
Thus stating the power of the Nattars, Dickenson requested the Board that the Nattars' privileges should be at least reduced into limits much narrower than those they enjoyed at the time, if it was impossible to abolish them altogether.Ibid., Para.42.
The assertion of these collectors was, however, not taken notice of by the Board.
Neglect of Collectors' Proposal and Its Reason The reason why the Government did not or could not deprive the Nattars of their notorious privileges for a long time despite the frequent request of the Collectors is not known. It is supposed that the possible reason is the power and influence of the Nattars in the localty, which is clearly exemplified by the following incidence occurred in 1805 in the region. In April 1805 the Acting Collector, Kinlock, reported to the BOR about the attack of the Tahsildar's Cutcherry (office) by the inhabitants of Terriore (Turaiyur) Mohal with arms.Eight of the Guards were wounded by the assault.(BOR Proceedings, 24.6.1805, Para.22) After the assault they ran off to the Salem District. But 'finding themselves not received by the villagers of that country', they applied for a cowl (permission) to return to their villages, which was granted to all except their headman Nullapah Reddy. After a few days, the people submitted the petition requesting the reduction of tax and the cowl to Nullapah Reddy. The names of the petitioners are indicated in Table.II-3-2:Letter from Kinlock to BOR, 27.4.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.5.1805.
Since the submittance of this petition, another leader of them, Vassy Reddy, a complainant at Madras, returned to Terriore and advised the inhabitants not to pay any of the kists until they obtained further reduction. He assembled the inhabitants in different parts and formed an account of the remissions to be demanded at Madras. The assembly of the inhabitants were reported from various parts of the area. The PeshcarAccording to the Wilson's
Glossary, Peshcar was a subordinate revenue officer. (H.H.Wilson, A Glosssary of Judicial and Revenue Terms and of Useful Words occurring in Official Documents..., 2nd ed., Delhi, 1968, pp.168, 331. of Wotatore and of Trepatore Magaunums reports about the assembly of the inhabitants of Setticolum Maganum and of Uttatore Maganum. The Peshcar of Setticolum reported that in Setticolum Maganum the inhabitants were assembled, and people were posted at different places to watch the arrival of the circar people. The inhabitants of the Topoy, Totchancoorchy, and Troopadien Maganum were assembled, and people of Servalapore were also assembled on the advise of Vasava Reddy and Nullapa Reddy. It was also reported that two Reddies were going to Madras with the revenue accounts to demand the revenue remission.
As a result of such agitation the revenue of 18,180 Pagodas became due. Troubled by this situation, Kinlock asked the BOR as to the measure to be taken and the Board directed the investigation on the appropriateness of the grounds for granting remission.Letter from Kinlock to BOR, in BOR Proceedings, 2.5.1805. Letter to the Principal Collector in Tanjore and Trichinopoly, 3.5.1805.
TABLE.II-3-2NAMES OF PETITIONERS IN TERRIORE MOHAL ================================================================= NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS -----------------------------------------------------------------Teerootaliyore Iyen Settycolum Vengata Reddy Vengotummalasamootium Sadoovien Woopoolypoorum Vengata Reddy Valavundy Teeroovengodien Mungalumpady Nullapaodien Mungalum Gopalien and Naranien Eroogalore Vengata Reddy Cunnagoody Ramabutra Iyen Auyegoody Adicya Gounden
Sungamarajapoorum Vengadasa Iyen Vadacooputty Moodoo Reddy Varagoody Mootaloo Reddy Valujore Kistna Reddy Poodore Nullapa Reddy Seroganore Vengata Reddy Keerumbalore Sellapermala Gounden Caurymanicum Vayedeya Gouden Mangooly Moodoo Reddy Terriore Cusba Kundojee Row=================================================================Source: Letter from Kinlock to BOR, 27.4.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.5.1805.
After a month Wallace reported the situation of the area where 'order was not restored in that district so soon as I expected, a spirit of insubordination prevailed among the ryots which it took some time to conquer'. Some of the leaders seemed to have gone to Madras, and Wallace requested the Board to send them back to his Cutcherry under restraint lest they should cause further 'confusion and subordination which has prevailed in Terriore since April last'. Wallace sent the following list of the inhabitants who had gone to Madras and the Board accordingly requested a warrant to be issued.Letter from the Principal Collector in Tanjour and Trichinopoly, 20.7.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 29.7.1805.
1. TERRIOREMootoo Reddy of MaungoodyVasuva Reddy of TaupayKistna Reddy of ValioonVencata Reddy of Settycolum
2. VALICONDAPOORAMCunnum Reddy alias Lingah Reddy of SeenganumVerdachella Reddy of SeenganumArunachella Reddy of WodambiamChinnam Reddy of Poolambady
This incidence indicates the power and influence of the leaders of the area. Though it is not clearly stated in these reports whether the leaders
were the Nattars or not, It is beyond doubt that some of the leaders named above were the Nattars. This is indicated by the following report to the Government from the Board of Revenue on 25 June 1805. "...from the time of the Carnatic being transferred to the British authority the head inhabitants throughout these territories have pursued measures for securing to themselves the oppressive influence they possessed over the cultivating ryots... To eradicate a system of such oppression has been a constant object of solicitude in Government... Towards the accomplishment of these salutary purposes we have advanced by degrees in changing the former mode of letting out large tracts of country to a single person, as practised under the Nabob's management, to the renting villages separately..."BOR Proceedings, 24.6.1805, Paras. 17-19.
If we compare this with the statement of Wallace cited above, it can be well elucidated that the leaders of the opposition movement were Nattars. Such power and influence of the Nattars found in these reports must be the very reason why the Government could not deprive their privileges for as long as half a century. Final Disposal of Nattars' Privileges by Inam Commission There were still some more attempts to reduce the privileges enjoyed by the Nattars. In 1843 the Board of Revenue made investigation about the privileged tenures in the district. It seems they could not get accurate information, but anyhow directed the prohibition of the sale of the privileged tenures. Inamdars (including Nattars) were intimated that they had no right to dispose of the lands by sale. Any sale of them would be considered equivalent to a lapse by death. Cases of lapses should be submitted to the Board for orders. It was also directed that any portions of the lands under the privileged tenure long abandoned should be resumed.BOR Proceedings, 16.11.1843, Para.74. G.O.No.547, Revenue, 12.3.1862, in Proceedings of the Inam Commissioner, 14.12.1861, pp.236-238.
In the 1850s the subject of the privileged tenure was taken up again for
re-consideration, as the time for renewing the assessment in the raiyatwari area was approaching. The Raiyatwari Settlement then in force in Trichinopoly was actually a very funny mixture of the pre-existed landed tenures and the newly introduced raiyatwari principle. The principle of Raiyatwari Settlement was to fix the assessment of each land plot for long and to expect the increase of revenue collection through the extention of cultivated area. There the status of cultivator (or tax-payer) had to have nothing to do with the assessment. In Trichinopoly, however, the actual collection from each plot had to be changed according to the status of cultivators. This was quite irregular in the Raiyatwari Settlement.
To remedy such irregularities, the Board issued a circular to the Collectors of Bellary, North Arcot, and Trichinopoly in 1854. It was ordered by the circular that 'the assessment shall be on the land, and not depend on the description of produce or the hitherto admitted claims of certain classes, as Bramins, Mahajuns, Mahommedans, Paracoodies and others to reduced rates' in the coming Raiyatwari Settlement.BOR Proceedings, 31.8.1854, pp.11493, 11503-11508. Finally in the course of Inam Commission in the 1860s all the privileged tenures including that of Nattars were taken up for disposal, and it was decided that a quit-rent equal to one-fourth of the land's value was to be 'enfranchised'The meaning of 'enfranchisement' is that the lands can be converted to the private holding by paying the quit-rents of a certain number of years at a time. (H.Nakamura, An Inam Village in South India - a Case Study of Abinnimangalam Village - , in Studies of Agrarian System in Indian History, ed. by Toru Matsui, University of Tokyo Press, 1972, in Japanese) to the Nattars. Totally 10,890 acres were enfranchised to the inams of Nattar, Panguvalli, and Pativalli in the district.District Gazetteer of Trichinopoly, pp.238-239. G.O. No.547, Revenue, 12.3.1862, in Proceedings of the Inam Commissioner, 14.12.1861, pp.236-238.
According to Wilson's Glossary, the meaning of Panguvali is as follows: 'a village held in common by a certain number of coparceners, amongst whom the lands are distributed at various times, according to the votes of the
majority of the sharers, and are held in severalty for a given time under such distribution.'(H.H.Wilson, A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue terms and of useful words occurring in official documents..., 2nd. ed., Delhi, 1968.)The term of Pativali is not recorded in the Glossary. As the meaning of Pati- is equal to 'Pangu' or share, it must be equivalent to Arudicarei type of village which was held in divided share. If Pativali can be defined as such, Panguvali is equivalent to the so-called 'Kareiyidu' type of village. (See Baden Powell, The land Systems of British India, Vol.III, Repr., 1974, p.118)
II-3. NOTES
II-4. SUMMARY
II-4. SUMMARY
We have been tracing the Nattars of the three districts in the early revenue administration in South India. It is clarified by the investigation that they were found throughout the three districts at the beginning of the Company's management and found to be influential in the local society, though to different degrees in different regions. Their treatment in the revenue administration in the respective districts can be summarised as follows.
Chingleput(Jagir)1. Nattars were found to be very influential and to act in the locality as representatives of the people in the negotiation of all the transactions with the government when W.Hastings made a survey in the region in 1771. 2. When the region was leased out in fifteen farms in 1783, Nattars were not found among the revenue farmers. However, there were some evidences showing that some Nattars were employed in the government administration as ac
countants or census enumerators. 3. In 1790 the region was parcelled out into small 'allotments' (probably village) and was rented out to the principal or head inhabitants. Nattars were probably among the renters of the 'allotments'. 4. Place, who took the collectorship in 1794, met the strong resistance from the inhabitants against his attempt to enforce Village Settlement. Faced with the agitation, Place recognized the influence and usefulness of the Nattars in the revenue administration. He, therefore, requested the Board of Revenue pressingly the appointment of Nattar as the intermediary revenue officer between the collector and the inhabitants. The Board of Revenue, which had been informed the malpractices of the Puttuckdar in Tanjore who were thought to be equivalent to the Nattars in the Jagir, approved the Place's proposal conditionally after serious arguments with the Governor and Council who were in favor of the Place's proposal. 5. Nattars were appointed in the respective purgannahs in 1797. They were expected to perform the duties to extend cultivation, to improve the revenue, to gather information, and to assist in making Jummahbundy (revenue assessment). For these duties, they were confirmed or newly granted the privileges of Shrotriums (lands with nominal rent), Maniam (tax-free land), and higher Warum (share in the produce). 6. These Nattars thus appointed were, however, destined to be abolished in 1799 when the Permanent Zamindari Settlement was ordered to be introduced by the Home Authority. The region was to be divided into 60 Zamindaris and was to be auctioned out in 1802. Their role in the revenue administration became totally unnecessary as the assessments of the Zamindaris were to be permanently fixed. From the time of this order, the main issue about the Nattars in Chingleput became the one about the disposal of their privileges.7. Though the Zamindari Settlement were not successful and the Village Settlement or Raiyatwari Settlement was re-introduced in the area, the Nattars never became the subject for discussion in the revenue administration.8. Among the three privileges granted to the Nattars in Place's time, only the Shrotrium was allowed to be possessed in and after the Zamindari Settle
ment. The Shrotriums continued to be enjoyed by them till the 1860s when the Inam Commission reconfirmed them in most of the cases.
Tiruvendipuram1. When Tiruvendipuram was occupied by the Company in 1750, six Nattars took the lease. They claimed to be the descendants of the original Nattars who opened the country.2. The farm was auctioned in 1756, which the Nattars failed to bid. The outsiders became the renter.3. The Nattars enjoyed the privileges of 10 per cent landlord rent from the lands cultivated by others, higher share in the produce, 25 per cent deduction of their rents, the right of mortgage, fees on the goods, and the maniam land. These privileges were officially abolished by the Company in 1768, but most of them continued to be enjoyed even after. 4. The Nattars requested the restoration (actually reconfirmation) of their former privileges in 1775. All except their landlord rent were restored to them in the year.5. Their privileges were again abolished in 1779. The reason is not known. 6. The Nattars were once again reinstated in their post in 1786. They were expected to improve the cultivation. Instead of restoring to their old privileges, however, they were granted five per cent allowance upon the net annual revenue from the farm. The six Nattars were to receive the allowance according to their entitled share before their office was abolished in 1779.7. The five per cent allowance was withheld to be granted to the Nattars in 1802 by Garrow who was keen to introduce the Raiyatwari Settlement in the district. The same policy was followed by Macleod who was appointed as the Collector in 1804. Another five per cent allowance for the Nattars to maintain the Pagodas and Chatrums for Brahmins was also stopped in the same year. 8. In 1804 the Board ordered Macleod to prepare for the permanent Zamindari
Settlement in Tiruvendipuram. Tiruvendipuram was proposed to be divided into seven Zamindari estates (including one for the Poligar) and be auctioned out.9. The five per cent allowance for Pagodas and Chatrum was decided to be collected by the proprietors of the Zamindari estates and to be paid to the persons in charge of the Chatrum and Pagodas.10. As to their own five per cent allowance, the Nattars requested its continuance in the coming Permanent Zamindari Settlement.11. The Nattars, then, offered to become the proprietors of the Zamindari estates on condition the estates would not be put up for sale and their five per cent allowance should be enjoyed by them.12. The government finally decided to give the estates to the Nattars on condition that the Nattars should relinquish all their future claims to any privileges except the five per cent allowance amounting to 490 pagodas. The amount was to be divided in proportion to the respective Nattar's share and was to be granted as pension for life. 13. The estates were transferred to the Nattars in the Permanent Zamindari Settlement in 1807.14. After the Zamindari Settlement there often occurred division of the estates either by sale, inheritance, or by resumption by the Government due to revenue arrears. The Nattars gradually disappeared from the region.
South Arcot1. Graham, the first collector who was appointed in 1801 when the main part of South Arcot was obtained by the Company, introduced the Village Settlement. The renters who took the lease were the Nattars and other head inhabitants. 2. Garrow who took the collectorship in 1802 changed the policy and tried hard to introduce the Raiyatwari Settlement to destroy the influence of the head inhabitants.3. Many head inhabitants agitated against the Raiyatwari Settlement by absconding to somewhere or by petitioning directly to the Board in Madras.
4. Garrow's stand was not changed at all by these movement. His object to deprive the head Inhabitants' power was also directed towards the Nattars. Some of the Nattars' privileges such as fees, higher share in the produce, and the tax-free lands without authentic sunnads were all resumed.5. Macleod who succeeded Garrow in 1804 followed his predecessor's policy and met the same opposition movement by the head inhabitants. His firm stand did not change and he suggested to stop the allowances customarily enjoyed by the head inhabitants called Gramattan or Nattar.6. Ravenshow, who was appointed as the Collector in 1805, was also a vehement supporter of the Raiyatwari Settlement. He tried to discover and recover the concealed revenue, and to find out the 'frauds' or unauthorized collection by the head inhabitants. In its course he faced once again the strong opposition movement from the Nattars, Curnums, Gramattans and other inhabitants. He punished them severely by fines, confinement, etc. 7. Ravenshaw was, however, ordered to enforce the Village Settlement by the Board of Revenue in 1808. The Raiyatwar Settlement was abolished and the Village Lease System was enforced from 1808. The Nattars never became the topic in revenue administration since then.
Trichinopoly1. As soon as the region was obtained by the Company in 1801, Wallace started to introduce the Village Settlement. In its course he found the Nattars who had acted as renters of the Magaunums in certain parts of the district.2. Wallace judged the influence of the Nattars to be injurious to the administration, so that he positively decided to enforce the village settlement to eradicate the Nattars' power over wider region. 3. At the same time Wallace abolished the Nattars' privilege of being taxed
only half in 1801-02.4. The Nattars' privileges were restored in 1808 by Garrow when they proposed to contribute to increase the revenue if the privileges were restored. The request was granted and they continued to enjoy the privileges notwithstanding the several proposal to abolish them by the successive collectors.5. Even in the Raiyatwari Settlement introduced in the 1820's, the rates of assessment of each plot was changed according to the castes and the residence of the raiyats. Nattars continued to enjoy the special treatment of being assessed only half.6. In the new Raiyatwari Settlement enforced in the 1860s such privileged tenures as were enjoyed by the Nattars and others were ordered to be abolished. 7. By the Inam Commission in the 1860s their privileges were confirmed as inam lands for which they pay lowly fixed assessment (quit-rent).
The Nattars were thus treated variously in the different regions in the early revenue administration by the English East India Company. Because of the Nattars' power and influence in the local society Place tried hard to appoint them as revenue officers in Chingleput. By the same reason Garrow, Macleod, Ravenshaw, and Wallace tried hard to deprive them of their power by introducing Raiyatwari System or Village Lease System. The degree of changes experienced by the Nattars had to differ from system to system and from region to region. Where the Permanent Zamindari System was enforced like in Tiruvendipuram, they were given the opportunity to become Zamindars in the region. Where the village system was enforced like in Trichinopoly, or in South Arcot under Graham, they became the village renters. Where the Raiyatwari Settlement was enforced like in South Arcot, their various rights in the locality were in
most of the cases destroyed or confined into the respective land plots.
The Raiyatwari System was finalized in South India through Munro at Home in the 1810s and the system was enforced in the area where the previous land systems were expired. The various rights existent in the local society were steadily simplified to the ownership of land plots. The relation between the various communities in the locality was gradually replaced by the simple relation between the individuals on the concerned plots. There was no other chance for the Nattar to re-establish his power except by increasing their landholding and controling the people engaged in production on their plots. Such type of control was, however, qualitatively different from that in the pre-British period. Not only the Nattars' influence in the locality was reduced to a great extent but also the nature of their power was transformed by the colonial rule. We will investigate this subject in the next chapter, where the roles, rights, and powers of Nattars in the pre-colonial period are taken up for study in more detail.JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5
III-1. OFFICIAL ROLES OF NATTAR
CHAPTER III. NATTAR IN THE LOCAL SOCIETY IN PRE-BRITISH PERIOD
By the investigation in the previous chapter, changes of the Nattars' position in the early British period was clarified. Nattars' roles, positions, and power were also indicated to a certain extent by the study so far done. In this chapter we will attempt to clarify the Nattars' official roles in the revenue administration, economic activities they performed, and their position in the local society in the pre-British period.
III-1. OFFICIAL ROLES OF NATTAR Nattars' official activities in the pre-British period were multi-dimensional. They were engaged in administrative, religious, commercial, and judicial activities in the period. The most important among them was the administrative activity especially in the revenue administration.
III-1A. NATTAR IN REVENUE ADMINISTRATION
Revenue Administration in the Newly Conquered Area Before investigating how the Nattars were involved with the revenue administration, we will see how the revenue collection were actually done in the newly conqured territory in the period. The Diary written by Ananda Ranga Pillai, who was the chief interpreter-cum-merchant in Pondichery under French Governor, Dupleix, in the mid-18th century gives interesting information on this subject.The Private Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, Vols.I-XII, Madras, 1904-1928, translated and edited by J.F.Price, K.Rangachari, and H.Dodwell. To be abbreviated as Diary of A.R.Pillai hereafter.
In the year 1749 the French occupied Villiyanallur and Bahur purgannahs. Dupleix had made efforts to acquire the area since 1746 through Imam Sahib, who was the high official under Nizam Nasir Jang at Deccan.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 20.11.1746, 28.4.1747, 15.7.1747, 1.2.1748, 10.6.1748, 8.7.1748, 4.8.1748. As this attempt was not successful, Dupleix obtained the purwanah (permission to collect revenue) for Villiyanallur from the son of Chanda SahibThe French assisted Chanda Sahib on condition of obtaning the Villiyanallur and Bahur area. (Diary of A.R.Pillai, 10.7.1748, foot note) and prepared to occupy Villiyanallur by force in July 1749.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 10.7.1749. Ten days later Dupleix ordered to tie toranams (young coconut leaves tied in festoons across a village street in token of possession)Diary of A.R.Pillai, 21.7.1749. in the 40 villages in the purgannah and to hoist flags
to indicate that the area was placed under the French.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 21.7.1749. It is recorded several days later that the sepoys captured two or three writers in the region and secured the revenue accounts as well. The Governor then ordered to proclaim in the villages that cowles would be given fixing the rates for dry lands either on Warum (division of produce) or on fixed-rent.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 27.7.1749. Bahur was also occupied in the same way in October of the same year.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 23.10.1749. According to the account of 1 November 1749 of the Diary, Ranga Pillai, one of the Company writers, was appointed as the Amildar, and Savarimuttu, the head peon, was appointed as the poligar of both purgannahs. The former was in charge of collecting revenue and the latter of maintaining order. It is known from these evidences that the following procedures were taken to start collecting revenues in the newly conquered areas:1. To obtain a purwanah from the overlord. In this case they obtained purwanah from Chanda Sahib, the Nawab for the French.2. To tie toranams and hoist flags in all the villages to declare who became the sovereign power.3. To secure the previous revenue officers and revenue accounts.4. To proclaim the ways for revenue assessment.5. To appoint Amildar and Poligar for civil and police administration.
Amildar Next point to be studied is the nature of the Amildars' office, ways of collecting revenue in the locality, and their relation with Nattar. The main duty of Amildars was to be sure the revenue collection. But they were so to speak civil officers in charge not only of revenue collection but of many other aspects of civil administration of the Government. The below are some of the accounts on Amildars' activities recorded in the Diary of A.R. Pillai.1. "he (Dupleix:T.M) ordered me to write to Nawab Anwar-ud-din Khan...'As
our troops will march through your villages, we have commanded that no disturbances be made; and we request that you will order your amaldars (amildar:T.M) at Tiruviti, Panruti, Villiyanallur, Venkatampettai and Bhuvanagiri, etc., villages, to supply our people with rice, dhal, provisions, straw, and other necessaries, for which the full price shall be paid.'... Other letters were written to the amaldars of Tiruviti, Villiyanallur, Bhuvanagiri and Villupuram, saying, 'our forces will pass through your villages on their way against Fort St.David... Whatever they need you should supply.'"Diary of A.R.Pillai, 13.1.1748.
2. "Mir Asad has written to Conjeeveram, Tiruvottiyur, and other places within his jurisdiction, and to Ananta Aiyan, enjoining upon the amaldars of all villages where cloth are manufactured for the French, to withhold the supply of goods for Pondichery... Consequently, there is a pause in the supply of cloths."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 2.9.1742.
3. "I (A.R.Pillai:T.M)) replied, 'the Salem merchants owed me large sums and delayed payments. So I wrote to Nandi Raja (Dewan of Mysore:T.M) asking him to speak sharply to them and make them pay. Nandi Raja wrote to the amaldar at Salem who summoned the merchants, spoke sharply to them, and got my money.'"Diary of A.R.Pillai, 24.10.1755.
4. "The Governor then asked if the amaldars at Tiruviti had hindered the soldiers from catching fish. I replied, 'The sale proceeds of fish go to the Sarkar (state:T.N) according to the lease. Fish can be had for money.'"Diary of A.R.Pillai, 4.8.1756.
From these accounts in the Diary it is known that Amildars were posted in the important places (1), and their roles were to supply the army with provisions (1), to supervise the weavers, and the sale of cotton goods (2), to supervise the merchants (3), or to manage the sale proceeds of fishing (4). There is another account about the duties of Amildar in the Tiruvendipuram
Report. It runs as follows: "The Amuldar (Amildar:T.M) was the Circar superintendent in the 26 villages - a person who transacted the business of Government in them and who collected the Government's share of the Revenue in the whole Farm; his office was not hereditary but only during pleasure, and he had no other allowance made to him but an annual stipend, which was paid him by the Circar... The other particulars of the Amuldar's duty were to have a general survey made of all the lands in those 26 villages, and to settle the best method for improving and cultivating them which latter duty he usually performed by the advice of the Nattars, to survey likewise the Yaries, tanks, and water courses, and if any considerable repairs should be found wanting to any of them he was to make those repairs at the expense of the Circar - but if the repairs wanted were only trifling he might oblige the Nattars and other husbandmen of those villages...to send a number of coolies...to advance the Circar's money when necessary to the different husbandmen towards enabling them to cultivate the lands. He had authority to settle all disputes between the husbandmen."Tiruvendipuram Report, pp.3-4.
By this account, it is known that 1. The Amildar was not a local officer but an officer of the central government posted in the area for certain years. 2. He performed various duties such as surveying lands, maintaining irrigational facilities, promoting cultivation, or settling disputes. 3. These duties were usually performed by the advice of the Nattars.Some Amildars seemed to possess military power. For instance it is recorded in the Diary that the Amildar of Gingee occupied Tirukkoyilur Temple with two or three hundred peons and a hundred horses (Diary of A.R.Pillai, 30.7.1748). Such case is, however, exceptional. The nature of Amildar post was more like civil officer the power of which was accrued only from the posting by the Government. For instance Vali Muhammad, Amildar of Tiruppasur, moved to Madras and became an ordinary merchant (Diary of A.R.Pillai, 11.9.1746). Another instance is the Amildars of Wandiwash area, who were expelled from their posts and were replaced by new Amildars due to the change of their ruler (from Muhammad Ali Khan to Munawar-ud-din Khan)(Diary of
A.R.Pillai, 16.2.1748).Poligars seemed to be placed under the Amildars. It is stated in the
Tiruvendipuram Report that "under him (Amildar:T.M) were placed the Polygar and 4 watchers, also all the village servants in those 26 villages..."(p.3, Para.14) Another case to indicate it is case of the poligars of Arrialore, Warriopollam, and Terriore. It is reported that the poligars of these areas were placed under the amildar. "The fact is, that they (Poligars of Arrialore, Warriorpollam, and Terriore:T.M) are more powerful than any of the Tinnevelly Polygars; but, having formerly, as in the present instances been brought under the displeasure of the Nabob's government, by the tyranny and exaction of his own officers...from the nature of country, however, the internal management is still in the hands of the Amildar over the Polygars, who, by a fiction, are termed, renters of their own Pollams." (Revellion of the Poligars of Warriorpollam, Ariyalur and Turaiyur Poligars against the Nabob's Government, Extract of Political Letter from FSG, 17.10.1797, in Board's Collections, Vol.42, pp.1-9)
Nattar and Amildar These duties of Amildar were usually performed with the help of Nattars as stated above. This is quite natural as Amildars were not the representatives of the local society but the officers posted from elsewhere by the Government. They did not know much about the local conditions so that they needed some one to assis them. This was also the case with Ranga Pillai, who had been the Company writer in Pondichery but was appointed as the Amildar of Villiyanallur and Bahur purgannahs. It is easy to imagine that this newly-appointed Amildar found it hard to collect revenue in the two purgannahs where nearly 80 villages located. Ranga Pillai, therefore, had to depend on the local establishment for collecting revenue, and it was the Nattar who did col
lection in the locality under the Amildar. The collection of revenue by the Nattars is implied by the receipt issued to the four Nattars of Bahur and Villiyanallur areas. It was as follows: "Receipt...to Appu Mudali, Chokkampattu Venkatapati Reddi, Kirumamapakkam Saruva Reddi and Chilkala Venkatapati Reddi, Nattars of the Villiyanallur and Bahur countries, for 300 Star Pagodas paid to the Sarkar today...for the year Dhathu(1756-57) according to their account of receipts and issues."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 18.7.1757. Another receipt with the same contents except the amount is recorded in the Diary of the same day. The receipts were issued by A.R.Pillai.
Actually it was impossible to perform the duties of Amildar without the co-operation of the Nattars. This is clearly indicated by the confession of Ranga Pillai. It runs as follows: "How can cultivation go on unless the Nattar and cultivators respect and obey the Amaldar ?"Diary of A.R.Pillai, 19.12.1749.
This account shows that the Nattars' co-operation was indispensable for Amildars for their administration.
The co-operation between Amildar and Nattar in revenue administration can be also seen in the Jagir at the time of Place's collectorship. Place wrote to BOR on 18 July 1796 about the strong opposition of the mirasidars of Perimboid village in Ponnary purgannah against the village rent. The incidence was as follows: The tank of the village was repaired by the Company's expense, so that the villagers were demanded higher rent than before. As the villagers rejected it and would neither cultivate by themselves or admit Pyacarries (cultivators from outside), the newly appointed Amildar requested the villagers 'in presence of the Nautawars and several of the surrounding villages people' to cultivate the lands, which was again rejected. The villagers were therefore sent by the Amildar to Place. Place fixed a lower rent for the village 'upon
the opinion of the Nautawars'. This rent was, however, rejected as well. The villagers were assembled in the presence of Place, and the latter made an enquiry into this matter with the Amildar and the Nattars. As the villagers would not take the cultivation, and moreover had secretly drained all the water in the tank, the headman was confined. The headman 'by persuation of the Nautawars' finally accepted the demand upon certain conditions.Letter from the Collector, 18.7.1796, in BOR Proceedings, 21.7.1796.
Another incidence is reported in the Place's letter.BOR Proceedings, 16.3.1797. When there occurred a dispute regarding the village boundary between the inhabitants of Cultravadoo village and Pullee village in the Poonamallee district, the Collector deputed 'the Peshcar, the head Nauttawar and a Mahatady Peon of Poonamallee' officially by the information of the Amildar of the place. The 'examination of Vencata Narnapah a Nauttawar of Poonamallee' is also recorded in the same Proceedings for consideration.Extract Proceedings of the BOR, 16.3.1797, in Board's Collections, 940-941, Vol.36, pp.31, 85. As to the reason why the appointment of Nattar was necessary, Place stated in other part of his letter to the Board that the main reason was their familiarity with the local society. It runs as follows: "The influence of the Nauttawars over the Ryotts is a main object in the appointment...their duty inclines them equally procure justice to the ryots, and relief when he may stand in need, as promote the public revenue, by encouraging him to exertion, and by dissipating his apprehensions of any thing that is new, or intended as improvement, which a familiar intercourse, not to be expected with the superior authority of the country puts fully in their power."Letter from the Collector in the Jaghire, 16.7.1796, in Board's Collections, 940-941, Vol.36.
The BOR was of the same opinion with Place on the nature of the Nattars. "...institution of the office of Natwar by the Mahomedan government was principally to assist the Circar at the period of forming the jummabundy, by
committing them in a great degree to a few persons, themselves inhabitants, and placing in hands whose interests from nature and connection cannot be supposed distinct from those of the bulk of the people..."Letter from the Collector in the Jaghire, 16.1.1797, Diary to Consultation, 18.7.1797, in Board's Collections, 940-941, Vol.36.
It is evident from these evidences that Nattars were men of the local society and were appointed by the Government to assist the Amildars in revenue administration.
In the case of Tiruvendipuram, the Nattars assisted the Amildar in improving and cultivating the lands in the 26 villages as cited above. In other part of the Report of Tiruvendipuram, some more detail of the Nattars' activities is recorded. It is as follows: "at the period when the Rajah was induced to hold out such liberal encouragement to the ancient ryots or Nuttawars of other districts as might probably excite them to repair to and settle on the Farm, and convert progressively into arable land... Whatever services may have been performed by their ancestors and since the war of 1782 with Hyder Ally Cawn by some of the present Nuttawars themselves in clearing the grounds from wood and jungle, deepening and repairing the Yarees, tank and water channels, encouraging labourers to settle on the lands and providing cattle and ploughs &c..."Letter from the Acting Collector at Cuddalore and Pondichery, Extract FSG Revenue Consultations, 16.7.1807.
The role stressed here is their activity as the pioneers and the organisers of the agricultural production. Anyhow it is important Nattars were described as the essential figures in the administration in the area.Nautamcars in Dindigul region seem to be equivalent to Nattars. It is recorded in the Collector's letter to BOR that they acted as the security for the Tuccavy or Government loan for cultivators: "In observing that it was on the recommendation of the Nautamcars to the Tasildars that application for Tuccavy was made and that the security for the advances chiefly rested with the Nautamcar...because the Nautamcars
receives a Manium in the village as a sirkar servant for superintending the general concerns of the village, and as thence more likely to be acquainted with the disposition of the people of the village than any other person." (Letter from the Collector in Dindigul, Paras.3-4, in BOR Proceedings, 15.11.1802.
Nattar and Curnum Another point to be studied for clarifying the official role of the Nattars in revenue administration is the relation between Nattar and Curnum or village accountant. The earliest evidence showing the relation between Nattar and Curnum in the Jagir would be the letter from the Superintendent of the Jagir dated 18 June 1787. As was discussed in Chapter II-1, Oppah Moodily, who was the Nattar of Poonamallee, purchased the Conicoply's (Curnum's) privilege and had enjoyed it for many years. To make the government acknowledge his privilege, Oppah Moodily submitted the petition. According to the certificate issued to him by a native officer, Oppah Moodily had been granted 'Conicoplies Meerassy in the following villages of Mongot Maugan, for which he is to provide a Conicoplie to make his appearance to the Circur and to keep the village accounts regular whose conduct the said Oppah Moodily is to be answerable for.'Letter from the Superintendent of the Jaghir, 18.6.1787, p.1520. The Superintendent considered that the purchase of the Conicoply's privilege should not be separated from the duties attached to the post. He therefore reported as follows: "the Conicoplies privilege which purchase I am of opinion cannot be valid without the confirmation of Government; as it is a wage for a certain service to be performed. However, as the said Oppah Moodaly has enjoyed this privilege for many years past, I imagine it should be confirmed to him on his binding himself to perform the office strictly, be deputy, on penalty of forfeiture in case of failure."Ibid.
It is known by these statements that Oppah Moodily or the Nattar of Poonamallee purgannah had purchased the Conicoply's privileges some time in the past. It is doubtful whether he had actually provided the Conicoply by the time he submitted the petition. Anyhow the Government (Company) thought it his duty to provide a Conicoply in the villages once he acquired the Conicoply Mirasi. Such case of the Nattars' purchasing Curnum's privileges as stated above seemed to be not unusual at the time, and the double office of Curnum and Nattar became the matter for Government to decide at the time of Place's collectorship. It is known by the following two accounts that the double office was quite popular and was decided to be annulled in 1797: "We approve your resolution respecting the...separation of the double offices of Curnum and Natwar and Curnum and Cultivator. This last measure is so far connected with the Natwar arrangement, that we expect the Collector to make the reports you have required, before it is carried into effect."Extract FSG Revenue Consultation, 18.3.1797, in Board's Collections, 940-941, Vol.36. See also Letter from the Collector in the Jaghire, Extract BOR Proceedings, 16.1.1797, Ibid.
"In regard to the double office of Curnum and Natawar and Curnum and Cultivator, the Board in their Minutes of the 24th March last, concurred in opinion as to the expedient of annulling them."Letter to the Collector in the Jaghire, 27.3.1797, Extract BOR Proceedings, 18.3.1797, ibid.
The fact that some Nattars had the office of Curnum does not mean they were directly performing the duties as Curnum. If we take Oppah Moodily's case as popular one, Nattars were expected to be responsible to provide Curnums in the villages where they obtained the Curnum's post through purchase or some other means. Nattar was, in this sense, a revenue officer in super-village
level above village Curnum.
Some Curnums in South Arcot were also in the employ of Nattars. For instance Garrow referrs to the fabrication of village accounts by the Curnum in the employ of Nattars as follows: "their (Nattars':T.M) interference in the district, the terror they are held in by the lower inhabitants, has enabled them to make their collection without opposition... Examination of accounts is fruitless unless the true ones can be got at and which are kept by Curnums in the employ of the Nuttawars themselves."Garrow's Report on the Nature of the Administration of the Revenues under Captain Graham in Fusly 1211, 18.9.1803, in South Arcot District Records, Vol.178, p.365-.
The close relation between Nattar and Curnum is also stated by Ravenshaw who was also keen to discover the concealed revenue in the district as described in Chapter II-2. Ravenshaw states: "Such were the means taken by the Nautawars and Curnums to prevent a discovery of the fraud they committed, that they might well think themselves secure. The chief work of falsifying the accounts was of course left to the Curnums..."Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, Para.2, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805.
Judging from the names of Nattars and Curnums shown in Table.III-1-1 and Table.III-1-2, all the Curnums belonged to Pillai, whereas all the Nattars belonged to Reddy. Most probably Nattars and Curnums were distinctive from each other and the latter were placed under the Nattars.There is some possibility that the 'Pillay' was not the caste name but was the title for Curnums.
TABLE.III-1-1
CASTE OF NATTARS OF TINDIVANUM TALUK WHO RESISTED AUTHORITY BY ABSCONDING=================================================== VILLAGE NATTAR CASTE---------------------------------------------------Mellapaukum Moodooramah Reddy REDDY Punthamungalum Soobah Reddy REDDY Ahshore Ramalinga Reddy REDDYSerwardy Moodoomulla Reddy REDDYKotywakum Cundapah Reddy REDDYMollyshore Vencatakistna Reddy REDDY===================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805, p.4456.
TABLE.III-1-2CASTE OF CURNUMS IN 30 VILLAGES IN SOUTH ARCOT ============================================================ VILLAGE NAME CURNUM CASTE ------------------------------------------------------------1. VARDAVORE Villenellore Amrah Pillay PILLAI Coonychembud Chittumbara Pillay PILLAI Trimungalum Chitambara Pillay PILLAI Poolichypullum Soobramania Pillay PILLAI Maduraypaukum Chitambara Pillay PILLAI Keerimambaukum Appak Pillay PILLAI2. VILLUPOORAM Wortoor Tandaveroy Pllay PILLAI Trivamattoor Tandaveroy Pillay PILLAI Wickerwandy Kootiah Pillay PILLAI
Annangoor Sangra Pillay & PILLAI Mootiah Pillay PILLAI3. TRIVADY Melputtumbaukum Cattithitha Pillay PILLAI Wegahboottey Vythenada Pillay PILLAI Shirewatoor Mootiah Pillay PILLAI Currumboor Palicondah Pillay PILLAI4. TRIVANELLORE Anatoor Yenathitha Pillay PILLAI Nuttum Thoylah Pillay PILLAI Shendnaud Poorooshotum Pillay PILLAI Shendmungalum Soobroyah Pillay PILLAI Yennadarymungalum Appah Pillay PILLAI5. TINDIVANUM Willavarum Vencatachellum Pillay PILLAI Killyenoor Soobrayah Pillay PILLAI Condaoor Soobrayah Pillay PILLAI Ruttancy Cootiah Pillay PILLAI Melpaukum Vencatachellum Pillay PILLAI Pundamungalum Armogum Pillay PILLAI Ashoor Mootana Pillay PILLAI Kottypaukum Nullatomby Pillay PILLAI Shervardy Nullatomby Pillay PILLAI Divanore Vencatachellum Pillay PILLAI Ahgoor Vencatachellum Pillay PILLAI ============================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 14.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 18.6.1805, p.4456.
Official Appointment of Nattar It is important to find out whether Nattars were officially appointed by
the Government or not. It is possible that the term 'Nattar' was used as title by anyone who wanted to be called so. On the other hand, if the 'Nattar' was the official designation given to those Government officers who were assigned particular duties, their status would have fairly official nature. We will examine several evidences on this point.
First is about the Jagir. In the case of the weavers in the Jagir, the head weaver was called Nattar and was linked to particular territorial unit called Payakatt (for details, see Chapter III-2B). "Their (Nattars of weavers:T.M) office is always elective, though it is generally continued in the same family."Hastings' Report, in Public Consultations, 3.12.1772, p.856.
This statement indicates that the office was originally elective but had become hereditary. According to Hastings, however, this usage to call the head weaver as Nattar is improper. He remarks: "The title of Natwar properly belongs to the general heads or representatives of the inhabitants."Ibid., p.856.
The second evidence is about the appointment of the Nattars by the Company for the purpose of enumerating the population. "...respecting that an account of the number of inhabitants in Conjeveram and Chingleput, the renters of those places are unable to accommodate the differences that arise among them, and recommending that two or three Natwars be authorised for this purpose in each place... Agreed that Mr.Dighton be informed he may appoint Natwars at Conjeveram and Chingleput for the purpose he has recommended, but that he must be very careful to select persons that he can confide into the faithful discharge of their trust."BOR Proceedings, 23.6.1785.
This account, however, does not show clearly whether this is a new appointment or the selection of particular Nattars from among the existent Nattars. The third evidence shown below indicates that some Nattar was appointed
at the recommendation of a Stel Curnum. "it even appears by the copy of the Sunnud annexed to the Minute of the Board that at the recommendation of a Stel Curnum, the appointment of the Natwar adduced took place..."BOR Proceedings, 13.8.1789, p.1995.
The Nattar referred here was appointed by a Stel Curnum. It may be judged from these accounts that the Nattars' post seemed to
be at least originally accrued by official appointment. Their post as well as their privileges, however, had become hereditary by long possession by the period. The nature of the Nattar's post in the period is well described by the following account: "The change of local authorities since the Mahomedan conquest seems to have directed the attention of the ryot to men of property resident among them as more immediate objects of confidence than the leaders of a conquering army...This being the probable foundation of the office of Nauttawar...The advantages of the office may be supposed to have been conferred on terms favorable to the possessors and - as some of the old sunnuds express - given 'on condition of acting with fidelity for the advantage of the circar at the time of settling the jummahbundy.' They have been considered to be honorable stations and length of possession has annexed to them the idea of property."To the Right Hon'ble Edward Lord Clive, Governor in Council, 9.4.1802, in Board's Collections, Vol.113.
It is known from this account that1. the Nattars were not posted from anywhere else but were men of locality,2. the reason of the privileges enjoyed by the Nattars is specified in some old Sunnads to have been griven on condition of their assisting Government at the time of settling Jummabundy (assessment), and 3. the office seemed to have been held by the Nattars for a long period so that it had become a kind of property.
As to the appointment of Nattars in South Arcot, there are several evidences in the Diary of A.R.Pillai. The first is the proclamation of the
Government order concerning the Villiyanallur Reddies (Nattars) who had gone to Tiruppappuliyur under the British protection. It runs as follows: "unless they returned to Villiyanallur and Bahur by July 25 (the starting day of new revenue year:T.M), they should cease to be Nattars in our Villiyanallur and Bahur countries."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 21.6.1750.
The second is the account dated 14 September 1749, or just before the arrival of Chanda Sahib who had won the battle of Ambur, when the Governor said to A.R.Pillai: "As regards the apointment of Nattar and Poligar, I will act as you advise."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 14.9.1749.
A.R.Pillai wrote three days later: "Many Amaldars, Nattar and others have come into town on hearing Chanda Sahib's approach... The Nattar of Bhuvanagiri... came to visit the governor with the Nazars."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 17.9.1749.
By these accounts in the Diary it is known Nattars were appointed by the Government in the region.There are some more accounts in the Diary of A.R.Pillai, which shows the Nattars' involvement with the revenue collection (30.6.1756, 15.7.1756). For details, see T.MIZUSHIMA, Nattar in Pondichery in Mid-Eighteenth Century, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference-Seminar of Tamil Studies, Madurai, January 1981, published in September 1981, Vol.II, pp.14.37-14.38.
Another evidence showing the Nattars' appointment in South Arcot is found among the explanations of various fees in Garrow's letter: "Nuzzer Pulputtada. This is paid in Vicravandy by a Nattawar called Mootoo Reddy. It was usual for the family to pay this Nuzzer since the time of Sauddut ulla Cawn (Nawab of Arcot in the years 1710-32:T.M) and first taken on the occasion of one of his forefathers being appointed a Nattawar of the District."Letter from Garrow, Para.124, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803.
Tiruvendipuram has also some accounts on the matter. The first evidence indicates that the Nattars were given the privileges by the kings of Gingee, though it is not clear whether it means the appointment itself. "The reasons assigned by the Nattawars of Trevendaporam district in their petition of 31st July 1805 for the great and extraordinary privileges conferred on their ancestor, by the kings of Gingee, and which they and their descendants were permitted to enjoy under the reigns of the Nabobs of the Carnatic..."Letter from the Acting Collector at Cuddalore and Pondichery, Extract Revenue Consultations, 16.7.1807, in Board's Collections, Vol.242.
In another account of Tiruvendipuram, it is stated that the privileges of the Nattars had been confirmed by cowles granted by the Amildars. It is also quite possible that the position itself was confirmed by the cowles: "The rights and privileges claimed by these descendants were no other as they now assert than what had been uniformly enjoyed by the Nattars from their first institution, what had been repeatedly confirmed to the Natttars by several cowles from the Amuldars before this Farm came into the Company's possession, and afterwards confirmed to them in a cowle given by the Governor and Council of Fort St. David for the renting of the Farm dated in the year 1750...besides the cowle granted to them by the Amuldars of the country government."Extracts from the Report of the Chief and Council at Cuddalore of the Trevenduporam Farm, 30.6.1775, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806.
It may be judged from these accounts that Nattars were most probably appointed by Government.
Nattar as Revenue Renter Nattars in the period sometimes acted not as revenue officers but as revenue renters. As studied in Chapter II-2, the Nattars in Tiruvendipuram be
came the renter of the area for some time. In this case the renter performed the duties as Amildar.Tiruvendipuram Report, op.cit., p.4.
Nattars in the main part of South Arcot also became revenue renters, which is known by the following account: "When the Nautawars were renters, the collections have as in the Nabob's time been unbounded. The Nautawars have been the course (curse ?:T.M) of the country. Their interference in the district, the terror they are held in by the lower inhabitants has enabled them to make their collection without opposition and it is from this cause that they have been courted during the Nabob's Government and were in some instances under our own."Garrow's Report, 18.9.1803, Para.21, in South Arcot District Records, Vol.178.
Another evidence for the Nattars to rent some lands is recorded in the Diary of A.R.Pillai. According to the account dated 27 July 1756, the Nattars in Vriddhachalam rented the country. The Nattars in Tiruchirapalli were also described as the renter of the region as studied in Chapter II-3. The followings are some of the accounts indicating it: "Valiconda...each village was rented separately to its head inhabitants or Nautaurs..." "Wodiarpollam...by renting out the district to the inhabitants of each Magaunum, the Nautaurs or head men became in a measure the managers of each Magaunum..."Letter from the Collector at Trichinopoly, Paras.92-94, 134, in BOR Proceedings, 13.9.1802.
These evidences indicate that the Nattars became the revenue renters in many parts of the concerned area. In such cases the nature of the Nattars was not of the revenue officer. Their position becomes almost same as the Amildar as was the case with Tiruvendipuram studied above.
Summary To sum up the above investigation on Nattars' role in revenue administration,
1. Nattars were deeply involved in the revenue administration, 2. they were usually under Amildars,3. they were men of the locality,4. they sometimes appointed Curnums,5. they were appointed by Government and were given some privileges for their duties, and6. they sometimes became revenue renters.
III-1B. RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY The Nattars had some more official roles. One of them was religious activity. The religious activity of Nattars and their relation with temples or Brahmin is not much reported in the British records of the period. But there are a few accounts on this subject about Tiruvendipuram and South Arcot, which will be examined hereafter. First is the incidence regarding the disposal of Chatrum (rest place for travellers) fund collected in Tiruvendipuram as investigated in Chapter II-2. The Nattars of Tiruvendipuram submitted a petition, requesting the continuance of the allowances for the Chatrum built by themselves. The contents of the petition were as follows: "Your petitioners (Nattars:T.M) have built Suttrum close by the Pagoda of Trepapalore where 24 Bramnies Travellers were daily entertained. The Inhabitants of the district pay a contribution toward that charitable establishment of two per cent in addition to the amount of the public revenue. The Circar collects that contribution and pays the amount thereof to a person who had charge of that Suttrum."The Petition of the Nattawars of the Trevenduporam District, 31.7.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806.
It is stated here that the Nattars built Suttrum some time in the past. For its maintenance the Government collected two per cent in addition to the revenue. The situation is known somewhat better by the following letter of the
Collector to the BOR. "Pagoda Allowances and Suttrum: ...an allowance of five per cent after deducting the joint charges on the crops has for a long period of time past, been invariably made by the Nattawars and Ryots of this district from the produce of all their lands, for the performance of the ceremonies of the Pagodas, as well as the support of indigent Bramanies, going in pilgrimage between Benares and Rameseram. From the best information I have been able to obtain, a proportion of three per cent out of the five per cent thus appropriated has been settled on the principal Pagodas from time immemorial, and the remaining two per cent by a deed of gifts signed by all the Nattawars and Ryots of the districts in the year 1756. It had been the invariable practice, when this district remained with His Highness the Nabob, for his Amuldars to collect this money from the ryots, &c. and , after it came into the possession of the Company, for the renters to do the same, and pay three-fifth thereof to the Head Bramanies, entrusted with the care of the Pagodas, and the remaining two-fifth to one of the principal Nattawars, to be apropriated by him for the support of the indigent Bramanies, travelling through the villages."Letter from Fallofield, the Collector of Cuddalore and Pondichery, Paras.25-29, in BOR Preopceedings, 10.2.1806.
This account reveals that1. a Chatrum was built by the Nattars for the Brahmin pilgrims some time in the past,2. five per cent in addition to the amount of public revenue was collected by the Government from the inhabitants, out of which three per cent was given to the head Brahmins entrusted with the care of the Pagodas, and two per cent to one of the Nattars for the maintenance of the Chatrum built by the Nattars for the Bramin pilgrims. These two accounts indicate that the Nattars played very important role to maintain the Brahmin and other religious institutions. The Nattars utilized the fund collected from the inhabitants through the Government for supporting religious activities. The collection of some amount for the maintenance of Pagodas seemed to
be quite popular in South Arcot. Ravenshaw reported in 1806 about such collection by the 'Gramatans or heads of villages' as follows: "The Pagoda people have for want of a regular allowance, and in consequence of the abolition of some of their sources of revenue, been exposed for the last four years to very serious distress to relieve which the Gramatans or heads of villages, have been in the habit of making unauthorized collections from the ryots..."Letter from Ravenshaw, Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 24.1.1806, in BOR Proceedings, 22.1.1806.
Under the Raiyatwari System most of the collections in various purposes were abolished and amalgamated into land assessment. The allowance for maintaining the Pagoda was also stopped. The 'heads of villages', therefore, had to start collection for the maintenance of the Pagodas. Another evidence indicating the collection by the Nattars for religious activities is the cowle granted to the Nattars of Tiruvendipuram in 1750. The following condition is included there: "the said Sambasheva Reddy...shall not receive or cause to be received the duties and fees of the Pagoda & Bramins nor any duties & fees of the Reddees or Chief Inhabitants but allow them for their own use & benefit the usual Paddy grounds & privileges as they have always enjoyed."Cowle Books, Vol.5, 1748-52, Revenue Department, p.46,
This condition indicates that the collection for the purpose of maintaining the religious institution by the Nattars was not uncommon in the region.
III-1C. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY To what extent Nattars were involved in the commercial activities in the pre-British period is not clear. The only evidence about the commercial activity of Nattars is the involvement of the head weaver called 'Nattawar' in
the company's procurement of cotton goods in the Jagir. It was as follows: On 2 December 1772 Hastings, who was at the time Export Warehousekeeper, planned and enforced new system of procuring cotton piece-goods. In the new system the investment was to be done through Gomastahs (agents) to the weavers instead of through merchants, and the Nattars along with the brokers were to act as mediators between the Gomastahs and the weavers while receiving the commission from the Company.Hastings' Report, Public Consultations, 3.12.1771, p.855. The commission received by the Nattars from the Company was 1/12 per cent in the four payakatts of Puddapa, Manambuddy & Chimbaucum, Trichichiconum, Madrantacum & Kypaucum, and Calleapettah & Otramaloor, 5/8 per cent at Conjeveram Payakatt (in this case the Nattars were answerable for the weavers' balances), and 5/8 per cent in the Onnapuram & Great Arni (the Nattars were securities for the weavers).(Ibid., pp.852-855,862. See also S.Arasaratnam, Trade and Political Dominion in South India, 1750-1790: Changing British-Indian Relationships, in Modern Asian Studies, 13-1, 1979, pp.30-32. There was another important change of policy in November 1772, in which the brokers were abolished and the head weavers or Nattars were appointed to manage the business. Their allowance was 1 1/2 per cent. It was also regulated that instead of keeping an account with each weaver and making advances to him on the spot as he delivered his cloth, the Nattars were made responsible to the Company and the weavers in general to them.Minute delivered by Dalaymple, 22.7.1776, Madras Public Proceedings, 1776. What Hastings expected from Nattars by this change was to become security for the weavers, in which, however, they 'appear to have no interest' because 'the head weavers or Nattawers as protectors of the weavers in general were a kind of check on the Gomastahs and brokers and were not immediately interested in the investment themselves.'Ibid. As a result, a large amount of bad
debt was left. The Board finally resoluted that the loom owners were to receive the advance of thread and money from the Gomastah on the spot excluding the Nattars.Resolution of the Board on the Subject of the Investment, 22.7.1776, in Public Proceedings, 22.7.1776.
III-1D. JUDICIAL ACTIVITY The Nattars seemed to have some judicial authority. There are several evidences indicating it. In the first evidence, the mirasidars (Nattars were probably included in this category) in Tiruchirapalli are stated to have possessed judicial authority: "Meerassdars have always considered them authoritative in the arrangement of disputes among themselves - they have formed the basis of innumerable judicial decisions, and which is well worthy of particular remark..."Report of Onslow, Collector of Trichinopoly, Para.18, in BOR Proceedings, 20.11.1844.
The second evidence is the cowle granted to the Nattars in Tiruvendipuram, in which it is specified they should not exercise any judicial authority. It runs as follows: "That the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their administrators or assigns shall not exercise any judicial authority over any of the said Company's inhabitants either by confinement, inflicting corporal punishments, or extorting from them of their goods or chattells (?) but if there be any just cause of complaint, they shall make application for justice to the President and Council..."Cowle Books, Vol.5, Revenue Department, 5.11.1750, pp.46-50.
The third evidence is the 'unauthorized' fees collected by the Gramattans (Nattars are included in this category) for settling disputes among the raiyats.
"...particulars of the embezzlements and over collections proved against these people in each division...Fees collected by Gramatans from the ryots of his own village for settling disputes among them."Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
The last is the replies of Ellis to the Mirasi questions in 1816. The following two accounts about the Nattar's role in caste matters are recorded.Appendix to the Replies from Mr.F.W.Ellis, Collector of Madras, to the Mirasi Questions; dated 30th May, 1816, in Papers on Mirasi Right, pp.242-243.
"The subdivision of Nadus was introduced by the agricultural colonists and the office of Nattan or head of the Nadu, which still remains and possesses some authority, as to questions of caste especially, was established, and conferred on the principal Vellaler, whose descendants now hold it. The Nattan appears to have held originally the whole civil authority of the Nadu, assisted probably by the principal Caniyatchicarer (i.e. mirasidar) of the several villages; he still claims precedence in all assemblies composed of more than one caste." "In later times when part of Tondamandalam came under the dominion of the Musselmans of Bijapur, another office was created, that of Desayi, with powers coequal with those of the Nattan; this office is invariably held by a person of the Telugu Belji caste, and the two, the Nattan and Desayi, under the appellation of Nadu-Desam, claim joint jurisdiction in matters of caste over all Sudra tribes, and actually possess it over those of the Vallang-cai, or right hand division, those of Idang-cai or left hand, disputing their authority." These evidences indicate that the Nattars had authority in caste matters.
By the investigation so far done, the official roles of the Nattars have been mostly clarified. Their roles as revenue officers, supporters of religious activities, and the authority on caste matters were their main official acitivities. Among these official roles only that of revenue officer was
accrued by the Government appointment. The latter two were assigned to them because of their position and influence in the local society. Their appointment as Nattars itself was realized because of their influential position there. They were the men of locality and represented the local society. The next point to be clarified is in what sense Nattars were related with the local society, or in other words, to investigate the position of the Nattars in the local society.Except C.S.Crole, the author of Manual of Chingleput, S.S.Sivakumar seems to be the only historian of modern period that noticed the importance of Nattar in the local society in the late 18th century. However his definition of Nattar as the dominant individuals among the Kaniyatchikarars is too simple to convey any meaningful implication in understanding the historical development of South India. (The Chingleput, late Madras, District, A Manual compiled under the Orders of the Madras Government, Madras, 1879, pp.244-245, S.S.Sivakumar, Transformation of the Agrarian Economy in Tondaimandalam:1760-1900, Social Scientist, 70, May 1978, pp.23, 26)
III-1. NOTES
III-2. NATTAR IN THE LOCAL SOCIETY
III-2. NATTAR IN THE LOCAL SOCIETY The position of the Nattars as the representatives of the local society cannot be discussed without taking caste relations into consideration. To clarify the position of the Nattars in the local society, we will first investigate their relation with the caste organization in the period.
III-2A. NATTAR AND CASTE
Dubois on Caste Rules It is well known that every caste has its own laws and regulations the neglect of which has often resulted in the ex-communication of those who have violated them. For instance Abbe Dubois, who lived in Mysore for nearly 30 years from 1790s to 1820's, wrote in his famous book titled "Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies" as follows: "...every caste has its own laws and regulations, or rather, we may say, its own customs, in accordance with which the severest justice is meted out."Abbe Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, 3rd edition, Delhi, Oxford Univ. Press, p.32.
"This strict and universal observance of caste and caste usages forms practically their whole social law."Ibid., p.41.
"Of all kinds of punishment the hardest and most unbearable for a Hindu is that which cuts him off and expels him from his caste."Ibid., p.38.
It is to be noted in this regard that every caste had its head who had an authority to punish violaters. Dubois stated: "Those whose duty it is to inflict it are the gurus...and, in default of them, the caste headmen. These latter are usually to be found in every district, and it is to them that all doubtful or difficult questions affecting the caste system are referred. They call in, in order to help them to decide such questions, a few elders who are versed in the intricacies of the matters in dispute."Ibid., p.38.
"Each one of these nomadic tribes has its own habits, laws, and customs; and each forms a small and perfectly independent republic of its own, governed by such rules and regulations as seem best to them... The chiefs of each caste are elected or dismissed by a majority of votes. They are commissioned, during the time that their authority lasts, to enforce the caste rules, to settle disputes, and to punish all misdemeanour and crime."Ibid., p.72.
Buchanan on Caste Headmen The existence of caste headmen in almost all the castes is also remarked by F.Buchanan who travelled all over South India at the beginning of the ninteenth century.Francis Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara, and Malabar, London, 1807. Of 72 caste groups mentioned by Buchanan, 60 castes have some account of headmen in the caste. Among the latter only 2 castes had no headmen, whereas remaining 58 castes had some kind of headmen. Judging from the fact that Buchanan paid special attention in case the caste group had no headmen, the remaining 12 castes can be judged to have had some headmen among them. The types of headmen of the 58 castes were as follows:1. With hereditary chiefs - 46 castes2. Without hereditary chiefs but with council of elders - 8 castes 3. Without hereditary chiefs but with renters appointed by Government - 4 castes
The headmen had, in most of the cases, the power to exercise judicial functions to punish and, in severest cases, to excommunicate those who violated caste codes. It was quite rare for the Gurus (religious leaders) or Government to exercise such power. The titles given to these caste headmen were Gauda or Gaunda, Buddhivanta, Ijyamana or Yajaman, Pedda Chitty, Pedda Bui, Shittigar or Chittigar, or Beny Shavadi.Including trifle cases such as only advise, the total number of castes in which the Gurus interfered into the caste matters was 6 and that of the Goverment being involved was 12 among the 70 castes. The argument on the caste organization found in the Buchanan's Report is partly based on my published article, T.MIZUSHIMA, Social Organizations or Groups in Mysore at the Beginning of Early 19th Century, THE TOYO GAKUHO, Vol.62, Nos.1,2, December 1980, pp.1-30.(in Japanese)
Nattars in Pondichery Town In the case of Pondichery Town in the mid-18th century, each caste had its own headmen who were called Nattars (sometimes Maha-Nattars). This is evinced by several accounts found in the A.R.Pillai's Diary. For instance A.R.Pillai was ordered by the Governor to supply 1,000 coolies to the Company on 18 May 18 1758. Accordingly he sent for 'two of the chief people of each caste', arranging with them to provide the coolies by night. As the coolies did not turn up, A.R.Pillai again summoned 'the Nattars of the several castes' and repeated the order to them.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 18.5.1758, 19.5.1758. For detail, see T. Mizushima, Nattar in Pondichery in Mid-Eighteenth Century, op. cit. This evidence indicates that 'two of the chief people of each caste' were the Nattars. There is another evidence showing that the people belonging to the respective castes were under their own Nattars. According to the account on 13 September 1760, the Governor enquired A.R. Pillai about the population in Pondichery Town, and the latter ordered the head peon to consult with 'the Nattars of the several castes' for preparing the list of the persons in the town. At the same time A.R.Pillai himself summoned the 'Nattars' and gave the same order. This evidence showing that the census enumeration was done through Nattars implies that all the caste members were under the control of their Nattars. The fact that each caste had two headmen is further supported by the following incidence. On 19 October 1754 the headmen of the Kaikkolars (weaving caste), who had absconded by some reason, were caught and imprisoned. A.R.Pillai advised the Governor on this matter by saying, 'when headmen are appointed in any caste, the caste-people assemble to choose two'. In reply, the Governor stated, 'Let the weavers who have gone away return and live in peace under two heads of their own choice.' Though the resultant selection of the two headmen is not recorded, it is mentioned in the Diary a few years later that two headmen of Kaikkolar caste were appointed.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 15.7.1756.
Organized Castes Rather Exceptional?
It is doubtful, however, whether this type of well-organized caste groups found both in Mysore and in Pondicherry Town could be also found in other parts of the area. Both of these places were rather exceptional in the sense the power of the Governments was exceptionally strong compared with other regions. To clarify this point, we have to study the relation between the Government and the caste organization in the two regions. In the case of Mysore, which had been led by the powerful political leader, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, an attempt by the state to rule the people by organizing them into caste organizations can be observed. This is indicated by the following evidences. That is, there were six castes where the collection of revenues were done through their headmen, and four castes to the heads of which the Government granted the privilege of revenue exemption. They were as follows:
1. Castes where the revenues were collected through caste headmen: a. Cumbharu - Pottery Caste Hereditary chief called Gotugaru lived in Cusba and collected revenue for the state from the potters in the respective villages. b. Asaga - Washerman CasteThe headmen living in Cusba collected revenue for the state from the washermen in the villages. c. Teliga Whalliah - Pariah Caste The headmen called Gotugal who were appointed by Amildars collected house taxes. d. Pancham Cumbharu - Pottery CasteThe hereditary chief called Ijyaman paid the revenue to the state for using clay and allotted the revenue to the respective potters under his jurisdiction. e. Cadu Goala - Cattle Breeding CasteThe renter called Beny Chavadi residing at the capital paid the revenue to the state for pasturing cattle and collected the amount from the caste members. f. Torea or Besta - They worked as fishermen, porters,palanquin -bearers, burners of lime, armed messengers, ferry-men, or cultivators of the garden crops.
The renter appointed by the Government paid a certain amount to the state. The amount was paid from the fines imposed on the violaters of caste rules.
2. The castes the heads of which were given the privilege of revenue exemption: a. Punchum Banijiga - Merchant CasteThe hereditary chief called Pedda Chetti was granted the total exemption of house-tax and the half exemption of Customs on all the commercial goods. b. Komutti - Merchant CasteThe hereditary chief called Pedda Chetti was exempted all the revenues. c. Ruddi(Reddi?) or Vokkaliga - Cultivator or Military CasteThe hereditary chief called Ijyaman was exempted revenues. d. Cumbharu - Potter CasteThe hereditary chief called Gotugaru was exempted from all the taxes on condition of paying the revenues collected from the potters in the villages.
It is indicated by the lists that the common feature of the castes listed here was their high mobility or their unfitness to the land-revenue system of the time. By organizing such people as did not fall into the category of land administration, because of their high mobility or occupation, into distinctive castes or by granting some privilege to the heads of castes, the state must have attempted to integrate them under its control. It is also to be noted that in five out of the six castes without caste headmen the renters were appointed by the Government to act as their heads, and that there were six more castes whose 'hereditary chiefs' were called Gotugaru the original meaning of which is 'renters'. The latter case may suggest that the caste had been some time in the past organized from above (i.e. the state) by having a renter to be representative of the caste and later the position of the renter became hereditary.
The situation in Pondichery Town was also the same. It is important that two caste headmen were nominated in the respective castes by caste members but their position needed confirmation and official appointment by the chief dubash of the French East India Company. This is indicated by the following
two accounts recorded in the Diary of A.R.Pillai, all of which concerned the appointment of the heads of Kaikkolars: "When headmen are appointed in any caste, the caste-people assemble to choose two. They report their choice to the chief dubash who confirms it..."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 19.10.1754.
"...rival factions among the Kaikkolar prevented the choice of headmen... M.Godeheu (Governor:T.M)...decided that, as he (Governor) heard that the custom had been for the chief dubash (A.R.Pillai:T.M) to select the headmen in the several castes, such business should be under my (chief dubash's) management and control, and that I was to enquire into this matter and choose headmen. Thereon I sent for the Kaikkolars. I...told them that I would appoint two headmen, according to the Governor's orders, and that they must obey them... I again summoned the caste-people and directed them to name persons agreeable to them for my approval. On this one party named Ana Nayakka Mudali and the other Muttu Mudali, promising to obey them and begging my acceptance of them, I then asked them all if these men were agreeable to them, and on their confirming the choice I dismissed them, warning them that the new headmen must be obeyed."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 15.7.1756.
The heads of castes called Nattar (or Maha-Nattar) whose post was thus confirmed by the chief dubash of the Company were utilized by the Company to support the Company's administration in the town. Besides the procurement of coolies or the census operation mentioned above, they were often assigned to collect war-taxes from their caste members. Many important matters concerning the native society were also decided in the assembly of Nattars. The caste headmen or Nattars were the important machinary for the French to rule the Indian society in the town. These evidences imply that the caste organization or unity was inten
tionally revived or reorganized by the Governments for its rule.Patrick A.Roche in his article 'Caste and the British Merchant Government in Madras, 1639-1749' (The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol.VII, No.4, October-December 1975, pp.381-407) stresses the role of the British administration in stabilizing or redefining the caste structures and demarcations. Though I basically agree with his conclusion on this matter, I differ in crucial points from him. The issues to be questioned in his argument are as follows: First of all, the spacial allotment to the respective castes was a common feature found not only in the colonial towns but also in the indigeneous towns and in the villages where the town dwellers or migrants were originated from. It was not the creation of the colonial government but a reflection of the traditional notion on caste demarcation. Secondly the conflict investigated by him was fought between the right and left castes and not between the respective castes. It is not clear how the serious conflict between the right and left castes was related with the strengthning of the respective caste identity. All what he points out on this matter is the wall tax collection through caste heads. He seems to be confused the caste identity with the group-identity of the right and left castes. Thirdly the conflict between the right and left castes was not the peculiar phenomenon of the colonial towns but was also found in other native towns. Lastly his argument cannot explain why the right and left caste conflicts disappeared compleatly after the 19th century. The fundamental factor for caste conflicts in the 17th-18th centuries should not be attributed to the peculiarity of the colonial policies but be considered in the historical circumstances of the urbanization of the period when the conventional notion of caste hierarchy was seriously threatened. What is to be observed in this regard is that the leaders of the conflicts between the right and left castes in Madras or in Pondichery were not the traditionally influential Vellaras (agricultural caste) or Kammalas (artisan caste) like in other native towns but the Chettis and Komuttis (both are merchant castes) who dominated the trading activities with the European trading companies. This subject will be again discussed in more detail later.
It is to be noted at the same time that the unification of caste was also sought by the inhabitants of the urban area. As will be discussed in the next chapter, all the inhabitants in the colonial cities were the new migrants from
other areas. The colonial cities which were settled by various kinds of people were ruled by the foreigners with completely different cultural background and notion on social order. The social order emerging there was of different nature from the conventional one. For instance the activities of Christian missionaries of the period were remarkable, and some of the converted people had obtained influential position in the society because of their close relationship with the foreign rulers. The chief dubashes of Pondichery in the early part of the 18th century were Christians. It is recorded even such case as one of the chief dubash there was ordered to convert within six months and was told to be deprived of his post of chief dubash if he did not.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 19.9.1747, foot note. There were also incidences when some Hindu temples (Kalahasti Iswaran temple, Vedapuri Iswaran temple) were destroyed by the hands of Christian Fathers.Diary of A.R.Pillai, 8.10.1747, 7.9.1748, 8.9.1748, 19.10.1754. It is recorded in the Diary of A.R.Pillai that the wife of Dupleix 'sends Pariahs to live in the houses of the Brahmans, Komuttis, Vellalas and other castes, in order to root out the religion of the Tamils and establish her own in its place.'Diary of A.R.Pillai, 19.9.1748. Many other evidences indicating the people's confusion and anxiety about the social disorder are recorded in the Diary of A.R.Pillai. The followings are a few examples of them: "Madananda Pandit remarked, 'But owing to the misdeeds committed here, peons, Pallis, jungle fellows, scavengers and Pariahs go in their palankins and exercise authority; so how can the town be happy or peaceful?'" Diary of A.R.Pillai, 6.6.1750.
"M.Lally ordered this evening that the Brahman's ears should be cut off close as well as his nose and that then he should be hanged. The Brahman was accordingly hanged after his ears and nose had been cut off... All these 60 years since the town was founded, no Brahman has been slain here till today this one was hanged... but now a Brahman has been hanged for the town is destined to ruin.."Diary of A.R.Pillai, 9.8.1760.
It was not only the Christian missionaries that shook the value system
of the time (for detail, see next chapter). The merchants and upstarts who acquired wealth through the commercial relation with the European trading companies also gave strong impact to the pre-existing social order. The great amount of wealth brought to South India by the European trading companies was distributed in these colonial cities in exchange for textiles. As the sharing system differed from the pre-existing one which had been predominantly based on the revenues from land, there appeared ample opportunity for the new classes to come up. Not the agricultural caste communities like Vellara or Reddi who dominated the rural area but the commercial communities like Chetti or Komutti acquired new status. The following Table of the Maha-Nattars (they were also called 'the leading members of the different castes', 'the leading castemen, or 'caste headmen')Diary of A.R.Pillai,1.3.1746, 2.3.1746, 5.3.1746.in Pondichery clearly shows that the castes who took the leadership in Pondichery were not the agricultural castes but the commercial castes.
TABLE.III-2-1Maha-Nattars in Pondichery Town=================================================================Ananda Ranga Pillai Tillai Mudali Lakshmana Nayakkan Pavazhakkara Uttira Peddu ChettiSankara Aiyan Peddachi ChettiAdi Varaha Chetti Sungu Mutturama ChettiChidambaa Chetti Sungu Seshchala ChettiArunachala Chetti Salatu Venkatachala ChettiKalatti Chetti Vira ChettiEzhuttukkara Bhiman Ariyappa MudaliKondi Chetti Chionnadu MudaliNallatambi Mudali Karuttambi Nayinar =================================================================Source: Diary of A.R.Pillai, 2.3.1746, 5.3.1746, 29.3.1746.
Note: The names 'Chetti' indicate they belonged to Chetti or Komutti merchants.
The resultant struggle for hegemony in the emerging social order was the frequent eruptions of the conflict between the right-hand and left-hand caste groups in urban centers.As to the conflicts of the right and left hand castes' conflicts, see for instance, A.Appadurai, Right and Left Hand Castes in South India, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 11, No.2&3, 1974. B.Stein, Peasant State.., op.cit., B.E.F.Beck, Peasant Society in Konku - A Study of Right and Left Sub-Castes in South India, Univ. of British Columbia Press, 1972. Under such situation in the colonial towns, people had to unite themselves under their heads and compete with each other to acquire higher status in the emerging social hierarchy. The caste unification or re-unification was naturally urged both by the Government and by the people. The nomination of the Nattars by the caste members and the appointment of the Nattars by the chief Dubash of the Company can be understood in this circumstance. These were the very factors why the castes were supposed to be exceptionally well organized in the colonial towns.The situation in Mysore under Tipu Sultan needs other explanations. Though the subject needs careful investigation based on evidences, I would like at the moment to suggest the following factors. First is Tipu's exceptionally centralized administration and strong power. The second is the necessity to unify the whole country to continue the struggle with the British. The third is that he was not a Hindu but a Muslim.
Nattar and Caste in Rural Area On the other hand the evidences to prove the existence of such well-organized castes as found in Mysore or Pondichery in rural areas in the concerned districts are very rare, so that it is almost impossible to deduce something concrete. As was studied in Chapter II, Nattars were widely found
in various parts of the districts. But there is no evidence indicating that the Nattars were the heads of castes. The only evidence that gives some implication on this point is the Hastings' Report in 1771 about the weavers' headmen called Nattar. According to his Report, the head weaver was called 'Nattwar', and the name of territorial division or Payakatt was derived from the name of the place where the Nattar resided and where the cloths were gathered for sorting. It is remarked as follows: "...the word Paykett means a district in which cloths or any other article of trade are provided & receives its name from the place where the Nattwar of Head Weaver resides, to which the cloths are brought to be sorted."Hastings Report, Public Consultations, 3.12.1771, p.855.
However, Hastings, as mentioned before, stated that this usage of the term 'Nattwar' was an improper one and stressed that the proper meaning of it was 'the heads or representatives of the inhabitants'. According to Hastings, the reason of the wrong usage was that some of the head weavers in the southern Payakatts were considerable landholders and that the late head weaver in Puddapa Payakatt was also the Nattar of the inhabitants.Ibid., p.856. Hastings included those who were called 'Peddena Caundoo'(= Pedda Gounder) in the category of 'Nattwar'. "Their proper term in the Malabar language which is that of these Payketts is Perria Deana Caurun, and in the Telinga tongue which is that of Arnee and Conjeveram, Peddena Caundoo, and they are so called in those districts, where the weavers never hold land. I shall call them by the common and easier name of Nattwar."(Ibid., p.856) If we take the Hastings' statement as the prevalent notion about Nattar in the period, it is hard to equalize the Nattar with caste headmen. They were the representatives of the inhabitants in the locality, not those of particular castes. There are some more evidences implying indirectly the disorderly state of caste organizations, or rather, their non-existence. For instance Nattars were not always found to be responsible for collecting revenue in the region. In the Diary of A.R.Pillai, Nattars in the country are often described to be responsible for revenue along with 'cultivators'. It is also to be noticed
that Place newly appointed Nattars in several purgannahs where no Nattars had existed as studied in Chapter II-1. The Nattars are known to have been quite powerful in the dry region of Tiruchirapalli but not everywhere. If the inhabitants had been well-organized under their caste headmen called Nattar (or some other designations) who performed the official roles studied above, Nattars could have existed everywhere and monopolized the important duty of revenue collection while excluding others. Such remarks, however, cannot be located in any of the British records in the period. These evidences indicate that the caste organization in the country, even if it had existed, must have been rather exceptional and limited in its prevalence.
Factors for Absence of Caste Organization If the absence of the caste organization or the disorderly state of caste unity was the case in most of the rural areas, how can it be interpreted ?
The subject must be analysed from the following aspects. First is the fragility of the existing caste organization caused by the succession of the headmen's post by the same family. There is an important remark by Hastings about this. It was as follows: "Their (Nattars':T.M) office is always elective, though it is generally continued in the same family."Ibid., p.856.
This remark indicates the Nattars' post had become hereditary even though it was thought to be elective in notion. The same type of account can be found in the report on judicial system in the Jagir by the Committee of Revenue in 1775. It is stated as follolws: "...it often happens that the heads of the respective casts obtain an undue influence in their casts, and continue in office contrary to the opinion, and inclination of the greater part of the cast. In order to prevent this evil it will be proper that at the usual season of every third year, the casts assemble, and by vote reelect the heads of the casts for the ensuing season if they have behaved well, or elect a new one if there be sufficient reason for displacing the old heads."Letter from the Committee of Revenue, 28.7.1775, Para.36, in Madras Revenue Proceedings, 12.7.1775.
It is indicated here that the heads of castes sticked to the office and
were no more elected by the caste members. The office of the caste headmen must have been succeeded hereditary and was in many cases done so contrary to the opinion of the caste members. The caste headmen continued in the office without the support by the caste members. This would have naturally weakened the caste unity in most of the cases. It is also possible that the caste headmen who inherited the office could not take leadership in the political disorder of the period. In other words there was a post for caste headman without caste organization. The other and more important factor is the qualitative change in the social structure of the local society itself. There must have existed the social structure which made it impossible or unnecessary to maintain the caste organization. The situation of caste organizations and the position of Nattar would be understood only in the study of social structure of the period. We will investigate this subject in the next section.
III-2B. NATTAR AND TERRITORIAL UNITS
To clarify the structure of the local society and the position of Nattar there, it is essential to find out what was 'locality' and to assess to what extent the 'locality' efficiently functioned as an unit for social entity. The study about the units for administration, for production, and for social purposes including the caste organizations would also give many important implications for understanding the features of historical development of the period. The points to be investigated in this regards are as follows: 1. how the area was actually divided into the territorial units, 2. which unit functioned as the most important one, 3. how the Nattars were related with the units, 4. to what extent each unit maintained its entity, 5. by what factors the area was demarcated into units, 6. why the caste organizations were in disorderly state, and 7. why the the caste organization and its headmen or Nattars was not
found everywhere. In this section mainly 1 to 4 will be studied, and 5 to 7 in the next section.Several studies investigated in Chapter I are also deeply concerned with the problem of the territorial units for the same purpose. The understanding of the territorial units such as Ur, Nadu, Periyanadu, Mandalam, Kurram, Parru, etc., are closely related with each historian's view of the social structure of the society. The followings are the brief summaries of a few studies so far done relevant to the subject. Y.Subbarayalu studies the units of Nadu, Kurram, Kandam, Vatam, Padi, Valanadu and Mandalam in the Chola period and asserts that Nadu was the basic unit. He shows the following features of Nadu:1. The Nadu was not the artificial administrative division, which is evinced by the fact that the major water courses did not form as the boundaries of the unit.2. The Nadus could be groupings of agricultural settlements, whose formation would have been influenced by natural factors conducive to agriculture, like slope, soils, water supply, etc.3. Each group of agricultiral settlements consisted mostly of kinsfolk. Each Nadu was basically a cohesive group of agricultural people tied together by marriage and blood relationships. 4. From around the 11th century there appeared new territorial division called Valanadu, consisting of many Nadus. But the actual functions of this new division is not clear.5. From the beginning of the 12th century the Nadus functioned at times transcending their territorial limits through the asssemblies of Chittirameli-Periya-nattar. The Periya-Nattars were the Nattars of the whole country assembled together.(Y.Subbarayalu, op.cit., pp.30-36, 56-69) Burton Stein covers a longer period and the problem of territorial units occupies in a sense the central position in his argument of historical development in South India. His view on the change of territorial units may be summarised as follows:1. According to classical poems, the Nadu was a clan or tribal territory over which a warrior chief held sway.
2. During the Chola times, the hundreds of Nadus had become complex and pluralistic settings of peasant society. However each Nadu also retained a tribe-like or segmentary character, local dominance over resources being vested on Nattars. 3. The average size of Nadu was 25 square miles.4. There was considerable co-operation among the Nattars for military purposes as well as for the support of religious places.Supralocal regions called Periyanadu came into existence from the beginning of the 13th century, while the Nattars continued to exercise local control. 5. A Periyanadu might include five or more nadus, though the actual constituency of the Nadus in each periyanadu is not clear. Periyanadu covered several hundred square miles.6. The Periyanadu depended for its viability upon the continued robustness of its constituent Nadus. During the 15th century, however, these localities began to have diminished capabilities for managing their affairs, though the locality continued to function as a basic unit in certain matters such as marriage. As a result, the periyanadu supralocalities came to be encompassed by a larger region, the Mandalam. 7. Between the 15th and the early 18th centuries these broad regions or Mandalams became the loci of circulatory networks. The Mandalam covered two or more districts of modern Tamilnadu State or several thousand square miles.8. In the 20th century the localized Nadu and the more extensive Mandalam continue to exist as regions of circulation and identity for some purposes, including pilgrimage and marriage. (Burton Stein, Circulation and the Historical Geography of Tamil Country, Journal of Asian Studies, November 1977, pp.15-26.) Thus he relates the historical development of South India with the expansion of functional regions from Nadu to Periyanadu, and to Mandalam.
The importance of the territorial unit called Nadu is also noticed by the modern antholopologist. See M.N.Srinivas, Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India, Repr. 1978, bombay, pp.65-69. From the beginning of the colonial rule, several reports referring to the territorial unit were prepared by the British administrators. Several village
lists classified under different territorial units were also prepared for revenue administration. Bernard Report in 1760's, Hodgeson's Report in 1797 of the Jagir, Graham's Report of South Arcot in 1802, and Lushington's Report of the wet taluks in Trichinopoly district in 1819 are some of those having all the village names under each territorial division. It may be added that, as was discussed in Chapter II, the notion of the collectors about the territorial units were closely related with the revenue administration. The three types of revenue system, namely Zamindari, Village, or Raiyatwari, were in a sense the product of the conflicting notions on territorial units among the administrators. Whatever the collectors' choice might be, the territory for revenue unit had to be naturally called by place name or village name. A certain number of villages were, then, categorized into a bigger territorial unit and were listed under it in their reports. Maganum, Magan, Nadu, and Turruf were the designations found to be commonly used in the early British records for these wider territorial units above the village level. All the village lists prepared by the collectors for revenue administration followed this categorization. As the designation of the territorial units as well as their nature differs from region to region, the investigation is to be done district-wise.
- Chingleput -
Payakatt in the Hastings' Report The first report paying attention to the territorial division in the Jagir or Chingleput district is that of Warren Hastings. Though the territorial division he reported was an exceptional one as will be shown, his report gives some important implications about the territorial division of the time. On 2 December 1772 Hastings, who was at the time Export Warehousekeeper of Fort St. George and had been ordered by the Governor and Council to establish new system of investment for procuring cotton piece-goods, reported the progress of the new policy, and in this regard he also referred to the ter
ritorial unit for investment.Hastings' Report, in Public Consultations, 3.12.1771, pp.852-853. See also S.Arasaratnam, Trade and Political Dominion in South India, 1750-1790: Changing British-Indian Relationships, Modern Asian Studies, 13-1, 1979, pp.30-32.
As was cited before, the unit for investment was Payakatt, which seemed to have functioned as a kind of commercial center in the region. According to the Hastings' explanation to the Court of Directors, "The word Paykett means a district in which cloths or any other article of trade are provided, and receives its name from the place where the Nattwar or Head Weaver resides, to which the cloths are brought to be sorted."Hastings' Report, p.855.
The demarcation of Payakatt was thus linked to the jurisdiction of head weaver or 'Nattwar'. It is important that the Payakatt was sometimes sub-divided into new divisions due to the competition among the Nattars. Hastings continues: "Besides the Nattars of the Payketts there are also other Nattwars to every town and village, who interfere in the distinct concerns of their respective districts, with the same trust and authority as the greater Nattwars exercise in the affairs of the whole district...The town of Chembaucum containing only 70 looms is considered as a distinct Paykett, because the Nattwar refuses to submit to the authority of the Nattwar of Manambaddy to which Chembaucum originally belongs. Therefore all the concerns of that place are managed by its own head."Ibid., p.856. If we sum up the Hastings' statements, the were as follows:1. The name of Payakatt was derived from the name of the town resided by the Head Weaver who were called Nattar.2. The grouping of weaving villages was linked to the jurisdiction of the Nattar. Dispute or competition among the Nattars, therefore, sometimes lead to
the sub-division of Payakatt and created new Payakatt.3. The Payakatt town was not only the residential place of the Nattar but also the commercial center where the cloths brought from the villages in the respective Payakatts were gathered and sorted. It is however doubtful whether the unit of Payakatt was also used as territorial division for other activities of the society. Payakatt was probably not an administrative-cum-political unit but only a grouping of weaving villages having their centers in Payakatt towns. In other words the territorial unit of Payakatt must have been in use only in commercial activities (especially that of weaving industry which was the most important one in the period). This point becomes clearer by investigating the spacial distribution of the villages belonging to each Payakatt recorded in the same report. They are indicated in Table.III-2-2, Table.III-2-3, and Fig.III-2-1. It is known from Fig.III-2-1 that the villages linked to or included in each Payakatt consisted only a fractional part of the villages (weaving villages) in the respective areas.
TABLE.III-2-2NAMES OF THE PAYAKATTS AND THE DISTANCE FROM MADRAS ===================================================Payakatt Distance from Madras (Miles) By 'A' By 'B' ---------------------------------------------------Puddapa 22 23Manambuddy & 34 1/2 32 Chimbaucum 32 1/2 32Trichichiconum 38 40Madrantacum & 51 50Kypaucum 68 68Calleapettah & 32 1/2 36Otramaloor 49 50Arnee 29 37Muttlewar 120 160
Conjeveram 42 45Onnapurum & 57 90Great Arnu 72 St.Thome and Conoor 4Nelloor 96 120 ===================================================Source:A. Hastings' Report, in Public Consultations, 3.12.1771, p.854. B. Public Proceedings, 1771, Diary of the Proceedings of a Journey through Weaving Villages in the Hon.Company's Jaghirs, Minutes of Council, 27.12.1771.
TABLE.III-2-3 SPACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF VILLAGES IN THE RESPECTIVE PAYAKATT ================================================================= PAYAKATT LOCATION PAYAKATT LOCATION VILLAGE CODE VILLAGE CODE-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIAPAUCUM MT143C ARNEE PO129A VEDAL MT298A KRAVARUM NONGOLATOOR MT314B AUMIDA NELLORE TV184A ATCHARAPAUCUM MT069A VADA MADURA TV165K PORAYOOR MT160A CAUMA SOORA PARAUCKALL MT147A THREVALLORE TV042R PARUMPAUCUM MT151A TREPASSORE TV045C POLUMPAUCUM MT164A TARNOY PALAVOU MT145B SATEAVADEE TONNADU MT145D CAUTUM NACKPETTA PERVALUL MT166B PARUNDORE TV200C?NETTARUM PAUCUM MT168A COSHEVAN PETTA TV042G? MUNGALUM PO133B
MANAMBADY & CH152A POOTUM BADE CHEMBACUM CH128A MADRA PAIK SA183A?
VALANAN TONGEL CH159A MAUSRETTORE CORANEE CH160A SHEEDAMA PETTA ARRUNGCUNNUM CH151A SOORA POODE CAYENEERPAUCUM SUNCHURA PAULUM MOLLEPACUM CH141A SUNTA VELLORE PAREA ERREMBADO CH235A TANDAM NAUDE CHINNA ERREMBADO CH234A SURUVELAL PETTA VERALL PACUM CH137A PAUDEE PETTA VANGOU CH126A GUNNUDE POODE NUNTHUMCOONTHANPACUM YEADOORE MALIYOOR ANDACONDULUM KETT(LL?)IYOOR POTRE RAJAH PETTA AGARUM CH154A CAUNDALORE ATCHARAPACUM CH134A SAULOOR PETTA CHEMBACUM CH128A MAUDA POORAM KA136A CAUNEECOSEE PETTA ANNAMANAICKCOOPPUM TV177A AMMUPETTA CH106A YEREA THURY COYARE CH053C PAULK PETTAH TV210B RAJAMPETTA CH254A? MADANUM BADEE
TRECULCHYCUNNUM CH224E CONJEVERAM KA026A MONGALUMPETTA CH220C MACHOCOLAPITTA VADACOOPADOO CH220D COLLARAMEN PALLIAM COLUTTORE RAJAPETTA VEERAPOORAM CH187A BARAGODE POORUM VULLYPOORUM CH306A THOOMBAVANUM DASSORY PETTAH CH224A SHENGARA COIL VOYAL PETTAH REDDY PETTA CANNEOYE PETTA CH224B SHECK PETTA VALLE MEYAH PETTA
WONNAPOORUM PAREA ARNEE TV298B PADAPAH SP099B HAVALORE PETTA KILLAPADAPAH VANNANGUNNON DURGUM TV183A MANNECAUM MAMPUTTOO TV168A KALAMPACUM CH045A TREESORE WOORAPACUM CH004A VILUAMEE PANDANADO CALLIAPETTA KA279A WORACATO PETTA KA280A MADARANDAGUM MT192B CAUVETANDLUM KA281A THAVAUDORE MT231A MIYORE KA293A CAUVAUDORE MT232A AUGALY MT056A KENNEPAUCUM MT026A TUNDRA MT033B CARUNGGULLEPALIAM MT215D =================================================================Source: Public Proceedings, 1771, Diary of the Proceedings of a Journey through Weaving Villages in the Hon'ble Company's Jaghir, Minutes of Council, 27.12.1771. FIG.III-2-1SPACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGES IN THE RESPECTIVE PAYAKATT Another evidence showing the nature of Payakatt is the usage of designation 'Nattwar'. As studied before, Hastings argued in the same report that the term, 'Nattwar', was improperly used by the people for denoting the head weaver, and the correct meaning of 'Nattwar' was 'heads or representatives of the inhabitants'. According to Hastings' statement, only the late 'Nattwar' (Head Weaver) of Puddapa was the 'Nattwar' in its proper meaning, i.e. heads or representatives of the inhabitants.Hastings' Report, op.cit., p.855.
It may be deduced from the above investigation that the territorial division of 'Payekatt' was in use only in the case of weaving industry or of commercial activities at most.
Purgannah-Maugan-Village Next source-material on the territorial division in the Jagir is the report of the Committe of Revenue to the Governor in 1775 about the establishment of administration of justice in the Jagir.Letter from the Committee of Revenue to the President and Governor and Council of Fort St. George, 28.7.1775, in Madras Revenue Proceedings, 12.7.1775. The Committee proposed the following plan: "In every Purganah a court might be established for the decision of all causes to consist of the renter, the Canago or Mahratta writer, the Stalacurnum, the Nautcurnums, and the Natawars of the Cusba ... In every Cusba of a Maugan, a petty court may be established for decision of disputes under 20 Pagodas to consist of the oversur (overseer?:T.M) the Nautcurnum, and head inhabitant of the Cusba of the Maugan, and the Curnum and head inhabitant of the village... But crimes or misdeamenours should be tried at the capital of the Purganah."Ibid., Paras.30, 37.
It is known by this account that the basic territorial divisions were three - 'Purganah', 'Maugan', and village, and that each 'Purganah' had a 'capital' and each 'Maugan' had a 'Cusba'.
The three territorial divisions mentioned in this account were also followed by the Collectors like Place and Hodgson. The villages listed in the Place's Turabbudy and Teervai account of the Jaghir are arranged by the classification of Purgannah, Magan and village. The Hodgson's Jamabundi Report for Fusli 1208 contains the list of villages, which was also arranged by the same classification.Jummahbundy of the Different Villages in the Several Districts of the Jagheer for Fusly 1208, 29.5.1799, in Miscellaneous Records. Villages were circled into Magans and then Purgannahs. Fig.III-2-2 shows the spatial distribution of the villages in the respective Magan in the Carangooly Purgannah.FIG.III-2-2SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGES IN THE RESPECTIVE MAGANS
IN THE CARANGOOLY PURGANNAHMagan the Basic Administrative Unit Among these territorial units in the Jagir, the basic unit for administration seemed to be the Magan. This is indicated by the Place's letter in which he used the following phrases: "...from the exception of one Magan in the Purgunnah of Carangooly..." "...the inhabitants of his (Nattar's:T.M) Magan came to him, to say, that those of the other Magans had received orders..."Letter from the Collector in the Jaghire, 16.7.1796, in Board's Collections, 940-941, Vol.36.
The second evidence indicating Magan as basic administrative unit is the account about the establishment of judicial court cited above. The court was proposed to be set up in every cusba of a Magan in the report. The third evidence is the report of Ellis who was the collector of Madras in the year 1816. In his replies to the Mirasi questions, Ellis showed the number of villages, number of mirasidars, total value of the Mirasi, etc., of every 'Maganam' (Magan). His figures were calculated from the accounts taken by Place.Papers on Mirasi Rights, op.cit., p.212.
These accounts indicate that the basic administrative unit in the Jagir was Magan.
Nattar and Magan If Magan was the basic unit for administration, what was the relation between Nattar and Magan ? There are two or three lists of the Nattars in the Jagir in the early British Records, where the names of the Nattars as well as the location of their landed rights are recorded. By using these records, we can investigate their relation with Magan. The only complete list of the Nattars in the area was prepared by the Collector, Greenway, in 1801, a year before the Permanent Settlement was introduced in Chingleput. For introducing the Permanent Zamindari Settlement, Greenway had to dispose the Nattars' privileges granted and recorded in the cowles at the time of their appointment by Place in 1797. Greenway prepared the list in 1801, in which the privileges of the Nattars specified in the
cowles issued by Place and those proposed in the coming Permanent Settlement were comparatively shown.The privileges proposed to be allowed in the Permanent Settlement by Greenway were nearly half of those granted by Place.(See Permanent Settlement Records, Vol.25. p.143)
The proposed privileges were later again reduced. As stated in Chapter II, only parts of the Shrotrium were granted at the time of Permanent Settlement in 1801. The details of the privileges of the Old and New Nattars specified in the Cowles issued by Place are shown in Appendix.4 and Appendix.5. The privileges they had enjoyed were as follows:As will be discussed later, the Nattars received the landlord's rent from other cultivators in the villages they possessed privileged landed rights. 1. Shrotrium - whole village was rented by the renter or Shrotriumdar at nominal fixed-rent, 2. Maniam - rent free land, and 3. high Warum - the cultivator was allowed higher share in the produce than others. As the village names where their privileged tenures were located are recorded in the list, the spacial distribution of the Nattars' privileges and its relation with the Magan can be known.Among the 69 Nattars appointed by Place in 1797, 47 were newly appointed in the post and 22 had been the old Nattars and were confirmed of their post by Place. We will examine the cases of the 22 old Nattars only, who had possessed the privileges before the Place's appointment. Table.III-2-4 is the abstract of the old Nattars' privileges recorded in the Place' cowles, showing the number of villages where their privileged tenures were located. It is known from the Table that the 22 old Nattars possessed 55 Shrotrium villages, Maniams in 157 villages, and high Warum in 78 villages including overlaps (sometimes the same villages are owned by the several Nattars in share). In addition they possessed some lands in 38 vil
lages where they did not carry out cultivation. It is apparent from these figures that their privileged tenures were not confined in a village but scattered in several villages. Regarding the relation between the Magan and the spatial distribution of the villages where the Nattars' privileged tenures were found, Table.III-2-5 gives important implications. Table.III-2-5 shows the concentration of spatial distribution of the privileged tenures of the old Nattars (See for detail, Appendix.5). It is known from Table.III-2-5 that most of the old Nattars' privileged tenures were spread over several Magans. The privileged tenures of Vencata Reddy (CH17) and Royaliengar & Ragoonaudacharry (TP24), for instances, were scattered as many as ten Magans. There are, however, also several cases of the Nattars whose privileges were concentrated only in one Magan. The privileges of the Nattars, TP26, PM34, SM36, PO42, MM49, are such cases. What is the implication of these contrasted figures ? Can we discern significant relation between the Nattars and the Magan by them or can't we ? The points to be considered in this regard are 1. whether the unit for the Nattars' jurisdiction was Magan, several Magans, or a part of Magan, and 2. whether the privileged tenures of them were related with their jurisdiction or not. It is sure that many of the British administrators judged that any privileged tenures should not be considered as separate from the duties attached to the office, so that they thought it quite natural to deprive the enjoyers of their privileges whenever their services became unnecessary. It is, however, also sure that many of the native servants opposed against their being deprived of the long established privileges, which indicates it was not uncommon in the period that the privileged tenures were inherited, purchased or sold and treated as private property whatever the original objectives of their grant might have been. The frequent transactions of these rights through sale is well indicated by the Bernard's Report where the shares of large number of villages are recorded to be very often possessed by outsiders through sale.TABLE. III-2-4
ABSTRACT OF THE OLD NATTARS' PRIVILEGES IN CHINGLEPUT SPECIFIED IN THE COWLES GRANTED BY PLACE IN 1797=============================================================================================================== Caste Name of the Nattar Shrotrium Maniam High Warum N.C Profit Warum Total No. code Vi.Profit Vi. Caw. P. Vi. P.F.C Vi. P. F. C. P. P.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CH16 MU WOLAGAPA MOODELY 3 166 10 30 60 5 76. 5. 4 3 302.05.04 312 614CH17 RE VENCATA REDDY 4 164 12 30 60 2 38.22.23 279.22.23 141 420TP23 AI APPIENGAR 3 140 19 30 60 6 34.21.16 2 234.21.16 135 369TP24 AI+AC ROYALIENGAR & RAGOONAUDACHARRY 4 280 17 45 90 7 68.21.45 1 438.21.45 235 677TP26 AI SHASHIENGAR 4 327 4 12 24 1 3. 4.25 3 354.04.25 13 367TP27 AC SHADAGOPACHARRY 4 144 14 30 60 1 25.31.50 1 229.31.50 103 332TP28 MU AYAH MOODALY 1 82 7 20 40 4 22.43.67 2 144.43.67 93 237PM29 ?? VENCATANARNAPIAH 4 671 7 48 96 4 54.39.43 8 821.39.43 219 1040PM30 MU VERDAPAH MOODELY 4 296 3 43 86 7 31.39.36 3 413.39.36 113 526PM32 MU RUNGASUMMY MOODELY 3 246 7 30 60 2 1.36.53 5 307.36.53 10 317PM33 MU TRIVENGADA MOODALY 1 311 5 30 60 2 24.35.18 395.35.18 148 543PM34 MU SHEVAPADA MOODELY 1 200 3 30 60 2 27.17.20 287.17.20 109 396PM35 MU APPAH MOODALY 2 262 6 30 60 3 123.25.12 445.25.12 425 870
SM36 MU COOMARAPAH MOODELY 1 87 10 20 40 2 23.17.59 150.17.59 104 254SM37 MU PUTTARAVY MOODALY 1 60 4 20 40 1 13. 7.15 1 113. 7.15 79 192PO40 ?? NARNIAH 2 131 4 30 60 4 33.25.13 2 224.25.13 101 325PO41 MU VENCATACHELLAM MOODALY 3 149 3 30 60 4 61.20.67 2 270.20.67 163 433PO42 MU MOOTAPAH MOODALY 2 231 4 30 60 10 190.00.58 481.00.58 486 967 PO43 MU CAUTANOOR SOOBRAMANEYA MOODALY 3 150 4 30 60 3 43.11.40 1 253.11.40 100 353PO44 MU CHINGLEROY MOODALY 2 142 4 30 60 4 18.27.25 2 220.27.25 55 275MM49 AI RAMANJIENGAR 2 4 9 20 40 3 10.40.50 2 52.40.50 45 97MM50 AI RAGONAUDIENGAR 1 64 1 40 80 1 9.17.49 113.17.49 37 150---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL 22 Nattars 55 4307 157 658 1316 78 937.05.68 38 6535.05.68 3227 9762AVERAGE 2.5 196 7.1 30 60 3.5 43 1.7 297 147 443===============================================================================================================Source: Permanent Settlement Records, Vol.25, Statement of the Privileges of the Nattawars, E.Greenway, 28.3.1801.Note:1. Abbreviations: Vi.- Number of villages where the privileged tenures were found. Caw.-Cawnie. 2. The exchange rate of the currency used in the records: 1 Fanam = 80 Cash, 1 Pagoda = 46 Fanam 3. The relation of the measures of Cullum, Marakkal, and Measure: 1 Cullum = 12 Marakal, 1 Marakal = 8 Measures
TABLE. III-2-5CONCENTRATION OF SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRIVILEGED TENURES OF THE OLD NATTARS IN THE RESPECTIVE MAGAN===========================================================================================NO. CASTE NAME OF THE NATTAR NUMBER OF VILLAGES IN EACH MAGAN CODE 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th SH ??-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CH16 MU WOLAGAPA MOODELY 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 CH17 RE VENCATA REDDY 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 TP23 AI APPIENGAR 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 TP24 AI+AC ROYALIENGAR & RAGOONAUDACHARRY 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 TP26 AI SHASHIENGAR 2 3 1 TP27 AC SHADAGOPACHARRY 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 TP28 MU AYAH MOODALY 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 PM29 ?? VENCATANARNAPIAH 3 2 1 1 5 4 PM30 MU VERDAPAH MOODELY 4 2 1 3 6 PM32 MU RUNGASUMMY MOODELY 2 2 1 1 1 3 4 PM33 MU TRIVENGADA MOODALY 2 1 1 1 1 PM34 MU SHEVAPADA MOODELY 4 1 PM35 MU APPAH MOODALY 4 1 2 SM36 MU COOMARAPAH MOODELY 9 1 2 SM37 MU PUTTARAVY MOODALY 3 1 1 1 PO40 ?? NARNIAH 2 2 2 1 2 2 PO41 MU VENCATACHELLAM MOODALY 5 1 2 PO42 MU MOOTAPAH MOODALY 10 3 PO43 MU CAUTANOOR SOOBRAMANEYA MOODALY 2 1 1 1 4 PO44 MU CHINGLEROY MOODALY 4 1 1 1 2 MM49 AI RAMANJIENGAR 9 3
MM50 AI RAGONAUDIENGAR 1 1 ===========================================================================================Source: Statement of the Privileges of the Nattawars, E.Greenway, 28.3.1801, Permanent Settlement Records, Vol.25.
Not only the tax-free lands (Maniam) granted by governments but also the ordinary government lands were possessed by persons living outside the village. The famous argument about the Mirasi tenures in the 19th century is also related with the nature of land rights transacted very often as private property.This subject will be discussed in more detail in the last section of this chapter. Anyhow it was quite possible that the privileged tenures enjoyed by the Nattars listed above were not always granted or confirmed because of their service as Nattar but were acquired through purchase, inheritence, or some other means. If the privileged tenures were separated from the purpose of their original grant and were transacted as saleable property, it is not strange at all that the land transaction occurred across Magan boundaries irrespective of the jurisdiction of Nattar. The spatial distribution of the Nattars' privileged tenures over the several Magans, thus, does not necessarily imply their jurisdiction spatially.
The relation of the official jurisdiction of Nattar with Magan is not clear. The only source implying the relation is the report of the Committe of Revenue to the Governor in 1775 about the establishment of administration of justice in the Jagir cited above. If reproduced again, it was as follows:
"In every Purganah a court might be established for the decision of all causes to consist of the renter, the Canago or Mahratta writer, the Stalacurnum, the Naut Curnums, and the Natawars of the Cusba... In every Cusba of a Maugan, a petty court may be established for decision of disputes under 20 Pagodas to consist of the oversur (overseer?) the Nautcurnum, and head inhabitant of the Cusba of the Maugan, and the Curnum and head inhabitant of the village."Letter from the Committee of Revenue to the President and Governor and Council of Fort St. George, 28.7.1775, Paras. 30,
37, in Madras Revenue Proceedings, 12.7.1775.
It is implied by this letter that the 'Natawars of the Cusba' and 'head inhabitant of the Cusba of the Maugan' signified the same people. The Nattars seemed to be linked to the Cusba of the respective Magan. Then can we take this remark as signifying that the Nattars in the region performed their activities in the Magan while residing in the Cusba of the Magan ? Regarding this point, it is to be remembered that Place could not find Nattars in some parts of the area. For instance there had been no Nattars in Carangooly, Covelong, or Permbauk before the appointment of the Nattars by Place (see Table.II-1-6 and II-1-7). Even where Nattars were found to have existed, they had enjoyed only a nominal emolument. Place wrote as follows: "The Board will observe how very inadequate all the privileges of the Nauttawars have been, to enable them to support the duties of their office, and that some have inherited the name only, without any emolument whatever..."Letter from the Collector in the Jaghire, in BOR Proceedings, 18.9.1797.
Another important point to be noted is that Place appointed several Nattars in every Purgannah, not in every Magan. Judging from these evidences, it is inappropriate to observe a well established administrative structure having Nattar in every Magan. Such structure, even if it had existed, must have been found only partially in the area. On the other hand the fact the Nattars in the Jagir were town-dwellers is indicated by the Greenway's report cited above in which the Nattars' names are recorded without village names except several cases. The extensive distribution of their privileged tenures indicates that the Nattars were not directly engaged in agricultural production but received a kind of landlord rent from their lands - this point will be discussed later - while residing in the Cusba or town. Their acquisition of the lands across several magans may be also explained by the nature of the Nattars as town-dwellers.
-South Arcot-Turruf and Magan
In South Arcot the five territorial designations of Tahsildary, Tookdy, Turruf, Mouzah, and Muzerah were in use. Muzerah seemed to be a hamlet, Mouzah a village consisting of a few Muzerahs. Tahsildary and Tookdy corresponds to the Taluk of the present day. Between the Mouzah and Tahsildary falls Turruf having a certain number of villages within it.Jummabundy of Each Village for Fusli 1211, in Board's Consultations, 13.7.1802, in BOR Miscellaneous Records, Vol.12. Another designation, 'Magan', was also found to be used in the letter of the collector of Cuddalore and Pondicherry. In the letter dated 10 February 1806 the collector reported the extents of the Nanja and Punja lands and the population of each village in the 'Cuddalore Magan'.BOR Proceedings, 10.2.1806, p.849. The extent of the lands and pupulation in the respective village in Cuddalore Magan were as follows:========================================================Names of the Villages Nanja Punja Population--------------------------------------------------------Cuddalore 308 1015 9093Vadagumban 98 222 - Cariaravettacopong 126 307 1070 Trepopalore 427 770 4876 Chelamcopong 124 529 625 Manjicopong 52 987 1563 Vennarapollam 8 279 164 Tevenapatam 2 430 635 Upulavady 52 1033 407 Villanattum 11 210 145Chummandelum 24 124 -Wadara Manicam 39 106 118Wutchemede 10 173 123 Ganganamcopong 22 226 135-------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 1310 6415 19554========================================================
Source: BOR Proceedings, 10.2.1806, p.849. Most probably the Magan and Turruf has the same meaning. As the main part of Arcot remained long under Nawab of Arcot, the farsi term must have been mainly used. It is interesting to note that there is no account in the early British records indicating that the unit wider than a village functioned as a unit for administration or other purposes so far as my research is concerned. There is a little possibility that the early collectors did not pay any attention to wider unit like Turruf as they were the eager supporter of Raiyatwari System. But still it is quite strange that none of the records referred to the wider units. Such lack of information probably implies that the unit, Turruf, did not function as a unit for administration or other social activities in the period. This point becomes clearer by investigating the relation between the Nattars and territorial units in South Arcot.
Nattar and Turruf As stated in Chapter II-2, the complete list of the Nattars in South Arcot was not prepared by the Collectors despite the order from the Board of Revenue. The only record listing Nattars' names is the list of the Nattars whose various privileges were resumed in 1802. Apendix.3 indicates the names of the Nattars, and the location and Turruf codes of the villages found in the list. It is indicated that the villages where the Nattars resided were very unevenly distributed. For instance, Turruf VV151 had eight Nattars, Turruf VV152 six Nattars, and Turruf PL039 seven Nattars. A few number of the Nattars are found to reside in the same village in some cases (for instance, Satanoor, Kulunoor, and Panchamadavy). It seems difficult to find significant relation between Nattar and Turruf or other territorial units. The relation between the jurisdiction of the Nattars and the territorial units can be known to a certain extent by comparing Appendix.3 and the list of renters at the Village Settlement of 1801-02 prepared by Graham. There are in Appendix.3 several Nattars whose names and their village names are exactly same with those recorded in the Graham's list. Table.III-2-6 indicates the names of these Nattars, names of their rented villages, Turruf number in the Graham's list,The Graham's list cannot be reproduced here as it is too bulky for this publication. The Turruf number here signifies the serial number of the
Turrufs recorded in the list. and Location Code of 1971 Census, and Table.III-2-7 indicates the number of rented villages in each Turruf.Unfortunately the latter half of microfilm of the Graham's Report was damaged by technical mistakes. There is some possibility, therefore, that the Nattars in the Table rented some more villages. Though the rented villages by the respective Nattar don't necessarily correspond to the villages where the Nattar had possessed some jurisdiction or influence before the Village Settlement in 1801-02, these tables still give important implications for the subject.
It is known from the tables that there was a clear bifurcation of jurisdiction among the Nattars. Out of the fifteen Nattars in the table, nine rented only one village, two rented two villages, and one rented three villages. In contrast, three Nattars rented twelve, eight, and seven villages respectively. In such cases their rented villages were scattered over several Turrufs. These implications from the tables exactly support the findings from Appendix.3 studied above. That is, the bifurcation of the Nattars' jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction was confined in most of the cases in a village or two.This would also explain the reason why the terms of Gramattan and Nattar were used indifferently by the early British administrators. On the other hand in case they had bigger jurisdiction, it crossed over several Turrufs. There was thus a wide variation of jurisdiction among the Nattars. It may be summed up that the territorial units of the time had nothing to do with the Nattar's activities.
TABLE.III-2-6 NATTARS AND THEIR RENTED VILLAGES IN THE VILLAGE SETTLEMENT OF 1801-02 Note:1. Abbreviations (Territorial Units):
Ta - Tahsildary Tu - Turruf Vi - Village 2. Abbreviations (Tahsildary Names): AR - Arcot VE - Vellore PL - Poloor TM - Trinomaly ES - Elvanasore VC - Virdachel BH - Bhovangeery VP - Vilpoor
TI - Tirvadi VV - Vecravandi VD - Vurdavoor TT - Trivattoor EG - Elengar 3. Abbreviations (Taluk Names in Census Code of 1971): WW - Wandiwash VI - Villupuram GI - Gingee TI - Tindivanam CU - Cuddalore TK - Tirukoilur PO - Polur ============================================================= Nattar Village Ta Tu Vi Code-------------------------------------------------------------Ramlinga Reddy Aulapaukum VV 150 24 Arrumpaukum TM 044 10 Colapaulkum VV 152 21 Codial ES 081 08 Pautchanundul ES 081 09 Punnichembadi VV 155 21 TI 210 Navumbat TM 052 26 Cottarumbaulk VV 155 20 TI 210 Poovanoor BH 129 19 VC 202 Chingmode VV 158 04 Cuttalumcooppum VV 150 25 Corallore VV 150 23 TI 065Sambasiva Reddy Auvediaput VV 150 08 VI 139Vurda Reddy Conamunglum VV 151 10 Mooddu Venkutputty Reddy Nuryanoor VV 152 06 Kunmuntpoor VV 150 34 Siorput VV 151 27 Caupair VV 152 09 Pillarycooppum VV 150 31 Pomboor VV 150 28 TI 288 Erumbunnore VV 150 21 Purkilput VV 155 86 TI 071Kistna Reddy Tennel VV 152 07 Pullicondaput TM 052 27 Padiemboottoor PL 023 26 PO 119 Perriapunghada TM 056 04 Mossa Collum VP 141 14 VP 165
Eiembaudy BH 120 09 Chinna Naraconum BH 120 08 Venket Kistna Reddy Punchamadavy VV 152 16 VI 167Ramaling Vodain Audeyoor VV 152 03 VI 167Conda Reddy Poodeeput VV 152 03 TI 216 Mooddoo Coma Reddy Panderapulore VV 154 01 Munnaria Peddagham VP 139 08 VI 087 Totapaudy VC 104 05 Poodeponnataun VC 104 20 Venketramanachary Poongonum TI 145 01 CU 084Timmappyengaur Munpaulkum TI 144 13 CU 027Eiyempella Vadavun Errenda TI 146 15 TK 283Reddeppa Reddy Sondmungle TI 146 21 TK 288 Senjie Coopum TI 146 22 Peddu Reddy Sunniaspatte TI 144 15 CU 094 Punretty TI 144 08=============================================================Source: Letter from Garrow, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803. Jummabundy, Board's Consultations, 13.7.1802, in BOR Miscellaneous Records,Vol.12. TABLE.III-2-7 NUMBER OF VILLAGES RENTED BY NATTARS IN THE RESPECTIVE TURRUFS ================================================================= Nattar No. of Rented Villages in Each Turruf 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1.Ramlinga Reddy 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.Sambasiva Reddy 1 3.Vurda Reddy 1 4.Mooddu Venkutputty Reddy 4 2 1 1 5.Kistna Reddy 2 1 1 1 1 1 6.Venket Kistna Reddy 1 7.Ramaling Vodain 1
8.Conda Reddy 1 9.Mooddoo Coma Reddy 1 10.Munnaria 2 1 11.Venketramanachary 1 12.Timmappyengaur 1 13.Eiyempella Vadavun 1 14.Reddeppa Reddy 2 15.Peddu Reddy 2 =================================================================Source: Letter from Garrow, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803. Jummabundy, Board's Consultations, 13.7.1802, in BOR Miscellaneous Records,Vol.12.TABLE.III-2-8NATTARS AND THEIR VILLAGES IN TIRUVENDIPURAM IN 1775===================================================================Nattars and Villages Code Nattars and Villages Code -------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kistna Reddy 3. Vishvanadda Reddy Manamadavy CU152E Tondamanattum CU229D Annavelly CU219A Allapaukum CU234A,226BPatchancopang CU215A Ramapooram CU155E Chinnaganganamcopang CU196A Treminiculy CU154B Murdaud CU186A Vadagumbum Wargalput CU187A,189D Pudupetta CU103D? Keelacopang CU150A Tirtoriare CU011C
2. Mylarumperoomal Pillay 4. Datatry Reddy Allaganuthum CU162A Mundagaput VI220B Cudecaud CU216D Nellatoor CU166C Wottary CU157A 5. Jeanty Reddy Trevendeepuram CU207D Toataput CU189C Arisheperiancopang CU209A Sundaravandy CU148C Carupedytundo CU210A 6. Chundashaira Reddy Arriavetrty Veerapermal Nellore CU021C ================================================
===================Source: Copy of the advertisement, 7.1.1786, in BOR Proceedings, No.14. Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, p.10.-Tiruvendipuram- The territorial term of Magan or Turruf is not used in any of the records of Tiruvendipuram as was the case with South Arcot. For instance some space for noting the 'Magan' names is kept aside in the report on the Zamindari estates in 1806. No Magan names were, however, written there. 'District' (i.e. Tiruvendipuram), 'principal village', and 'small village' depending on the principal ones (i.e. hamlet) were the territorial categories used there.Madras Revenue Proceedings, 28.4.1806, pp.2138-2175.
The lack of territorial division wider than a village seems to be partly related with the nature of the Nattars' management of this area. That is, they managed the whole area in shares without making spatial boundaries in it. As noted before, the area had been managed by the eldest male descendents of the original Nattars.The area was occupied by force by the Company in 1750 as studied in Chapter II-2. It is not clear whether the area had been the composite unit for administration or not. Judging from the accounts studied in Chapter II-2, the area probably corresponds to that under the Havildar of Tiruvendipuram. According to the Report of Tiruvendipuram Farm in 1775 the descendents of each of the original Nattars are recorded to have claimed the particular villages. The names of the eldest male descendants and their claimed villages were as indicated in Table.III-2-8. This division of the territory, however, was not a permanent one. The area was managed by them in shares, which can be known by the Advertisement cited in Chapter II-2.Copy of the Advertisement, 7.1.1786, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. No.14. Table.III-2-9 shows the names of the Nattars with the names of villages upon which each of the Nattars were stated to have jurisdiction in 1775 and 1785. It is known from the Table that the villages were managed by the Nattars in shares and that some of the villages moved to
other Nattar's jurisdiction in the years between 1775 and 1785. When the Tiruvendipuram was divided into the zamindari estates in the Permanent Zamindari Settlement in 1806, Fallofield, the Collector, stressed to grant the estates not jointly but separately to the respective Nattars. The division of the villages into the estates again differed from that in 1785. Table. III-2-10 showing the changes of jurisdiction of the respective villages between 1775 and 1806 would clearly show the situation. The Nattars' relation with the villages in the area was, thus, originally joint one without any fixed geographical division in it. The six Nattars held the area jointly and in fixed shares. It is to be noted that though the area was managed by the six Nattars in fixed shares, the shares of the respective Nattars seemed to be transferred between them. The unequal proportion of the shares among the Nattars clearly indicates them. The 60 shares must have been originally enjoyed by them equally, allotting 10 shares to each. The changes in the division of the villages also occured because of the transaction of the shares between the Nattars.There is a little possibility that each village hereditary belong to the same Nattar, but was transferred to other Nattars by the transaction of the shares. This possibility is little judging from the order by Fallofield mentioned above.
TABLE.III-2-9COMPARATIVE LIST OF THE NATTARS' MANAGED VILLAGES IN TIRUVENDIPURAM 1775-1785=============================================================Nattars in 1785 Shares Nattars in 1775 -------------------------------------------------------------1. Sambasheva Reddy 13 1/2
Manamadavy Kistna ReddyVaurcaulputtoo Kistna ReddyMaroodaudoo Kistna ReddyKeelacopam Kistna ReddyChennaconganamcoopum Kistna ReddyAnnavally Kistna Reddy
Putchiancoopam Kistna Reddy Trevenduporam Mylarumperoomal Pillay Asparyancoopan Mylarumperoomal Pillay
2. Tremalrow 13 1/2 Carooopuddy Toondoo Mylarumperoomal Pillay
3. Sadashava Row 13 1/2 Ariahvetty Mylarumperoomal Pillay Alliganattam Mylarumperoomal PillayCoodecauoo Mylarumperoomal PillayOtary Mylarumperoomal PillayTreemanicooley Vishvanadda ReddyTreetoriyoor Vishvanadda ReddyTondamaunuttam Vishvanadda ReddyVaddacummal Vishvanadda ReddyPoodoopatta Vishvanadda ReddyRamaporam Vishvanadda ReddyAllapaukum Vishvanadda Reddy
4. Sevenaga Reddy 10 Mundagaputtoo Datatry ReddyNellatoor Datatry Reddy
5. Jaindy Reddy 3 3/4 Totaputttoo Jeanty ReddySoondravandy Jeanty Reddy
6. Sundrasagara Reddy 5 3/4 Veeraperumaunellore Chundashaira Reddy
------------------------------------------------------------ Total 60 shares============================================================Source: Copy of the Advertisement, 7.1.1786, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. No.14.
TABLE.III-2-10COMPARATIVE LISTS OF DIVISION OF THE VILLAGES IN TIRUVENDIPURAM 1775-1785-1806
=====================================================================================Name of the Village Nattars in 1775 Nattars in 1785 Estates in 1806 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Manamadavy Kistna Reddy Sambasheva Reddy Manamadavy Annavelly Kistna Reddy Sambasheva Reddy Tondamanottum Patchancopang Kistna Reddy Sambasheva Reddy Tondamanottum Chinnaganganamcopang Kistna Reddy Sambasheva Reddy Allagynuttum Murdaud Kistna Reddy Sambasheva Reddy Trivenduporam Wargalput Kistna Reddy Sambasheva Reddy Trivenduporam Keelacopang Kistna Reddy Sambasheva Reddy Trivenduporam Allaganuthum Mylarumperoomal Pillay Sadashava Row Allagynuttum Cudecaud Mylarumperoomal Pillay Sadashava Row Tondamanottum Wottary Mylarumperoomal Pillay Sadashava Row Manamadavy Trevendeepuram Mylarumperoomal Pillay Sambasheva Reddy Trivenduporam Arisheperiancopang Mylarumperoomal Pillay Sambasheva Reddy Trivenduporam Carupedytundo Mylarumperoomal Pillay Tremalrow Trivenduporam Arriavetrty Mylarumperoomal Pillay Sadashava Row Arriavetty Tondamanattum Vishvanadda Reddy Sadashava Row Tondamanottum Allapaukum Vishvanadda Reddy Sadashava Row Arriavetty Ramapooram Vishvanadda Reddy Sadashava Row Manamadavy Treminiculy Vishvanadda Reddy Sadashava Row Manamadavy Vadagumbum Vishvanadda Reddy Sadashava Row Tondamanottum Pudupetta Vishvanadda Reddy Sadashava Row Tondamanottum Tirtoriare Vishvanadda Reddy Sadashava Row VeerapermalnelloreMundagaput Datatry Reddy Sevenaga Reddy Allagynuttum
Nellatoor Datatry Reddy Sevenaga Reddy Allagynuttum Toataput Jeanty Reddy Jaindy Reddy Trivenduporam Sundaravandy Jeanty Reddy Jaindy Reddy Trivenduporam Veerapermal Nellore Chundashaira Reddy Sundrasagara Reddy Veerapermalnellore=====================================================================================Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, p.10. Madras Revenue Proceedings, 28.4.1806, pp.2138-2175. Copy of the advertisement, 7.1.1786, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. No.14.
Another important point to be studied is the entity of the Farm as a unit. It is true that Tiruvendipuram country was the unit for administration and was managed by a renter and the Nattars in the period. But this fact does not necessarily mean the country was united under them without being interfered by the outsiders. This is implied first of all by the change of the Nattars. Table.III-2-11 indicates the names of the Nattars in the different records. Till 1775 Pillai caste name is found in the records. In the record of 1785, Pillai caste name disappeared and two Row-s were newly added.The caste of the two Row-s are not identified. Ususally Row is the name give to Maratha Brahmin. My field trip to the country in 1984 also found the Maratha Brahmins there. But there was a person called Sadashavarow Reddy who was one of the renters in 1753 as cited before in Chapter II-2. (Letters to FSG, 1752-53, 4.4.1753, No.75) Anyhow it is rare for a Pillai to have the name Row. The villages stated to belong to the Pillai (Mylarumperoomal Pillai) in 1775 were held by the two Row-s and one Reddi in 1785. The share must have been sold by the Pillai during the period. Though it was stated the descendents of the original six Nattars hereditary managed the country, it seemed to be acknowledged only in notion, not in reality. The shares allotted to them must have been frequently transacted even with outsiders. It is also to be noted that the Nattars were not residing in the village but in the town (probably in
Tiruvendipuram or in Cuddalore). The transfers of villages among them and their names without place names indicates this.
The frequent transfers of landed right to outsiders are also recorded in the Consultation cited in Chapter II-2. It was as follows: "It seems to have been usual in the Trevendupooram country for the Chief inhabitants of the villages to mortgage the rights of cultivation to the Company's merchants and others, which when a new renter is appointed is very prejudicial to the Farm, and a source of continual disputes between the renters and the merchants... It is said that many of the Company's grounds in the Bounds of St.David and the Trevenduporam country have been made over or given away to the people under the hand of the later renter."Madras Public Consultations, 27.10.1766. It is not clearly mentioned who were the 'Chief inhabitants of the villages'. The cowle given to the Nattars in 1750 has one clause in which the Nattars were given the right to freely lease out any part of the lands. It is also known that the Nattars had enjoyed the right of mortgaging land to the amount of their privileges by 1768 (see Chapter II-2). Judging from them, the 'Chief inhabitants' mentioned here were probably the Nattars. They seemed to mortgage the rights of cultivation often to the Company merchants and others. The Company's merchants were to be sure the residents of Cuddalore town.
TABLE.III-2-11NAMES OF THE NATTARS IN THE DIFFERENT RECORDS================================================================================================ Principal Inhabitants Renters in the Cowle Nattars in the Account Nattars Reestablishedin Declarations in in 1750 of Tiruvendipuram in in 17851750 1775 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sambasevah Redy Sambasheva Reddee Sambasheva Reddy Wishnadah Redy Vishvanada Reddee Vishvanadda Reddy
Vencatapetty Redy Vencataputty Reddee Janardanah Redy Janardeen Reddee Jeanty Reddy Jaindy ReddySevanagah Redy Shevenaga Reddee Sevenaga ReddyTermalayah Pillah Malleirum Permall Pilla Mylarumperooma Pilla Paley Redy Jaganada Reddee Chundashaira Reddy Sundrasagara Reddy Kistna Reddy Datatry Reddy Tremal Row Sadashava Row================================================================================================Source: FSD Consultations, 1749/50, 3(13?).3.1750, 5.10.1750, 5.11.1750. Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, p.10. Copy of the advertisement, 7.1.1786, in BOR Proceedings, 28.4.1806. No.14.
TABLE.III-2-12 NAME OF MAGANUM AND NUMBER OF VILLAGES IN TRICHINOPOLY IN WALLACE'S REPORT ======================================================================================TALOOK TALOOK TALOOK -MAHAL- NUMBER OF -MAHAL- NUMBER OF -MAHAL- NUMBER OFMAGANUM VILLAGES MAGANUM VILLAGES MAGANUM VILLAGES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONAUD TALOOK VITTICUTTY TALOOK ILOOR TALOOK -Conaud- 58 -Vitticutty- 36 -Ilore- 47 Conaud 23 Hoolmauganum 16 Ilore 9 Allatore 4 Cullapully 6 Tottium 19 Vesinganaud 7 Kistnaroyapooram 8 Moosheree 19
Tyamaun 8 Cullay 6 -Seringham- 28 Wotamacharry 5 -Vyaloor- 29 Maibemoorie 21Seringham 11 Vyaloor 15 Theelmoorie 7 -Pootore Mahal- 33 Aunallay 7 -Pichandargoody- 39 Pootore 6 Nungaveram 3 Pichandargoody 17 Sommursump 18 Sheroogoomany 4 Keeliah Nelloor 9 Ammongoody 3 -Seevayem- 43 Teeroovalarray 13Cashcoorichy 6 Seevayem 9 Total 114 -Aunundanellore- 31 Vaddachairy 28 Annundanelloor 10 Munjanoyagum 6 Helecottah 7 Total 108 Elloopore 14 Total 122 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LAULGOODY TALOOK TERRIORE TALOOK MANNARGOODY TALOOK -Laulgoody- 89 -Terriore- 101 -Mannargoody- 170 Laulgoody 52 Terriore 15 Mannargoody 42 Poovaloor 17 Yerragoody 17 Ternavayoore 9 Sary 6 Cunnanoor 14 Terckanaud 26Sermiengoody 8 Terrotallayoore 17 Vuddackanaud 31Jemboocaswarum 6 Appalayapoorum 17 Wammamelloar 27 -Aulumpaukum- 23 Omandoor 16 Abrasputh 11 Aulumpaukum 16 Collacody 5 Stree Mustom 24Varagalore 5 -Settycollum- 93 -Chedumbram- 135Sengendy 2 Settycollum 16 Malemogum 42 -Ottatore- 24 Nucasellum 19 Kelamogum 15Ottatore 16 Terputtyoor 14 Trecattpollam 16Coormbalore 8 Tachencoorchy 15 Commaratchy 30 Total 136 Tawpayer 10 Arrasaputt 12 Keelepanavattum 19 Ellayree 20 -Valcondapuram- 72 Total 305 Annuailly 48 Coopoor 12 Vadagrampoody 12 Total 266
Grand Total 1051 ======================================================================================Source: Letter from the Collector of Trichinopoly to FSG, in BOR Proceedings, 14.3.1803. -Trichinopoly- Maganum as Basic Unit Trichinopoly district has several records on the relation between Nattar and territorial units. The territorial units in use at the beginning of the British period were Talook, Mahal, Maganum, Village, and Muzarah. There are some accounts indicating how the villages were actually divided into the respective territorial units. First is the Wallace's letter in 1803 reporting the number of cattles in the five Talooks of the district. In this report the figures of cattles were shown by Maganum. The names of Maganums in each Mahal under the different Talooks (Taluks) and the number of villages in the respective Maganum were as shown in Table.III-2-12. No list of the village names in Trichinopoly can be found in the early 19th century. It was only in 1819 when Lushington submitted the list of villages grouped under the different Maganums. Lushington reported to the BOR about the damages caused by the flood and explained the composition of the territories of the district. According to him there were three territorial units under each Talook, i.e. Maganum, large villages, and Muzrahs or hamlets. They were as indicated in Table.III-2-13:
TABLE.III-2-13NUMBER OF THE MAGANUM, VILLAGE, MUZRAH, AND SHROTRIRUM IN THE RESPECTIVE TALUKS IN LUSHINGTON'S REPORT IN 1819================================================
================Taluk Maganum Village Muzrah Shrotrium----------------------------------------------------------------Conaud 14 151 96Vitticutty 8 61 246 Iyalore 3 45 104Laulgoody 14 196 43Torriore 13 176 129 2Wodiarpolliam 26 237 46 12Arrialore 18 163 21 23================================================================Source: Letter from Lushington, in BOR Proceedings, 2.9.1819.
Among the several territorial units, Maganum was the most fundamental territorial unit of the period. As was already discussed in Chapter II-3, the first collector, Wallace, reported that "by renting out the district (Udaiyarpalaiyam:T.M) to the inhabitants of each Magaunum, the Nautaurs or head men became in a measure the managers of each Magaunum."Letter from Wallace to BOR, 22.1.1802, in BOR Proceedings, 13.9.1802, Para.94.
Wallace's main objective to introduce the village settlement was to suppress the power of the head inhabitants (Nattars) in the Maganum level by dividing the Maganum into composit villages.Report from the Collector at Trichinopoly, Para.134, in BOR Proceedings, 13.9.1802. The same type of explanation is found in the Proceeding of BOR a few years later. It is stated there that the mode of letting out large tracts of country was practised under the Nawab's management and that the renting villages separately or a settlement with each ryots was introduced to eradicate the oppression by the head inhabitants.BOR Proceedings, 24.6.1805. If the statement is accepted, the area was rented out by large unit (probably Maganum) in the pre-British period.The several reports about
the riots in Trichinopoly caused by the head inhabitants cited in Chapter II-3 also indicate that the Maganum functioned as the basic unit of the time. The names of the Maganums of Wolatore, Trepatore, Setticolum, and Uttatore are found there (see for instance, BOR Proceedings, 2.5.1805). There is another important account indicating that the Maganum functioned as the basic unit for administration. In 1809 the head inhabitants of the wet villages in the district were agitating against the coming Village Settlement and submitted a petition. It is stated in their petition that one government servant was posted in every Maganum. It runs as follows: "It is observable that in the life time of the said Nabob Amildars were placed in every district and Monigars in every village besides Amiras?? (unreadable:T.M) &c., who were careful in getting cultivation carried on... It is also observable that some persons were placed as circar servants at one in each Mauganum and it was their duty to act as overseers on the workmen in field threatening them in case of their neglect, so the matter continued for the space of seven years yet in Fusly 1218 Mr.Garrow removed the said persons. Ever since Pullers &c. inferior servants begin to disobey our orders and consequently our cultivation business is in confusion... please to employ some persons as circar servants at one in each Magaunum."Letter from the Collector in Trichinopoly, in BOR Proceedings, 11.12.1809.
From these evidences it may be judged that Maganum functioned as the basic unit for administration.
Nattar and Maganum The relation between the Nattars and the Maganum is already suggested in the above accounts. The Nattars in Udaiyarpalaiyam acted as the 'managers of each Maganum'. The other region in the dry area must have been also managed by the Nattars in the same way as Udaiyarpalaiyam. As to the wet villages, it is not evident whether the 'Circar servants at one in each Maganum' signifies the Nattars or not. Some more evidences are required for further verification.
Summary To sum up the investigation in this section, the features of territorial units in the respective districts were as follows: In the Jagir (Chingleput) the Magan seemed to have functioned as the basic unit for administration. But it is not possible to imagine a well-established administrative structure having Nattar in the respective Magans. The Nattars resided in the towns, probably in the Cusba of a Magan, and their landed-rights were in many cases not confined in a single Magan but were scattered over several Magans. The headmen of the weaver caste were called as Nattar. This usage was reported to be wrong and the proper meaning of Nattar was the representative of the inhabitants of the locality, not that of particular caste. In South Arcot the unit Turruf, equivalent of Magan, was not related with any of the activities of the period. The administrative unit was a certain number of villages, which had no connection with any of the territorial terms of the period. Several number of Nattars sometimes lived in the same village or town. Their jurisdiction seemed to be in most of the cases confined in one or two villages. There were also some Nattars who had jurisdiction over many villages spread over several Turrufs. There is no record indicating a particular relation between Nattar and caste organization. Tiruvendipuram was a composite unit for administration. It was managed by the descendants of six original Nattars in shares, but the land rights there were frequently transacted between the Nattars and with the outsiders. Neither Magan or Turruf were found to be used. In Trichinopoly Maganum was the primary unit for administration. The Nattars in the dry area had been the renters of revenue and managed the Maganum before the Company started their rule. In the wet area a government servant was posted in each Maganum in the Nawab period.
From the investigation, it was found that Magan or Maganum functioned as the unit for administration in Chingleput and in Trichinopoly, but not in South Arcot or in Tiruvendipuram. In the case of Chingleput, Nattars' jurisdiction was not always linked to Magan. Or rather to say, Nattars were not always existent in the area. Even if there had been some areas where the Nattars' jurisdiction exactly corresponded with a Magan, such areas must have been rather exceptional. On the other hand the Nattars in the dry part of Trichinopoly seemed to have been the renters of the respective Maganums. There was an officer in every Maganum of the wet area. But it is not clear whether this officer was a Nattar or not. Tiruvendipuram was managed as a whole by the Nattars. Here the jurisdiction of the Nattars corresponded with the administrative unit so far as the period after the country was acquired by the Company is concerned. The jurisdiction of the Nattars in South Arcot was in some cases a single village and in others a number of villages. It had no connection with Turruf or other units found in the records. Even though the official jurisdiction of the Nattars corresponded with Magan or Maganum in some parts of the concerned area, their landed interests were in many cases not confined within a single Magan. In Chingleput the landed rights of the Nattars were in many cases spread over several Magans. There were frequent transactions between the Nattars and the outside merchants in Tiruvendipuram. Many of the Nattars in South Arcot had their jurisdiction in a village or two, while the others had their jurisdiction over many villages. The entity of the respective Magan, if the entity as such was supposed to have existed, must have been greatly eroded by the intervention of outsiders, who acquired landed rights over wide region. The unity of the local society which corresponded with any of the territorial units is hardly discernable. The evidences indicating the relation among the territorial units, Nattars, and castes are very rare. By examining the several factors for territorial division, we will clarify the relation among them and also the social
structure of the local society in the next section.
III-2C. FACTORS FOR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
It was found by the investigation in the previous section that the Magan or Maganum functioned as a unit for administration in Chingleput and Trichinopoly, whereas it was not so in South Arcot and Tiruvendipuram. It was also found that the interests of the Nattars were in most of the cases spread over several Magans, Maganums, or Turrufs, or rather to say, irrespective of any territorial units for administration in the period. Even if the Magan or Maganum functioned as a basic administrative unit, it did not necessarily mean that the unit also functioned as a unit for other social activities. The study so far done has already cast doubt as to the entity of the locality. The frequent land transactions across several Magans indicates that the local society, whatever it was, could not prevent the outsiders from intervening into their own society any more. If so, or if not so, how and in what sense the local society of the period could be 'local'? For clarifying this problem, we have to take some more factors into consideration. First and the most improtant is the caste structure of the local society. If a locality were dominated by a single caste which could maintain the hierarchy in the society, its headmen would become the representatives of the locality and would be granted an official post by the government which sought to utilize the pre-existing social order for its administration. The unit for administration would naturally correspond to the unit of caste organization. This type of local structure premises a well organized caste organization of the ruling caste and its structural control over others. The headmen's power base also depends upon the communal rule in the locality. Such situation was, however, hardly discernable in the concerned period. As discussed before, the caste organization in the rural area did not seem to be existent in every part of the country. To make this point clearer, we have to investigate the relation between the ruling castes and the administrative
unit.
Ruling Caste and Territorial DivisionBernard Report The only record by which we can know the details of the caste control in the village level in Chingleput is the Bernard Report prepared in the 1760's. A few years after the Jagir came under the possession of the English Company Bernard, a British engineer, made a very important survey. As the revenue administration remained in the hands of Nawab's officers, the Company had to gather dependable information about the resources and the value of the area to start its administration. Bernard, with the aid of information supplied mainly by the village officers, made a survey of all the villages (more than 2,000) in the Jagir. His report gives us precious information about the land use, land ownership, inam lands, division of crops, allowances to various functionalies, names of poligars, names of landholder castes, cultivated extent of the different crops sown, etc., besides the number of households of every caste in the respective villages. We will use a part of the Report here to consider the above subject.The data is now under computer processing. As the information is enormous and needs lots of time to be input, it may take some more years to get the full result. The date used in this study is only a fractional part of it. The location of the Report was suggested by Miss. Sarasvati Menon. Tamilnadu Archives was kind enough to allow me microfilming the records. Mr. IMAI Kenji of ILCAA prepared the programs for processing the data. I am grateful to them for their kind assistance.
To define what is the ruling caste is rather a difficult matter. Social, economic, military, religious, and numerical factors work all together to gradate the different castes in the society. Here we will take the landholders as the ruling people in the locality. The landholders here mean those who owned villages (sometimes in share) and received landlord rent from the whole produce of the village. They are the equivalent of the so-called Mirasidars (For detail, see next section). Table.III-2-14, III-2-15, and III-2-16 indicate the distribution of the villages held by each landholding caste in the different Magans of Parumbauk,
Salavauk, and Sautmagan Purgannahs. From these tables it is known that1. Brahmin and Vellara castes were the two main landholding castes. Pally and other castes also held a small number of villages. 2. No Magan was held by any single caste exclusively. All the Magans were held by more than two caste groups. 3. Almost all the landholders held only a village or two. Two exceptions were Conidighetty Vellara of Selay in Parumbauk and Vistnoo Braminy of Strepermadoor in Sautmagan, who held three and four villages respectively.4. A fairly large proportion of the villages were held by the outsiders. Among these findings, (2) indicates that none of the Magans was based on the control of any particular caste upon others. If the state's control had rested upon the control of a particular caste community in the locality, the administrative unit and the spatial distribution of the respective castes would have been overlapped. This was, however, not the case at all. The magan had nothing to do with the caste relation in a locality. The communal control of a locality was discernable, neither. Instead, individual village control seemed to be the prevalent form of the period. (3) and (4) indicates that people in the period very often held land rights across the villages and across the Magans irrespective of the caste relation of the concerned villages. There were many cases of those who held villages where there were no fellow caste members. So far as these evidences are concerned, we may well conclude that the caste or communal unity was not strong at all in the localities nor the state depended upon it. The very base for local control seemed to lie in the individual control maintained by the economic activities and its accrued local influence.
TABLE.III-2-14DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGES HELD BY THE RESPECTIVE CASTES IN PARUMBAUK PURGANNAH=================================================================
Landholders' Castes Magan Number Total SH 01 02 03 04-----------------------------------------------------------------BR* GENTOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 3 1 2BR GENTOO BRAMINY OF KABANOOR 1 1BR GENTOO BRAMINY OF UNKNOWN PLACE 1 1BR* VISTNOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 4 1 1 1 1 BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF EDYAURPACUM 1 1VL* CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF THE VILLAGES 2 1 1VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF COMAURCHARY 2 2VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF COOVAM 2 2VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF SELAY 3 2 1VL* PURCOTAH VELLARA OF THE VILLAGES 2 1 1VL* TOOLIVA VELLARA OF THE VILLAGE 1 1PL PALLY OF UNKNOWN PLACES 4 2 2XX WASASWARA SWAMY PAGODA OF PALLYARACOPUM 1 1?? LANDHOLDERS NAMES ARE NOT RECORDED 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Number of the different castes in each Magan 6 5 4 2=================================================================Note:1. In the case the place names are written in the landholder castes, the village was held by the landholder living outside the village. '....OF THE VILLAGE' means that the village was held by the landholders living in the same village. 2. When the landholding unit consisted of two different castes, it is indicated by '+'.TABLE.III-2-15DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGES HELD BY THE RESPECTIVE CASTES IN SALAVAUK PURGANNAH=================================================================================== Landholders' Castes Magan Number in Salavauk Total SH 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 ?? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BR* GENTOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 15 3 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 BR GENTOO BRAMINY OF MUNGALUM 2 1 1 BR GENTOO BRAMINY OF UNKNOWN PLACES 2 2 BR GENTOO BRAMINY OF VELLAPOOTOO 1 1 BR* SIVA BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 2 2 BR SIVA BRAMINY OF PANYOOR 1 1 BR* VISTNOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 11 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF NANGYVAUCUM 1 1 BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF BOODOOR 1 BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF CUDDAMUNGALUM 1 1 BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF UNKNOWN PLACES 2 1 1 BR GENTOO & VISTNOO BRAMINY OF TIROOVUNNANELLOOR 2 2 BR* SIVA BRAMINY & VISTNOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 1 1 VL* CONIDIGHETTY VELLALA OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 VL* PUCCOLUM VELLARA OF THE VILLAGES 5 4 1 VL* TOOLIVA VELLARA OF THE VILLAGES 9 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 VL TOOLIVA VELLARA OF UNKNOWN PLACES 1 1 PL* PALLY OF THE VILLAGES 3 1 1 1 PL PALLY OF UNKNOWN PLACES 5 1 2 2 CP* CONICOPLY OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 CK* COWKEEPER OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 RJ* RAJA OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 PL+ PALLY AND CONICOPLY OF SAULAVAUCUM 1 1 XX* EISHVERAM PAGODA OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 XX EISHVERAM PAGODA OF TERIKITCHCOONUM 2 2 XX* PERMAL PAGODA OF THE VILLAGES 2 1 1 XX PERMAL PAGODA OF WYOUOOR XX PAGODA OF SEETANUNJERRY 1 1 ?? LANDHOLDERS' NAMES ARE NOT RECORDED 3 1 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of the different castes in each Magan 4 7 7 3 6 8 7 5
===================================================================================Note:1. In the case the place names are written in the landholder castes, the village was held by the landholder living outside the village. 2. The landholders with asteric mark '*' were living in the same villages where they held lands.3. When the landholding unit consisted of two different castes, it is indicated by '+'.TABLE.III-2-16DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGES HELD BY THE RESPECTIVE CASTES IN SAUTMAGAN PURGANNAH============================================================================================ Landholders' Castes Magan Code and Number SM PB TT Total SH 01 02 03 04 07 08 SH 06 ??--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BR* GENTOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 4 1 2 1BR GENTOO BRAMINY OF COLATOOR 1 1BR GENTOO BRAMINY OF PARRITIPUT 1 1BR NORGHY BRAMINY OF BUNGAROS YACHAMANAICK POLIAM 1 1 BR* SMARTAT BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGE 1 1BR* VAIPAURY BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGE 1 1BR+*VISTNOO & GENTOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 3 1 1 1 BR* VISTNOO BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGES 8 3 1 1 2 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF COTTRUMBAUCUM 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF NARRASINGAPOORUM 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF NARRASINGAPOORUM & TRIVALOOR 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF NUNNIMUNGALUM 1 1
BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF OOLLAGERUM 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF PALLAVERUM 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF PALLIACOME 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF PARRITIPUT 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF POODOOPAIR 1 1BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF STREPERMADOOR 4 1 3 BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF TIROONUNIOOR 1 1 BR VISTNOO BRAMINY OF UNKNOWN PLACE 1 1BR* WUDDAMALL BRAMINY OF THE VILLAGE 1 1BR+*VISTNOO,GENTOO BRAMINY & REDDY OF THE VILLAGE 1 1VL* CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF THE VILLAGES 13 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF COAVALOOR 1 1VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF COEMBAID 2 1 1VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF TARRAPAUCUM 1 1VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF TIROOMUNGALUM 1 1VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF VELLIVOIL 1 1VL CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA OF JANAVERUM 1 1VL NUL VELLARA OF MADRASS 1 1VL* TOOLIVA VELLARA OF THE VILLAGES 9 1 5 1 1 1PL* PALLY OF THE VILLAGES 6 3 3PL PALLY OF TORAPAUCUM 2 1 1PL PALLY OF UNKNOWN PLACE 1 1RE* REDDY OF THE VILLAGES 2 1 1 RJ ANNAPUMBUT GROOVARAJAH OF GOOMMEDYPOONDYPALIAM 1 1CP* CONICOPLY OF THE VILLAGES 3 2 1 CAVARE OF CAUVELCHERRY 1 1 * NUNDAGOBAULA CAST OF THE VILLAGES 2 2
NUNDAGOBAULA CAST OF VAILACHERRY 2 2 * TODDY SELLER OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 XX* PERMAL PAGODA OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 XX PERMAL PAGODA OF STREPERMADOOR 1 1 XX* EISHVERUM PAGODA OF THE VILLAGE 1 1 ?? LANDHOLDERS NAMES ARE NOT RECORDED 3 1 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of the different castes in each Magan 13 5 10 13 (2)(1) (2) ============================================================================================ Note:1. In the case the place names are written in the landholder castes, the village was held by the landholder living outside the village. 2. The landholders with asteric mark '*' were living in the same villages where they held lands.3. When the landholding unit consisted of two different castes, it is indicated by '+'.4. The figures in the bracket are incomplete ones as there is much possibility of the Magans having other landholding castes there. For instance, only one village out of ten villages in Magan PB08 has been so far identified.
Nattar and Caste Before proceeding to investigate another important factor for territorial division, poligarship, we will briefly have a look at the caste composition of the Nattars in Chingleput and South Arcot. Table.III-2-17 indicates the caste composition of the Nattars appointed by Place in 1797.The caste names are judged from the Nattars' personal names. Of course it should be borne in mind that to judge one's caste by his name is sometimes very risky. But it has also been true for those with the same name or title to join together and identify themselves as the same caste. Be it a caste
name or title, the same term included in the personal name expresses a kind of social identification in notion in the period. It is known from the table that Mudali and the Brahmins were the two main Nattar castes in the area. That is, among the 69 Nattars in Chingleput, 31 were Mudaliyars (MU, 51 per cent), 22 were Brahmins (AI&AC, 36 per cent), 4 were Reddis (RE), 3 were Naicks (NA), 1 was Pillah (PI), and 8 were unidentified castes (??).The same figures for the Old Nattars were 13 Mudaliyars, 6 Brahmins, 1 Reddi, and 2 unidentified castes. Table.III-2-18 indicates the caste composition of the 184 Nattars in South Arcot who were deprived of their inams as they did not possess the authentic deeds. Nattars of Reddi caste were most numerious, which was followed by Brahmins. The caste composition of the Nattars was as follows: Reddi(RE) - 67(46%) Brahmin (AC,AI,AY) - 27(19%) Naick,Naig(NA) - 17 Nainar(NN) - 13 Pillai(PI) - 5 Vadaiyan(VD) - 5 Mudali(MU) - 3 Muslim(MM) - 3 Row(RO) - 2 Others(GO,GU,PD) - 3 Unidentified(??) - 39 So far as identified cases are concerned, they imply that most of the Nattars belonged either to the high agricultural castes (Mudali, Reddi, Nainar) or to the Brahmin caste. There were also some Nattars belonging to Naicks. The Nattars of other castes like Pillai, Gounder, Padayachi, Vadaiyan, Pundaram, etc., were not many. It is also to be notified that none of the merchant or artisan castes are included in the Tables. This is in striking contrast with the Nattars in Pondichery town where most of the Nattars were merchant castes. What is then the relation between Nattar and caste ? As has already been discussed above, the division of Magans to which the Nattars' official duties
seemed to have been linked was not based on caste factor, so that the Nattars to be appointed need not always be the caste leaders. At the same time the Nattars' power need not be always based on their castes' communal control over other castes. Though most of the Nattars belonged to either the high agricultural castes or Brahmins, who were also the main landholding castes in the area, it did not mean there existed the established caste organization which supported Nattars. Nattars had landed rights, sometimes over several Magans, like many other non-Nattar landholders shown above, on which their very power base lied. In this sense the Nattars were just like many other local leaders of the period. The only difference from others would be that their influence was further supplemented by the official appointment (or confirmation) as Nattar by the state. This will be again discussed in detail in the next section.
TABLE.III-2-17CASTE AND NAMES OF THE NATTARS APPOINTED BY PLACE IN 1797============================================================================== No. Caste Name of the Nattar No. Caste Name of the Nattar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------CG15 AC RAGAVACHARRY KA05 MU MOOROOGAPA MOODELY TP27* AC SHADAGOPACHARRY KA06 MU DURMAROY MOODALY CT63 AC SINGARACHARRY KA07 MU SOOBAROY MOODELY CL67 AC RAMACHARRY KA08 MU SHASHACHELLA MOODELY & PB68 AC RAGAVACHARRY +MU AGUSTIAPAH MOODELY CG10 MU MOOTTOO MOODALY KA02 AI JEAPIENGAR CG12 MU CALAPA MOODALY KA04 AI TAUTIENGAR CG13 MU PARASERAM MOODALY TP23* AI APPIENGAR CH16* MU WOLAGAPA MOODELY TP24* AI ROYALIENGAR & CH18 MU ARMOOTOO MOODELY +AC RAGOONAUDACHARRY CH19 MU YERLAPAH MOODALY TP25 AI ANNASAUMYIENGAR CH20 MU APPAGEE MOODALY TP26* AI SHASHIENGAR CH21 MU NAMASHEVOY MOODALY PM31 AI VERDIENGAR TP28* MU AYAH MOODALY
SM38 AI ROYALIENGAR & PM30* MU VERDAPAH MOODELY +AC RAGOONADACHARRY PM32* MU RUNGASUMMY MOODELY PP47 AI SAUMIENGAR PM33* MU TRIVENGADA MOODALY MM49* AI RAMANJIENGAR PM34* MU SHEVAPADA MOODELY MM50* AI RAGONAUDIENGAR PM35* MU APPAH MOODALY MM51 AI RUNGIENGAR & SM36* MU COOMARAPAH MOODELY +AI KISTNAIENGAR SM37* MU PUTTARAVY MOODALY MM52 AI PILLAPAUKUM RAMANJIENGAR SM39 MU TOPPA MOODALY OM59 AI KASAVIENGAR PO41* MU VENCATACHELLAM MOODALY OM60 AI VELEVOY SEENIVASIENGAR PO42* MU MOOTAPAH MOODALY OM61 AI RAMANIENGAR PO43* MU CAUTANOOR SOOBRAMANEYA MOODALY CT62 AI SINGIENGAR PO44* MU CHINGLEROY MOODALY PP45 MU PERMAL MOODALY CH22 NA RUNGAPA NAICK PP46 MU SOOBOO MOODALY SV56 NA VEERASAMY NAICK SV54 MU TAUNDAVAROYA MOODELY PB69 NA VENCATASAMY NAICK CT64 MU SOONDARA MOODALY CT65 MU CUNNEAPA MOODALY CG14 PI TRIVENGADAH PILLAH CL66 MU TOPPAH MOODALY CG09 RE LETCHMAN REDDY KA01 ?? VENCATARAMIAH CG11 RE SANJEEVA REDDY KA03 ?? SOORAPIAH CH17* RE VENCATA REDDY PM29* ?? VENCATANARNAPIAH PP48 RE MOOTAL REDDY PO40* ?? NARNIAH SV53 ?? SAUTUNJARY VENCATACHELLIAH SV55 ?? SHASHIAH SV57 ?? ROYLIAH SV58 ?? VENCATARAMIAH ==============================================================================Source: Statement of the Privileges of the Nattawars, Permanent Settlement Records, Vol.25, E.Greenway,
28.3.1801. Note: * Old Nattars who had been the Nattars before the Place's appointment.TABLE.III-2-18CASTES OF THE NATTARS IN SOUTH ARCOT WHOSE INAMS WERE RESUMED BY GARROW IN 1802-03 ==========================================================================================CASTE NAME OF THE NATTARS CASTE NAME OF THE NATTARS CODE CODE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AC Elengaud Grumvasa Chary RE Aulapaukum Ramlinga Reddy AC Nelore Soondra Vurdacharry RE Maleconda Venketram Reddy AC Paupenellore Sreenevasyengaur RE Auvediaput Sambasiva Reddy AC Musanellore Jayacharry RE Conamunglum Vurda Reddy AC Mutton Venketramanachary RE Timbare Kasem Reddy AC Limmar Reyachary RE Nimaury Sooba Reddy AC Daivanore Letchimi Nursimmacary RE Kulunoor Comarepa Reddy AC Aulumboondy Kistna Chary RE Kulunoor Ramalinga Reddy AC Poongonum Venketramanachary RE Kulunoor Tindevenum Mooddaumulla Reddy RE Cuppoor Sambseva Reddy AI Munpaulkum Timmappyengaur RE Paudery Kasiva Reddy AI Venketramyengaur RE Nuryanoor Mooddu Venkutputty Reddy AI Narnyengaur RE Tennel Kistna Reddy AI Annaviyengaur RE Kaunyaper Mooddu Venkitputty Reddy AI Vurdyengar RE Punchamadavy Venket Kistna Reddy AI Kistnyengar RE Poodeeput Conda Reddy AI Ramanujyengar RE Colapauk Ramlinga Reddy AI Yenju Maid Appasamyengaur RE Putchary Venkutram Reddy AI Raghoonadha Poorum Rungyengaur RE Chittalaput Ramaneppa Reddy AI Veliveli Samanyengaur RE Panderapulore Mooddoo Coma Reddy
AI Tyaur Sreeneevasungaur RE?? Vullata Reddy Charreyer AI Perumbaukum Sreenevasungaru RE Aulem Cooppum Linga Reddy AI Coopayem Burrayore Vurdyengaur RE Annator Moottu Vera Reddy RE Kuncam Moota Reddy AY Paupenbut Aupavier RE Satanoor Jagunnat Reddy AY Valavanoor Eyaramia & Venketnarnier RE Satanoor Sreeniwas Reddy AY Ungatore Ramauvamier RE Satanoor Aude Reddy AY Culkoordryt Ramalingier RE Coonnattore Mooddu Linga Reddy AY Satermbaudy Eyavier RE Maligamoda Rame Reddy RE Vedupaulkum Anna Reddy GO Peringpoor Audund Gaur RE Moollegrambut Pedda Reddy RE Cangaraynellore Cote Reddy GU Condamunglum Narain Goden RE Male Puttumbaulkum Pedda Reddy RE Valaput Mooddu Narain Reddy MM Modunracle Cunnuit RE Kulaputtum Paulkam Pedda Reddy MM Jilaulcaun Cunnuit RE Yaryodanore Pedda Reddy MM Tormbore Resauldaut Cunuit RE Coolepaulkum Pettoo Reddy RE Kulacowerput Nack Reddy MU Pooberapella Sowana Moodely RE Conamungle Rame Reddy MU Vanoor Koomarsami Moodely RE Toocknaumpaulkum Polena Reddy MU Poodupaukum Sokatmga Moodely RE Ternamanellore Anna Reddy RE Sondmungle Peddeppa Reddy NA Wolegapoorum Venkatachel Naig RE Tumempaulkum Pedda Reddy NA Gresnbe Raghoopaty Naig RE Gramum Rami Reddy NA Belwaputty Vydeputy Naig RE Carnaput Sambasiva Reddy NA Mungalum Venkitram Naig RE Arreyem Goondum Punnoo Reddy NA Aunulogy Narsim Naig RE Sunniaspatte Peddu Reddy NA Velun Gungum Naig RE Nelle Cooppum Vudu Reddy
NA Punchamadavy Goorvupnaig RE Rampaulkum Veera Reddy NA Coodapaurecoopem Audenworu Naig RE Audeveraha Reddy NA Kurknoor Permaul Naig RE Mooddu Viswanadha Reddy NA Nuttambla Pettaul Vydduppanaig RE Sambasiva Reddy NA Chettairy Ramchendra Naig RE Linga Reddy NA Setteputtada Gopaul Naig RE Ramalinga Reddy NA Somaupalliam Nullavanda Naik RE Valayoor Venkaetram Reddy NA Sundernaud Ramanooja Naick RE Toorenjepoorum Chinna Reddy NA Jungal Naig RE Maunundul Narain Reddy NA Gungagdum Venkatchel Naig RE Cuppaulumpaudy Narain Reddy NA Cooppanaig RE Kotacoor Poonshottum Reddy RE Menoor Moevensitputty Reddy NN Vedoor Huredoss Ninaur RE Brumdasser Mooddumulla Reddy NN Motore Cooteninaur RE Yendoor Kamling Reddy NN Permundoor Appandnynar RE Kolepaukum Cuddeppa Reddy NN Mulyanore Eynenaur RE Baudoor Narain Reddy NN Vutti Appandnynar RE Kodeyalum Konda Reddy NN Chittanore Appandnynar RE Cusba Venketram Reddy NN Culpodyanore Eyanynar RE Jagunnad Reddy NN Annamunglum Paurswanadhanynaur NN Vurnunellore Naga Coomanynaur RO Aulatoor Appoo Row NN Ellud Coauruppanyanur RO Culletumbut Girrymaji Row NN Soruppaudy Eyennynaur NN Arrunpoody Eyanynaur VD Dalvanore Nullatumbe VadayenNN Solavully Mooddu Nynaure VD Sendaipoondy Ramavadien VD Errenda Eiyempella Vadavun PD Paula Pundarem VD Punchamadavy Audeyoor Ramalingvodain VD Tainore Vadayar PI Arghavoor Govind Pillah PI Conegarput Narain Pillah ?? Munnore Venket Raghavia PI Permagur Appa Pillah ?? Pait Soobbarayen PI Venkatampatte Moodduvijia Pellah ?? Paupenbaddy Soobbarayen
PI Moottau Pillah ?? Poodupat Soobbaroyen ?? Erimbelay Appasamyer ?? Ponoor Aooibubar ?? Servuttore Ramaswamia ?? Trepenemboor Davarozmnar ?? Paukum Codund Ramia ?? Nilary Soobaroyana ?? Cusba Soobbia ?? Veelemode Kurdungar ?? Meera Chia ?? Murdaud Moottu Soobbier ?? Senkaria ?? Nimby Iyanaur ?? Sercamia ?? Vauloore Tirmulroyen ?? Eyavia ?? Congoi Narain Rayen ?? Daiyaroyer &ca. ?? Aunoor Davaraj ?? Saulempoondy Dausapunt ?? Neyoor Hurridass Rauze ?? Cunnanore Saundava Vadun ?? Peddagham Munnaria ?? Chaitput Mooddu Kistna Vadur ?? Goolamully Subadar ?? Taiyore Soobaroyne ?? Ackadavully Peddia ?? Coonryphy Soobaraylu ?? Culput Coorparuyer Soobarayen ?? Moottulore Auntia ?? Rettina Soondaria ?? Simbaid Culluppia ?? Pauny Kistnia ?? Savelapoonray Eyavia ?? Nerbondum Seeshia ?? Neghanore Eyavia ==========================================================================================Source: Letter from Garrow, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803.1. Abbreviations (Taluk Names): WW - Wandiwash VI - Villupuram GI - Gingee TI - Tindivanam CU - Cuddalore TK - Tirukoilur PO - Polur Poligar and Territorial Division If the caste was not the significant factor for territorial division, what other factors can be conceived ? The possible one is the jurisdiction of the poligars who performed the duties to keep peace and order. Table.III-2-19, Table.III-2-20, and Table.III-2-21 indicates the number of villages in each Magan under the different poligars' jurisdiction in Parumbauk, Salavauk, and Sautmagan Purgannahs.
TABLE.III-2-19NUMBER OF VILLAGES IN EACH MAGAN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT POLIGARS IN PARUMBAUK
PURGANNAH=========================================================================== Poligar Magan Code and NumberPB Total SH 01 02 03 04---------------------------------------------------------------------------01 BEAM NAICK MOODRIAN OF CHENGAULPOLLAM 1 1 02 COMAUR LOCABHANDHAVA NAICK 1 103 COMAUR VENCATKISTNAMA NAICK 5 1 4 04 DOPPA KISTAPERMAUL NAICK 2 1 1 05 KISTAPERMAUL NAICK 2 1 1 06 KISTAPERMAUL NAICK OF SREE RAMANAURPOLLAM(TV245E?) 1 1 07 LOCABHANDHAVA NAICK 2 1 108 LOCABHANDHAVA NAICK OF CHINNAROYENPOLLAM 2 1 1 09 MOODRIAN OF CHENGAULPOLLAM 1 1 10 NATCHAPPA NAICK 7 1 3 1 211 NATCHAPPA NAICK OF TERPAROOPOLLAM(TV132D?) 2 1 1 12 PERMAUL NAICK 5 3 2 13 PERMAUL NAICK OF BEAMNAICKPOLLAM 1 1 14 PERMAUL NAICK MOODRIAN OF BEAMNAICKPOLLAM 2 2 15 RAMCHENDER NAICK MOODRIAN OF MALEPAUPPOLLAM 1 116 RAME NAICK 1 1 17 RAME NAICK MOODRIAN 2 2 18 RAME NAICK OF VELLACONDUMNAICKPOLLAM(MT265B?) 2 1 1 19 RAME NAICK MOODRIAN OF VELLACONDAMNAICKPOLLAM(MT265B?)3 1 2 20 RAZOOLA NAICK MOODRIAN 1 1 21 SREERAM BEAM NAICK MOODRIAN OF CHENGAUT 1 1 22 TOPPAURAR KISTAPERMAUL NAICK 1 1 23 VEARAGHAVAPERMAUL NAICK 1 1 24 VEARAGHAVAPERMAUL NAICK MOODRIAN 1 1 25 VEDAMANJEENAUR ENAUDY CAST OF CHINNAROYENPOLLAM 1 1 26 VEDAMANJEENAUR NATCHAPPA NAICK 1 1
27 VEERAPERMAUL NAICK OF TREVAULENGAUD 1 1 28 POLIGARS' NAMES ARE NOT RECORDED. 1 1 ===========================================================================NOTE: 1. The same village was very often managed by several poligars in shares. The total number of villages therefore does not necessarily corresponds with the number of villages in the respective magans.2. The figure in the bracket indicates the location code of the village in Census 1971.TABLE.III-2-20NUMBER OF VILLAGES IN EACH MAGAN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT POLIGARS IN SALAVAUK PURGANNAH========================================================================================== Poligar Magan NumberSV Total SH 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 ?? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------01 PUTTRAWAR CANACASABA NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 2 2 02 PUTTRAWAR CHATHUMBRA NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 1 1 03 PUTTRAWAR MOOTAL NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 9 4 1 3 1 04 PUTTRAWAR OPOO NAICK OF POOSPUNDY 1 1 05 PUTTRAWAR OPPOO NAICK OF TUNDRY & POOSPUNDY(KA283A) 1 1 06 PUTTRAWAR PAUP NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 5 3 1 1 07 PUTTRAWAR RAMAHBUDRA NAICK OF COMARRAVADDY(MT010A) 5 4 1 08 PUTTRAWAR VANGA NAICK OF TUNDRY & POOSPUNDY(KA283A) 1 1 09 PUTTRAWAR VENGAL NAICK OF TUNDRY(KA283A) 1 1
10 BODEY NAICK OF VENNAMUNGALUM(KA300B) 1 1 11 CANACASABA NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 7 1 4 1 12 CAVARE COOP NAICK OF SEETANUNJERRY(KA260A) 1 1 13 CHATHUMBARA NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 4 4 14 CHINNA PAUP NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 1 1 15 CHINNAPA NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 4 4 16 CHINNATOMBI NAICK OF CHEMMOONDY 1 1 17 COOP NAICK OF SEETANUNJERRY(KA260A) 4 3 1 18 CUNDAPAH NAICK OF CARRIKILLY(MT018A) 1 1 19 GINDEAWAR MOOTY NAICK OF TIROOTOLLUM(MT039?) 1 1 20 LINGAMAH NAICK OF PAULAISHVERUM(KA301A) 1 1 21 MANNAR NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 4 4 22 MOODRIAN ANGRAPAH NAICK OF CHITRACOOPUM 1 1 23 MOODRIAN COMARRASAUMY NAICK OF COORIVELLUM 3 2 1 24 MOODRIAN CONDY NAICK OF VILLATODOO(KA314A) 1 1 25 MOODRIAN GRUVAPA NAICK OF UNDAVAUCUM(MT021A) 1 1 26 MOODRIAN GRUVAPAH NAICK OF PARIA WYOUOOR(MT203A?) 2 2 27 MOODRIAN MOOTAL NAICK OF CARRIKILLY(MT018A) 1 1 28 MOODRIAN PERMAL NAICK OF NELWOY(MT015A) 1 1 29 MOODRIAN PERMAL NAICK OF WYOUOOR(MT203A?) 1 1 30 MOODRIAN RAGAVA NAICK OF WORAOOR 1 1 31 MOODRIAN RAGOOPUTTY NAICK OF VELLAPOOTOOR(MT030A) 1 1 32 MOODRIAN SIDDAMA NAICK OF CHEMMOONDY 3 2 1
33 MOOTAL NAICK OF NAICOONUM 1 1 34 MOOTAL NAICK OF VILLATODOO(KA314A) 1 1 35 MOOTAL NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 8 1 2 5 36 MOOTY NAICK OF CUDDUNGHERRY 1 1 37 OPPIA NAICK OF ATTIYOOR(MT003A) 1 1 38 OPPOO NAICK OF TUNDRY & POOSPUNDY(KA283A) 1 1 39 PAUP NAICK OF YEDDAMITCHY(KA273A) 7 2 5 40 PEDDY NAICK OF MUDDOOR(KA265A) 1 1 41 PEDDY NAICK OF NAICOONUM 1 1 42 PERMAL NAICK OF TEROOVALUNGOD 2 2 43 PERMAL PAGODA OF WYOUOOR(MT203A?) 1 1 44 RAMACHUNDRA NAICK OF TEROOVALUNGOD 2 2 45 RAMAHBUDRA NAICK OF COMARRAVADDY 3 1 2 46 RAMAYAH BRAMINY OF PURRAVAILY(KA256A) 1 1 47 VENCATACHELLA NAICK OF KISTNAMANAICKPOLLAM 1 1 48 VENGAL NAICK OF TUNDRY & POOSPUNDY(KA283A) 1 1 49 WESL CHASHAWCHELLABADDY NAICK OF NELWOYPOLLAM(MT360A) 1 1 ==========================================================================================NOTE: 1. The same village was very often managed by several poligars in shares. The total number of villages therefore does not necessarily corresponds with the number of villages in the respective magans.2. The figure in the bracket indicates the location code of the village in Census 1971.
TABLE.III-2-21NUMBER OF VILLAGES IN EACH MAGAN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT POLIGARS IN SAUTMAGAN PURGANNAH=================================================================================================== Poligar Magan Code and Number SM PB TT
SM Total SH 01 02 03 04 07 08 SH 06 ?? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01 ADDIAPAH NAICK OF TUNDRY(SP019C) 1 1 02 ANNAPUMBUT GROOVARAJAH OF GOOMMEDYPOONDY POLLAM 2 2 03 CANAKARAJAH OF TIROONUNIOOR 2 1 1 04 CAVARE CHINTOMBE NAICK OF TIROOMANUM(SP015E) 1 1 05 CAVARE CHINTOMBY NAICK OF COEMBAID(SA106A) 2 1 1 06 CAVARE CHITTIAMAH NAICK OF TIROOMANUM(SP015E) 1 1 07 CAVARE DUNDOORAGOONAICKOOLA NAICK OF MOGAPAI(SA081B) 1 1 08 CAVARE SHASHAUCHELLA NAICK OF VELLANJIAMBAUCUM(SP005D) 2 2 09 CAVARE VENCATABODDY NAICK OF MOGAPAIROO(SA081B) 1 1 10 CAVARE VENCATACHELLA NAICK OF VELLIVOIL(PO014B) 2 1 1 11 CODUNDA?? OF CORATOOR 1 1 12 COMARARAJAH OF VULLOOR(PO042I) 1 1 13 GROOVARAJAH OF MAILAMONUMBAID(SP026G) 1 1 14 MALRAJAH OF VELLAHNOOR POLLAM(SA042F) 1 1 15 MANIKARAJAH OF VULLOOR(PO042I) 1 1 16 MOODRIAN COOP NAICK OF TUNDELUM(SP116D) 1 1 17 MOODRIAN GRO0VAPA NAICK OF PAULAVOIL(SA010A) 1 1 18 MOODRIAN GROOVAPA NAICK OF PORUL &C. 1 1 19 MOODRIAN IRSHAPA NAICK OF PORUL &C. 1 1 20 MOODRIAN LINGAMA NAICK OF COONATOOR 3 3 21 MOODRIAN MOOTAL NAICK 1 1 22 MOODRIAN MOOTAL NAICK OF PAULAVOIL(SA010A) 1 1 23 MOODRIAN MOOTAL NAICK OF PORUL &C. 1 1 24 MOODRIAN OF NAIMUM(SP030A) 1 1
25 MOODRIAN PEDDY NAICK OF MADRASS 2 1 1 26 MOODRIAN RAM NAICK OF EROONGODIDA 1 1 27 MOODRIAN TANA LINGAMA NAICK OF COONATOOR 3 2 1 28 MOODRIAN VENCATABODDY NAICK 1 1 29 MOODRIAN VENCATABODDY NAICK OF COTTRUMBAUCUM(SP109A) 1 1 30 MOODRIAN VENGUL NAICK OF PORUL &C. 1 1 31 MOOTAL NAICK OF MANIMUNGALUM(SP096A) 1 1 32 NARRAINRAJAH OF TIROONUNIOOR 1 1 33 NUNDAGOBAULA CAST JATOMBY VENCATACHELLA PILLAH OF VENDALOOR POLLAM 21 4 16 1 34 PALLY CODUNDA NAICK OF POOTAGERUM & PERAUVERY(SA064A) 1 1 35 PALLY DURMAROYA NAICK OF ANNACATTOOCHARRY(SP017B) 1 1 36 PALLY REDDYAPA NAICK OF CODUMBAUCUM 1 1 37 RAGAVARAJAH OF VULLOOR(PO042I) 1 1 38 STRENNYARAJAH OF NAIMUM(SP030A) 1 1 39 VARAGOOVA NAICK OF TUNDRY(SP019C) 1 1 40 VENCATABODY NAICK OF COTTRUMBAUCUM(SP109A) 1 1 41 VENCATARAJAH OF COOTUMBAUCUM(SP032B) 12 8 4 42 ????? (UNREADABLE) OF TIRRONUNIOOR 1 1 43 POLIGARS' NAMES ARE NOT RECORDED 5 1 1 1 2 =================================================================================================== NOTE: 1. The same village was very often managed by several poligars in shares. The total number of villages therefore does not necessarily corresponds with the number of villages in the respective magans.2. The figure in the bracket indicates the location code of the village in
Census 1971.
The relation between the Poligars' jurisdiction and the territorial unit observed in the tables does not differ much from the finding of the Nattars' jurisdiction. The spatial distribution of the villages under the different poligar's jurisdiction were in many cases confined in one or two villages, while in others scattered over several Magans. There are several cases that the villages of the poligar were confined only in one Magan (except Shrotrium villages). Those who had more than three villages and whose villages were confined in one Magan are SV13,15,21, PB03,12,19, and SM20,27,33. The striking case is the poligar (SM33) whose 16 villages were located only in Magan 03 where there were 17 villages in total (another village has no poligar name in the record). This evidence may be taken to imply that at some time in the past the Magan corresponded with the jurisdiction of the poligars.It is to be admitted that the number of villages under different poligars would probably increase if the same processing is over in other purgannahs. The figures here are, therefore, the minimum numbers. There is some possibility that some of the poligars in the list are the same persons. If we club all the possible names of Parumbauk purgannah, the result will become as below. The number of villages of the respective poligar naturally becomes more. But the conclusion deduced above does not basically differ.
NUMBER OF VILLAGES IN EACH MAGAN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT POLIGARS IN PARUMBAUK PURGANNAH - MODIFIED BY NAMES - =========================================================================== Poligar Magan Code and Number Total SH 01 02 03 04---------------------------------------------------------------------------01 BEAM NAICK MOODRIAN OF CHENGAULPOLLAM 1 1 02 COMAUR LOCABHANDHAVA NAICK 1 107 LOCABHANDHAVA NAICK 2 1 108 LOCABHANDHAVA NAICK OF CHINNAROYENPOLLAM 2 1 1
03 COMAUR VENCATKISTNAMA NAICK 5 1 404 DOPPA KISTAPERMAUL NAICK 2 1 1
05 KISTAPERMAUL NAICK 2 1 106 KISTAPERMAUL NAICK OF SREE RAMANAURPOLLAM 1 1
09 MOODRIAN OF CHENGAULPOLLAM 1 1
10 NATCHAPPA NAICK 7 1 3 1 211 NATCHAPPA NAICK OF TERPAROOPOLLAM 2 1 1
12 PERMAUL NAICK 5 3 213 PERMAUL NAICK OF BEAMNAICKPOLLAM 1 114 PERMAUL NAICK MOODRIAN OF BEAMNAICKPOLLAM 2 2
15 RAMCHENDER NAICK MOODRIAN OF MALEPAUPPOLLAM 1 1
16 RAME NAICK 1 117 RAME NAICK MOODRIAN 2 218 RAME NAICK OF VELLACONDUMNAICKPOLLAM 2 1 1
19 RAME NAICK MOODRIAN OF VELLACONDAMNAICKPOLLAM 3 1 2
20 RAZOOLA NAICK MOODRIAN 1 1
21 SREERAM BEAM NAICK MOODRIAN OF CHENGAUT 1 1
22 TOPPAURAR KISTAPERMAUL NAICK 1 1
23 VEARAGHAVAPERMAUL NAICK 1 124 VEARAGHAVAPERMAUL NAICK MOODRIAN 1 1
25 VEDAMANJEENAUR ENAUDY CAST OF CHENNAROYENPOLLAM 1 1
26 VEDAMANJEENAUR NATCHAPPA NAICK 1 1
27 VEERAPERMAUL NAICK OF TREVAULENGAUD 1 1
28 Poligars' names are not recorded. 1 1=========================================================================== Even so, such concurrence had become very exceptional by the period. All other Magans were managed by several numbers of poligars. It can be concluded that the poligars' jurisdiction and the territorial unit had no relation with each other. There are some more important findings from the Tables. They are as follows:1. Almost all the poligars have the names of 'Naick' or 'Rajah' in part of their names. Out of 116 poligars whose names are known, those with 'Naick' numbers 100, with 'Rajah' 10. This indicates these two were commonly used as titles for poligars of the time.2. One Brahmin (SV46) and one temple (SV43) are included in the list. If this is not the mis-information, the poligarship can be also thought to be transacted as property regardless of the duties attached to the office. 3. Moodrians are the most dominant caste so far as identified cases are
concerned. There are also several Pallis. None of the agricultural castes such as Reddi, Vellara is included in the list. This is in striking contrast to the caste composition of the Nattars studied above. There seemed to be a division of roles between the two. 4. There seemed to be places where several poligars were residing together.
Summary The investigation of the present section has revealed that neither caste factor or poligarship contributed to give the Magan the nature as the core unit of the society. The entity of the locality, if it had existed, had already been cut to pieces by the period under study. Landed rights were often trasferred to the outsiders irrespective of the internal caste structure in the locality. Under this situation it must have been very difficult for the caste organization, if it had existed, to maintain its unity. This was also the case for the former land-controling caste. They must have found great difficulty in keeping the pre-existing caste structure in the presence of outsiders inside the locality. The leaders or headmen of any single caste could not represent the local society any longer. Or rather, even the existence of caste organizations which could sustain their caste headmen was dubious. The power structure in the local society was thus not based on the unity of respective caste community or the conventional hierarchical relationship among them. Instead the basic power unit in the period was the individual control over the people in the locality. The basic unit or the locality was, therefore, the territory under the individual local leaders who had acquired control over a certain number of villages which sometimes crossed several Magans. Nattar' relation with caste organization has been already referred to. It is difficult to perceive special connection between Nattars and caste organization. Nattar were just like other local leaders, the only difference being the appointment to the office of Nattar by the state. Their power base lied, as many other non-Nattar local leaders, in the economic activities. The next point to be clarified is the economic activity of Nattar in the period.
III-2. NOTES
III-3. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF NATTAR
III-3. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF NATTAR
There were three sources of income for the Nattars. They are agricultural production, livestock farming, and fees on commercial goods. We will examine them in this section.
III-3A. Nattar and Agricultural Production The Nattars' main activity besides the official duties studied above was agricultural production, which was usually based on their privileged tenures such as Shrotrium (low fixed rent land), Maniam (tax free land), and higher Warum (share in the produce to be divided with the state). The ordinary Warum was also among their income sources. As there are some evidences about their income through agricultural production in Chingleput and Tiruvendipuram, we will mainly take up these two regions here.
Chingleput There are a few list of the Nattars of Chingleput in the British Records. The most detailed record would be the Greenway's report in 1801 on the Nattars' privileges granted by Place in 1797 as studied before. We will examine the privileges of the 22 original Nattars who had acted as Nattar before the appointment by Place (the details of the privileges of the Old and New Nattars are indicated in Appendix.4 & Appendix.5). Table.III-3-1 is the abstract of the Old Nattars' privileges specified in the Place's Cowles. The 22 Nattars had possessed 55 Shrotrium villages or low fixed rent villages. The net profit from the Shrotrium villages was 4,307 Pagodas annually. They possessed 658 Cawnies of Maniam lands or rent free
lands in 157 villages (including overlaps). The annual profit from one Cawnie of land is valued by Greenway at 2 Pagodas. The profit accrued from the rent free lands becomes 1,316 Pagodas. The total number of villages where they were allowed especially high Warum was 78. Usually the share allowed to the cultivators was between 40 and 50 per cent of the produce (after various allowance and fees were deducted). As the Nattars were allowed 60 per cent, the excess were thought to be their privileges. The value from the high warum is Pagodas 937.05.68. The total value of their privileges amounted to Pagodas 6,535.05.68 annually. There are 38 villages where they possessed landed rights but no cultivation was carried out. The income from these lands is presumed to be nil. Besides the incomes from these privileged tenures, the Nattars also enjoyed the ordinary Warum. The amount of their ordinary warum is calculated by using the same conversion rate as Greenway's calculation. It amounted to about 3,227 Pagodas. The total income from their privileged tenure and from their ordinary Warum becomes, therefore, about 9,762 Pagodas. The average for the 22 Nattars comes around 443 Pagodas. As will be discussed in Chapter IV, the average annual wage for the ordinary worker in Madras in the mid-18th century was between 12 and 15 Pagodas. The Nattars' income from the land was thirty or thirty seven times more than the others.
Tiruvendipuram The record of Tiruvendipuram also gives us some important information on the subject. Table.III-3-2 shows the amount of the Nattars' privileges in the respective village for the year 1772, and Appendix.6 shows the details of the cultivated extents of the Nattars and other cultivators in all the villages. The kinds of privileges which had been enjoyed by them till January 1768 are indicated in Table.III-3-3. The amount of privileges indicated in Table.III-3-2 was made out on the supposition that all the privileges listed in Table.III-3-3 were allowed except the fees levied on all the goods on which Juncans were collected(6). It is known from the tables that the Nattars enjoyed many privileges
which the others called Oulcudies or Peracudies did not. The total amount of their privileges was Pagodas 854.41.66. The average for each Nattar was about 142 Pagodas per annum. Besides the income from the privileged tenures, they also enjoyed the produce from their 'own cultivation'. Though the actual income from these lands cannot be calculated, it would have been a great amount judging from their high share of landholding in the respective villages.Oulcudies are described as those who 'themselves as well as their ancestors constantly resided within the Farm', and the Peracudies who were 'occasionally brought into the Farm to cultivate such lands as are unoccupied by the Oulcudies'. The per centages indicated in the Table.III-3-3 are after the deduction of the joint charges. Joint charges were deducted in the field before the state and cultivators divided the produce. Three quarters of the joint charges are to be given with straw before the grain was trod out, and one quarter of them after it was trod out and measured. On lands cultivated in share (i.e. warum) half charges were allowed by the state and half by the cultivators. On lands cultivated for fixed rent, the joint charges were allowed wholly by the cultivators who rented the lands from the Amuldar or Renter (i.e., Renter of the Country). The details of the joint charges were as follows:
A. On every 400 Marcals (marakkal, 4 Marcals = 1 Cullum) produce of all lands cultivated in share, 42 1/2 Marcals (=10 Cullums 2 1/2 Marcals) were levied. It was shared as follows: Cullums Marcals Village Servants 4 Pannacaras and Pannacarachies 4 Pagodas of Trevendipuram and Tremaniculy 2 2 1/2 ------------------ 10 2 1/2
B. On every Cawnie of land cultivated for rent 32 Marcals(=8 Cullums) were levied. In addition 2 Fanams were levied on every Pagoda on the amount of the rent of the Cawnie. They were shared as follows: Cullums Village Servants 4 Pannacaras and Pannacarachies 4 --------- 8 Pagodas of Trevendipuram and Tremaniculy 2 Fanams.
(Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, Printed at the Collectorate Press, 1888, pp.7-8) Difference between Chingleput and Tiruvendipuram There is an very important difference of the Nattars' privileges between Chingleput and Tiruvendipuram. In the case of Chingleput landlord rent is not included in the list, whereas in Tiruvendipuram 10 per cent of the produce collected from the land cultivated or rented by the Oulkudies or Perakudis is counted as one of the privileges of the Nattars. As this point needs detailed investigation, we will discuss it later.
TABLE.III-3-1ABSTRACT OF THE OLD NATTARS' PRIVILEGES IN CHINGLEPUT SPECIFIED IN THE COWLES GRANTED BY PLACE IN 1797========================================================================================================== Caste Name of the Nattar Shrotrium Maniam High Warum N.C Profit Warum No. code Vi.Profit Vi.Caw. P. Vi. P. F. C Vi. P. F. C. P.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CH16 MU WOLAGAPA MOODELY 3 166 10 30 60 5 76. 5. 4 3 302.05.04 312CH17 RE VENCATA REDDY 4 164 12 30 60 2 38.22.23 279.22.23 141TP23 AI APPIENGAR 3 140 19 30 60 6 34.21.16 2 234.21.16 135TP24 AI+AC ROYALIENGAR & RAGOONAUDACHARRY 4 280 17 45 90 7 68.21.45 1 438.21.45 235TP26 AI SHASHIENGAR 4 327 4 12 24 1 3. 4.25 3 354.04.25 13TP27 AC SHADAGOPACHARRY 4 144 14 30 60 1 25.31.50 1 229.31.50 103TP28 MU AYAH MOODELY 1 82 7 20 40 4 22.43.67 2 144.43.67 93PM29 ?? VENCATANARNAPIAH 4 671 7 48 96 4 54.39.43 8 821.39.43 219 PM30 MU VERDAPAH MOODELY 4 296 3 43 86 7 31.39.36 3 413.39.36 113PM32 MU RUNGASUMMY MOODELY 3 246 7 30 60 2 1.36.53 5 307.36.53 10PM33 MU TRIVENGADA MOODALY 1 311 5 30 60 2 24.35.18 395.35.18 148PM34 MU SHEVAPADA MOODELY 1 200 3 30 60 2 27.17.20 287.17.20 109 PM35 MU APPAH MOODALY 2 262 6 30 60 3 123.25.12 445.25.12 425SM36 MU COOMARAPAH MOODELY 1 87 10 20 40 2 23.17.59 150.17.59 104SM37 MU PUTTARAVY MOODALY 1 60 4 20 40 1 13. 7.15 1 113. 7.15 79 PO40 ?? NARNIAH 2 131 4 30 60 4 33.25.13 2 224.25.13 101PO41 MU VENCATACHELLAM MOODALY 3 149 3 30 60 4 61.20.67 2 270.20.67 163PO42 MU MOOTAPAH MOODALY 2 231 4 30 60 10 190.00.58 481.00.58 486
PO43 MU CAUTANOOR SOOBRAMANEYA MOODALY 3 150 4 30 60 3 43.11.40 1 253.11.40 100PO44 MU CHINGLEROY MOODALY 2 142 4 30 60 4 18.27.25 2 220.27.25 55MM49 AI RAMANJIENGAR 2 4 9 20 40 3 10.40.50 2 52.40.50 45MM50 AI RAGONAUDIENGAR 1 64 1 40 80 1 9.17.49 113.17.49 37----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL 22 Nattars 55 4307 157 658 1316 78 937.05.68 38 6535.05.68 3227 AVERAGE 2.5 196 7 30 60 3.5 43 1.7 297 147 ==========================================================================================================Source: Statement of the Privileges of the Nattawars, E.Greenway, 28.3.1801, in Permanent Settlement Records, Vol.25 Note: 1. Abbreviations:Vi.- Number of villages where the privileged tenures were found. Caw.-Cawnie. P.F.C - Pagoda. Fanam. Cash 2. The exchange rate of the currency used in the records are as follows: 1 Fanam = 80 Cash 1 Pagoda = 46 Fanam 3. The conversion rates of Cullum, Marakkal, and Measure are as follows: 1 Cullum= 12 Marakkals 1 Marakkal = 8 Measures TABLE.III-3-2 ABSTRACT OF THE NATTARS' PRIVILEGES IN TIRUVENDIPURAM IF ALLOWED FOR THE YEAR 1772 ========================================================================================================== Village Number Amount of Extents of the Land for Cultivation (Cawnie.Culie) of Privileges ---------------------------------------------------------------
Houses If Allowed Paddy Small Grain Nattars' Beetle or Inam Uncultivated (P. F. C.) Land Land Share Salt Pans Land Land---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANAMADAVY 143 111.36.55 A 54.31 77.44 1/4 50.95 39% 0.25 25.32 1.50 3/4 2. WOTARY 17 41.08.53 B 43.26 19.38 20.80 33% 16.58 3.28 3. KEELACOPANG 32 15.08.76 B 9.50 40.94 10.86 21% 8.05 4. SUNDARAWANDY 40 6.18.07 B 5.00 49.15 2.00 4% 14.02 5. TREMANICULY 70 48.27.08 B 32.90 88.37 30.47 25% 21.95 6. MURDAUD 36 47.20.10 C 17.02 7.37 7.90 32% 8.62 7. TOATAPUT 144 81.23.21 C 23.25 19.58 13.15 31% 13.51 8. RAMAPORAM 128 34.33.55 D 17.22 107.87 13.26 11% 27.17 77.91 9. ANNAVELLY 173 31.07.44 10. VADAGUMBUM 0 11.27.4011. CUDICAUD 69 47.10.1212. ALLAGYNUTTUM 102 39.06.1813. CHINNAGANGANAMCOPAM 10 16.16.47 E 22.20 18.15 32.35 80% 9.1514. MUNDAGAPUT 167 65.37.79 A 50.15 111.38 20.83 13% 37.3015. NELLATTORE 176 26.19.03 F 80.95 149.66 21.51 9% 56.60 1.0016. TIRTORIORE 94 16.21.27 E 9.60 85.11 11.71 12% 27.35 10.0217. AULAPAUKUM 56 45.38.54 G 45.59 7.93 21.30 40% 9.52 18. TONDAMANUTTUM 179 45.40.67 D 47.54 97.77 13.34 9% 38.70 17.64
19. WARGALPUT 100 26.40.25 H 56.12 30.49 21.70 25% 26.83 14.5420. ARRIAVETTY 555 7.21.00 I 133.64 225.00 0% 31.80 19.62 21. PATCHACOOPANG 72 30.00.00 J 3.37 4.96 0% 2.26 20.58 22. TREVENDAPURAM 216 Nil* B 5.49 58.10 0% 39.17 5.7523. ARISHEPERIANCOOPANG 40 Nil* J 4.81 11.18 0% 4.6424. CARUPEDYTUNDO 0 Nil* J 1.90 4.40 0% 0.9425. PUDOPETTAH 14 Nil** D 26. COOTAVOKUM 0 Nil*** J 0.00 24.25 2.60 16.75 27. VEERAPERUMAUNELLORE 272 56.10.05 E 160.30 232.40 69.15 18% 54.25 57.93 SH. PILLARY 66 Nil**** A 33.60 61.60 68.17 SH. PONNIANCOPANG 9 Nil**** J 9.84 1.07 4.00 SH. COMARAPETTA 23 Nil**** J 4.39 5.83 5.65SH. MAVEDYPOLLAM 31 Nil**** J 1.00 10.18 2.14SH. VETTUCOLUM Nil**** K 1.00 0.87 1.08---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 3040 854.41.66 ==========================================================================================================Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, Printed at the Collectorate Press, 1888.Note:1. The measures of Cawnie and Culie differed from village to village.1 Cawnie = 100 Culies1 Culie = 1 Square of (A=39), (B=34), (C=52), (D=49), (E=36), (F=38), (G=40.1 1/2), (H=33), (I=38 1/2),
(J=51 1/2),(K=51) English Feet. 2. * As the village ground is all cultivated on rent, there is no privilege for them. ** This is a fishing village on the sea beach. *** This village is held wholly by the Brahmins. **** Shrotrium village of the Poligar. SH -- Shrotrium. + Lands cultivated either in share or on rent without tax.
TABLE.III-3-3PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY THE NATTARS IN TIRUVENDIPURAM TILL 1768=================================================================1. landlord rent:
10 % of produce from the paddy lands watered from the rivers, yaries and tanks and cultivated by either the ulkudis or parakudis,
10 % of the amount of the rents from the lands rented by either the ulkudis or parakudis on a fixed rent,2. higher Varam(warum or share) in the produce from the lands cultivated by themselves: 50 % of produce from the paddy lands watered from the rivers, yaries, and tanks (40 % for Oulcudies and 45 % for Peracudies), two thirds of produce from the paddy lands watered by the use of Pecotas from well (same as Oulcudies and Peracudies), 3. special deduction of rents: 25 % deduction on the fixed rent lands rented by themselves, 12 1/2 % deduction for Peracudies,4. right of mortgaging land to the amount of their privileges,5. inam lands, and 6. fees on all the goods upon which Juncans are levied.=================================================================Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, Printed at the Collec
torate Press, 1888, p.10.
III-3B. Livestock Farming Nattars' economic activities were not confined in the landed property only. Table.III-3-4 shows the number of cattle kept by some of the inhabitants in Carangooly Purgannah. Three of the eight inhabitants listed here were the Nattars whose names can be found in the Nattars' list shown in Appendix.4 and 5. Among the three, Caulapal Moodely possessed especially large number of cattle.
TABLE.III-3-4Number of Cattle kept by Several Inhabitants in Chingleput================================================================= Cows Bullocks Buffaloes Sheep-----------------------------------------------------------------Caulapal Moodely(CG12) 241 60 15 354Letchaman Reddy(CG09) 4 6 3 4Moottoo Moodely(CG10) 2 11 7 -Augartapah Moodely 18 61 33 7Ramaswamy Moodely 17 31 12 122Moodoovencataputty Reddy 5 146 73 314Mony Singiah & others 220 51 30 -Rungasawmyiangar 19 22 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total 526 388 179 801 =================================================================Source: Account of Cattle and Sheep belonging to the seceded Inhabitants of the Purgunnah of Carangooly, attached by the Collector of the Jaghire, Letter from the Collector in the Jaghire, 28.12.1796, in Board's Collections, Vol.941, p.172.
Note: The number in the bracket indicates the Nattar number in Appendix.4 & 5.
There is another account on the livestock farming of the Nattar (Sambasiva Reddy) in Tiruvendipuram in the Diary of A.R. Pillai. It is recorded on 21 July 1748 that the French captured 200 cows and bullocks in the countryside. Later it was found that the cows actually belonged to the "Fort St. David Reddis" near Bahur and to the "Bahur Reddis". Two days later the herdsmen who drove in the "Bahur Nattars' cows" came to say that "fifty or sixty of the cattle belong to Sambasiva Reddi of Fort St.David, fifteen or twenty to Muttirusappa Mudali, and the rest to Parikkalpattu Venkatapati." According to A.R.Pillai, "Sambasiva Reddi is the bound renter of Fort St. David... Muttirusappa Mudali formerly served the English... The other is the headman of Bahur." Diary of A.R.Pillai, 23.7.1748.
Judging from these accounts, Sambasiva Reddi appeared in these accounts is the same person with the Nattar called Sambasiva Reddi, who was one of the renters of Tiruvendipuram in 1750. Anyhow it is clear by this account that "the Bahur Nattars" were keeping many cattle.
III-3C. Fees on Commercial Goods Fees collected on many commercial goods was one of the income sources for Nattar. Here again the Tiruvendipuram Report gives important information. Fees were usually collected from commercial goods on which Juncans (customs) were levied. Both Juncans and fees were collected at the same time. There were in total eight Juncan places in Tiruvendipuram. They were located in Arriavetty, Sharady, Ramapooram, Padrycopang, Comeraporam, Toutapat, Cuddalore River side, and Tremaniculy. The rates of Juncans levied in these eight places were not uniform.
Juncans were collected by Conicoplies (Kanakapillai, accountant) appointed by the renter. One eighth of the amount of the Juncans was paid to the Poligar except in Arriavetty, from which the Poligar received no part. Fees levied on the commercial goods were collected by the renter's Conicoplies, and paid by the renter to the several individuals including Nattars. The details of the Juncans and fees collected on various goods in all the Juncan places are indicated in Appendix.7. Table.III-3-5 and Table.III-3-6 are the examples of them. The fees thus collected and paid to the individuals amounted to Pagodas 3,165.13.23 for nine years from 1763 to 1771 (see Table.III-3-7). The annual average of fees given to the individuals amounted to around 352 Pagodas. If we take the per centage of the share given to the Nattars as 15 per cent, their annual income from the fees levied on goods would become around 53 Pagodas. The income for each Nattar amounts to around 9 Pagodas.
Summary The average annual income for a Nattar in Chingleput and in Tiruvendipuram obtained from the investigation so far done was as follows:--------------------------------------------------------------- Chingleput TiruvendipuramIncome from Privileged Tenures 297 143Income from Ordinary Tenures 147 N.ALivestock Farming N.A N.AFees on Commercial Goods N.A 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------TABLE.III-3-5JUNCANS AND FEES COLLECTED AT SHARADY, RAMAPOORAM, PADRYCOPANG, COMERAPORAM, TOUTAPAT, CUDDALORE RIVER SIDE ======================================================================= Juncan Fees Goods F C F C -----------------------------------------------------------------------
3.25 1.55* Sandalwood, broad cloth of all sorts, nutmegs, mace cloves, lead, tin , tuthenaigur, washing stuff, mahmoties, iron, steel, beetle nuts, turmeric,long pepper, pepper, chilies, saffron, copper, musk, ginger, garlic, quinter seeds, chayroot, jagary, sugar, salt petre, physic salt, brimstone, hing, mustard seeds, mint seeds, common seeds, garlinger 6.50 3.30 Cotton thread, cotton, ghee, oil 6.50 3.30 Callicoes brought into the bounds 7.70 3.30 Callicoes passing from the southward to the northward nil nil Callicoes brought for the Company 7.70 3.30 Indigo, tobacco 16.50 3.30 Ganjee 2.49 1.55 Gingelee seeds, lamp oil seeds, horse gram, cotton seeds, sanigalo, wheat, amounds, callivances, green gram, black gram, red gram, indigo seeds, jayara seeds 1.73 1.27 Warago without husk, rice 1.06 0.69 Small quantity of paddy, combo, warago with husk, natcheny, shama, cholum, tena, caudacuuny (29.20) (35.60) 110 small oxen load of paddy, combo, warago with husk, natcheny, shama, cholum, tena, caudacuuny 2.24 0.56 Cocoanut, jagary ball, plantain, lime, jack 2.00 1.00 Beetle leaves (8.00) nil Piece goods carried in baskets ======================================================================= Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot district, No.IV, Printed at the Collectorate Press, 1888, p.11.Note:
1. * - The share holders of this fee are showin in Table.III-3-7.2. There are several differences between the "Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram" printed in 1888 and the original report recorded in BOR Proceedings 12.7.1797. In such cases the latter figures are taken.
TABLE.III-3-6FEES SHARED AMONG THE INDIVIDUALS IN SHARADY, RAMAPORAM, PADRYCOPANG, COMERAPORAM, TOUTAPAT, AND CUDDALORE RIVER SIDE. ================================================================ F C (1 Fanam = 80 Cash)----------------------------------------------------------------One pagoda of Trevendiporam 20One pagoda of Tremanycuyly 20One pagoda of Trepapolore 203 Inhabitants formerly Nattars 201 Head Conicoply of the farm 101 Naudashary Braminy 101 Shingrachary Braminy 101 Shamachary Braminy 51 Timmenachary Braminy 2 1/21 Ragavachary Braminy 2 1/2 1 Vencatachary Braminy 2 1/21 Vizeangar Braminy 2 1/21 Oppaniengar Braminy 2 1/21 Veragapermal Iyengar Braminy 2 1/21 Watiar Annaviangar Braminy 2 1/21 Fackeer Abdulla 1 1/41 Pandarum of a Choultry at Sharady 1 1/4----------------------------------------------------------------- 1.55 =================================================================
Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, Printed at the Collectorate Press, 1888, p.11.
TABLE.III-3-7TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES DIVIDED AMONG THE INDIVIDUALS BETWEEN THE YEARS 1763 AND 1771========================Year Amount P. F. C------------------------1763 312.41.06 1764 417.37.25 1765 248.23.37 1766 522.33.13 1767 314.18.771768 334.35.001769 317.23.381770 325.16.231771 370.36.50-------------------------Total 3165.13.23 =========================Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, Printed at the Collectorate Press, 1888, p.19.
III-3. NOTESJUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5
III-4. NATTAR IN THE PRE-BRITISH PERIOD
III-4. NATTAR IN THE PRE-BRITISH PERIOD
The main objectives of the present chapter were to clarify the Nattar's official roles in the administration, to assess their position in the local society, and to study the economic activities in the pre-British period. We will first briefly summarize the investigation so far done in this chapter.
Summary of Investigation The most important official role of Nattar was revenue administration. The duties of Amildars who were appointed from elsewhere were usually performed by the advice of Nattars. The Nattars, as the men of locality, was very familiar with the local condition and their co-operation was indispensable for Amildars. Nattars were appointed by the state to assist Amildars, but their post had become a kind of property in some cases because of the length of possession. Several privileges were attached to the post and they had become transferrable properties. It was also a noticeable feature of the period that the Nattars acted as the revenue renters in many parts of the concerned area. The next important role of the Nattars was to support Brahmins and other religious institutions. A certain amount of allowance was levied for the purpose in addition to the public revenue, and was vested at Nattars' disposal. Nattars also had some authority in judicial matters. They seemed to have acted as mediators of disputes, especially on caste matters. These official roles of the Nattars were assigned to them because of their influential position in the local society. In assessing the Nattars' position in the local society, their relation with the caste organization in the period was studied. According to the accounts of Dubois and Buchanan who stayed or travelled mainly in Mysore in the late 18th and the early 19th centuries, almost every caste in the region had its headman who had authority on caste rules. It was also the case with Pondichery Town where every caste had two headmen called Nattar. Such well organized castes, however, seemed to be exceptional in the period. Some castes in Mysore were found to be organized
from above by the state, which tried to integrated all the people by creating the caste organizations and by newly appointing its headmen. The final appointment of the heads of castes called Nattar in Pondichery Town was vested in the hand of the Chief Dubash of the French Company, which utilized them for its administration in the town. Thus, the well organized caste organizations found in Mysore and in Pondichery were the revived or reorganized ones by the respective Governments for their rule. The revival of caste organizations was also sought by the inhabitants of the colonial towns. The mixture of the inhabitants migrated from the different parts of the country, the activity of Christian missionaries and its impact on the traditional Hindu value system, emergence of new classes who accumulated power by associating with European trading companies, etc. accelerated the struggle for hegemony in the new social order, which often erupted as the conflicts between the right and left castes. It was essential for the inhabitants of the urban area to unite themselves to acquire higher status in the emerging social order. On the other hand the evidence to prove the existence of such well organized caste organizations as found in Mysore and Pondichery is very rare in rural area. The disorderly state of the caste organization or its non-existence is implied by a few evidences such as the non-existence of the Nattars in some parts of the country. Several factors can explain the cause for the decline of caste organizations. First is the inheritance of the headmen's post for generations, although it was considered to be elective in notion. This would have naturally weakened the caste unity and the leadership of caste headmen in the period of drastic socio -political change. The second but the more important factor was qualitative change in the structure of local society which made it possible to dispense with the caste organization. In this connection, it was questioned what was the 'locality' and what was the territorial entity. It was then found that the Magan(-um), or its equivalent Turruf, functioned as the basic administrative unit among the various territorial units in the region. The jurisdiction of the Nattars in Chingleput seemed to be linked to the Magan, in the Cusbah of which they resided. The study about the relation between the
spatial distribution of the Nattars' privileged tenures and the Magan boundary in Chingleput revealed, however, that their privileged land tenures were sometimes scattered not only over several villages but also over several Magans. There was frequent transactions of landed rights in the region, which often transcended the Magan boundaries. In the case of South Arcot, the jurisdiction of the Nattars was confined in most of the cases within a village or two, whereas there were also the Nattars having under their jurisdiction many villages spread over several Turrufs. No distinctive relation can be observed between the Turruf and the Nattars. Tiruvendipuram was a compact unit for administration and was managed by the descendants of six original Nattars in shares. The land rights there were, however, frequently transacted between the Nattars and with the outsiders. In some parts of Trichinopoly Maganum functioned as the basic unit for administration and the Nattars were stated to be the renters of the respective Maganums, but not in other parts. In a word even if the official jurisdiction of the Nattars corresponded with Magan(-um) in some parts of the concerned area, their landed rights were in many cases not confined within a single Magan. There were frequent transactions of landed property not ony by the Nattars but also by many others across the villages and Magans. It is hardly possible to find the entity of the local society corresponding with any of the territorial units in the period. The lack of entity in the local society was also perceived in the spatial distribution of the landholding castes. No Magan was held exclusively by any single caste in Chingleput, which indicates none of the Magans was controlled communally by a particular caste. There occurred frequent land transactions across the villages or Magans irrespective of the internal caste structure in the area where the transaction occurred. It was not the communal but the individual power based on their individual economic activities and its accrued local influence that composed the very base of the local power structure. The discordance of Magan with the entity of local society was also found in the jurisdiction of the Poligars of the time. The spatial distribution of the villages under the respective poligar's jurisdiction was in many cases confined in a village or two, while in others spread over several Magans. The entity of the local society, if it had existed before, had already been cut to pieces by the period. Under such situation it was fairly difficult for the caste organization
to maintain its unity. The power structure in the local society was neither based on the unity of the respective caste community or the hierarchical relationship among them any more. The basic power unit in the period was the control power of the individual local leaders over others, and the basic unit of the society, or locality, was the territory controlled by the respective local leaders, who had acquired leadership over a certain number of villages that sometimes crossed Magan boundaries. The caste organization, if it had existed, was no more required in the period. The Nattars' power base was also not in their special connection with the caste organization but their individual local influence supported by their economic rights. The support from the caste organization was not required by them nor the former could afford to support the latter any longer. The power of the Nattars and other local leaders was based on the economic rights and activities such as agricultural production, livestock farming, and shares in the fees levied on commercial goods. All the Nattars had the privileged landed rights like shrotriums, maniams, and high warum. The Nattars in Tiruvendipuram enjoyed the landlord rent from the other cultivators in the area. The Nattars in the Chingleput also had landlord share in their villages as we will see later. These economic rights and activities supported their economic and political independence. It is to be noted in this regard that the only difference of the Nattars from other local leaders lied in their appointment by the state as the revenue officer. There were many more such influential local leaders as Nattar, having their power base in their own economic rights and activities and maintaining independence from the state without having official post. Nattars composed numerically a fractional part of these local leaders.
Implications of the Study If the Nattars' roles and positions in the local society were as summarized above, what would be the implication of the present study of the Nattar in the historiography of South India? By examining Burton Stein's argument on Vijayanagara period, we will examine it.
Problems of Stein's Argument Stein, like many other historians, describes the society of the
Vijayanagara period as the one of military nature, where the warriors called 'nayaka' played the important role, though he denies the 'nayaka system' as a 'system'. He remarks: "Great and small warriors, 'nayakas', are presented as the key political figures in the Vijayanagara state...there is no question about the two principal elements of this 'war-state'. One was the hundreds of local military chiefs who often bore the title of 'nayaka'; the other was the system of Vijayanagara fortifications usually under Brahman commanders. These were the core elements of Vijayanagara power in the southern peninsula and the means of imperial control over the macro-region."Burton Stein, The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol.I, op.cit., p.104.
Thus, he stresses the basic continuity of segmentary nature in the Vijayanagara political system where the nayakas played key roles. What is to be clarified at first is the relation between the nayakas and the individual local leaders grown from among the dominant local peasantry. Stein's statement on it sounds rather contradictory and cannot be figured out. Stein states the independent nature of the nayakas as follows: "The most plausible understanding of the nayaka institution of the Vijayanagara period sees the segmentary state continuing, but with chiefs of localities...possessing a greater degree of independence from local society than ever before in Tamil country."Ibid., p.106.,or "The Vijayanagara state was an important variant form of segmentary organization in which the chiefly office, nayaka, was more formal and independent of the dominant landed groups of locality.Ibid., pp.104, 110.
At the same time, however, he observes the power base of the local leadership still in the hands of the dominant local peasantry. He remarks: "In the Vijayanagara period, it is as powerful individuals that we encounter local leadership. The basis of local authority remained the same; the dominant local peasantry."Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval Soiuth India, op.cit., p.433.
This apparent discordance seems to be compromised by Stein by amalgamating the individual local leaders of two different origins, one from outside or Telugu country and one from among the dominant local peasantry, into the single category of 'Nayaka'. He states as follows: "those who managed agrarian activities were well differentiated, individual 'big-men'... Such powerful, local men were recruited from the dominant agricultural peoples of the immediate locality",Ibid., p.416. "agrarian management remained in the hands of locally based men. Like the Nattars of the Chola period, the chiefs and nayakas of the Vijayanagara period were men of the locality...The title, 'nayaka' appears to have been freely adopted and widely used by local magnates with no apparent connection with Vijayanagara armies."Ibid., p.433.
It is known from these remarks that Stein solves the contradiction by considering that the individual local leaders grown from the local society were amalgamated into the category of the Nayakas who were originally from outside.
Such argument as stated here seems to be a must for Stein in order to give the key role of the Vijayanagara society to the nayakas. There is, however, no need to assign the critical role of the society to the nayakas more than the characterization of the Vijayanagara society as one of nayaka system which he himself seriously criticizes. The point to be questioned is whether nayakas really took the leadership in the Vijayanagara society. It is true that some Tamil castes were included in the category of Nayaka, which is well supported by the investigation on the composition of the Nayakas done in Chapter III-2C. Out of the 116 poligars whose names are known, those with the title 'Nayak' numbered 100. Among the latter there were included 18 Moodrians and 3 Pallis, both of which were not the 'outsiders' originated from the Telugu country but the native Tamil castes. It is, however, to be noticed that the social status of both of Moodrian and Palli castes was low in the caste hierachy of the period. The low status of the Moodrians and Pallis is known by the fact that none of the Moodrians and few
of the Pallis are found among the landholders in Salavauk, Parumbauk, and Sautmagan purgannahs as studied above. On the contrary none of the major landholding castes in the rural area such as Reddis, Mudalis or Vellaras are included among the list of Poligars (or Nayakas). So far as the Tamil Nayakas are concerned, they were mostly from the socially low castes. It is, therefore, quite doubtful to assign the leading role of the local society to the nayakas so far as the nayakas of Tamil origin are concerned. It is to be observed at the same time that the jurisdiction of many of the Poligars titled nayaka is unexpectedly small, mostly one or two villages only. There were also some poligars who had jurisdiction over a number of villages. Even in such cases, however, they did not necessarily had the exclusive power in the villages under their jurisdiction. They were assigned the role to keep peace and order in the concerned villages and were allotted particular privileges such as shrotrium, maniam, or fees there. Their position in the locality was not more, not less.The duties of the Poligar of Tiruvendipuram are described in the Account of Tiruvendipuram as follows: Firstly he is to appoint Taliars to watch in 26 villages for the Farm both by night and by day at his own expense to prevent any of the inhabiants as well as strangers from being robbed; and in case any person is robbed within the precincts of the 26 villages, he is to make good his loss to him, unless he apprehends the thief. One month before the paddy and small grain is fit for cutting in these villages, he is to provide Taliars to watch it as also after it is cut and laid in the fields; and if any of it is stolen he is to make it good to the cultivator. Secondly he is to take care of all thieves that are apprehended in these villages. Thirdly he is to prevent the husbandmen from quitting the villages themselves, or from driving away their working cattle, and from carrying away their instruments of husbandry. Fourthly, in case an invasion is aprehended from a foreign enemy, he is to furnish if ordered by the Amuldar or renter a body of
peons or sibbendy to protect the whole Farm for which charge of sibbendy he is paid besides his usual privileges. (Tiruvendipuram Report, op.cit., pp.4-5) As to the official nature of them, there was a dual division of roles between the Nayakas and the Nattars. If the former could be characterized as the military officer, the latter could be characterized civil officer. While the former performed military or policing duties, the latter took the responsibility in revenue and other civil administration.Christopher Baker gives important suggestions on the subject. By studying the Zamindari estates in the British period, he points out the several features of them. Some of the features relevant to the present study are as follows:
1. Ties and clan played very little part in the internal structure of most of the Zamindari estates. Even in case the bulk of the peasantry in the Zamindari estate shared the Zamindar's (Poligar's) caste and looked to him as clan-head, his role as leader of the clan derived from military dominance, not from any role in the original colonization of the land nor from any process of lineage growth and segmentation.
2. The chief duties of the Poligars had been to police their territories and to supply troops for the sovereign in the pre-British period. The ownership or management of the land had nothing to do with them.
3. The Tamil Zamindars were not as strong, politically or legally, as their position implied and as a comparison with their counterparts in northern India would suggest.(Christopher Baker, Tamilnad Estates in the Twentieth Century, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol.XIII-1, 1976, pp.5-10)
As the area covered by the present study is confined in Chingleput,
South Arcot, and Trichinopoly, and the study about the nature of Poligar or Zamindari is not the main subject here, his arguments cannot be fully examined. I basically agree with him, but feel at the same time the necessity of a typological approach on the subject according to the different localities. Such attempts are found in the following works: Shinkichi TANIGUCHI, Eikoku Syokuminchi Shihai Zen-ya no Kita Bengal Chihou no Zamindar (Zamindar in North Bengal in pre-Colonial Period:T.M), in Ajia-Kenkyuu, 25-1, 1977, pp.52-86 (in Japanese), Akiko KAMIJOU, Jyuukyu-seiki izen no Poligar ni kansuru ichikousatu, Mysore ni okeru Poligar no nikaisou, Shisou, 3 (A Study on Poligars before the 19th Century Two Classes of Poligars in Mysore:T.M) (in Japanese), S Nurul Hasan, Zamindars under the Mughals, Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History, ed. by R.E. Frykenburg, Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1969, pp.17-31. As to the poligars in the southern districts of South India, see K. Rajayyan, Rise and Fall of the Poligars of Tamilnadu, Univ. of Madras, 1974, R.Sathyanatha Aiyar, History of the Nayaks of Madura, Univ. of Madras, First Pub. 1924, Repr. 1980.
What is to be stressed in this regard is the power and influence of Nattar. There were also many more local leaders in every locality who had the same degree of local control as Nattar. So far as the studied areas in the 18th century were concerned, the leadership in the local society must have been possessed not necessarily by the nayakas but by these local leaders.It is true that, in the period of political unrest such as the 18th century when none of the political overlords could be relied upon, people had to find military leaders
who could protect their interests. In some cases the military leaders might be the poligars who were the specialists in military operations. But the poligars, who were mostly from the low-ranking communities, could not necessarily assemble the locally dominant communities around them. Instead the leaders from among the high agricultural castes, including some Nattars, could be well supposed to have taken even the military leadership. This is indicated by the frequent opposition movements faced by the early British administrators in their land management as was studied in Chapter II. The relation of the local leaders and the political process of the 18th century will be studied in the next chapter in more detail.
Nayaka and Local Society The second point to be questioned is related with the first point. That is, by what mechanism the independence or dependence of the Nayakas from/on the local society was maintained. Stein's argument on the power base of the local leaders lacks concrete evidences and is poor in its analysis on production relations in the village level. What he discusses on this problem are the following three.1. Not the locality but the village became the major unit for agrarian organization. Stein states: "In further contrast with earlier arrangements, it was not the locality, but the village which became the major unit in which land rights were distributed."B.Stein, The Cambridge Economic History of India, op.cit., p.110.
"The older Nadu, of which such village settlements had been part in Chola times, continued to be a kinship and marriage territory of importance for its agricultural peoples; for them it was also continued as a cult ter
ritory. But, land management, that is the unit in which land, labour, and capital were combined, had diminished from the Nadu to the village."B.Stein, Peasant State..., op.cit., p.416.
2. The nature of land rights shifted from the dominion in land to the property in shares of village income, which was sometimes realized through allotments of fields within the village. He remarks: "land rights do not pertain to dominion in land, but to 'property' in share of income."Ibid., p.434.
"While the nattar of the previous period controlled the distribution of income from the land as possessors of the vellan vagai (cultivators' share:Stein), this control did not pass to those with local dominance in the Vijayanagara period. It is more correct to see the various, complex and public rights of persons and categories of persons during this later period as representing a partitioning of the vellan vagai, only one part of which passed to those with political dominance. Other shares of village income went to a group of families whose services benefited the village as a whole. These shares were realized through allotments of fields within the village, an important innovation in Tamil country."B.Stein, The Cambridge Economic History of India, op.cit, pp.111-112.
3. The local leaders took the leading part in rural agricultural development and secured the share in the increased produce as their own property. "A distinctive category of Vijayanagara land tenures related to what might be called 'rural developmental entrepreneurship'. These were special, private rights to a share of the newproductivity created by an investment in irrigation improvement in existing agricultural villages. 'Developmental investment' was undertaken by individuals of means and local prominence in return for which they secured income rights to a portion of the enhanced productivity as personal, heritable, and transferrable property."B.Stein, Peasant State..., op.cit., p.426.
Stein's analysis of production relations stated above ends here and gives little indication to the relation among the Nayakas, local leaders, and other
people, so that the economic structure of the Vijayanagara society can not be figured clearly. The main reason lies in his neglect to substantiate his theoretical framework describing the Vijayanagara society as the continuity of segmentary state. He states that "Locality units of the political system were not merely self-governing linked to imperial centres neither by resource flows nor command but were reduced images of the core ritual centre of kingship."Ibid., p.367.
"The most plausible understanding of the nayaka institution of the Vijayanagara period...chiefs of localities...possessing a greater degree of independence from local society than ever before in Tamil country."B.Stein, The Cambridge Economic History of India, op.cit., p.106.
If he argues the segmentary nature of the Vijayanagara society and the independent nature of the Nayaka chiefs as such, he has to verify how the relation between the state and the Nayakas or the relation between the Nayakas and the dominant local peasantry was expressed in the economic relations. To say more concretely, it is indispensable to produce the evidence on the way how the produce was shared or how the fields were allotted in the basic unit of agricultural organization among the various categories of people in order to clarify the production relations by which the social structure of the period could be figured. Any theory without substantial evidences is not persuasive or even misleading, though history is not so kind as to provide us with sufficient evidence. As Stein is so hasty in rejecting the pre-existing study framework of 'feudal' society and in presenting his theory of 'segmentary state' that he did not throw light on the conflict, competition, or co-operation occurring in the locality among the State, Nayakas, local leaders, and other people, especially on the role of the State in the local society. A more well-balanced argument on the historical development of South India is required.
State, Communal, and Individual Principles The study framework to be used here instead has three basic principles as tools in understanding the economic structure of the period. They are state
principle, communal or local principle, and individual principle. Each of them corresponds to military, caste, and economic factors respectively. By starting the investigation from the production relations in the village level, we will clarify the economic structure of the period. The sample villages are taken from the Bernard Report of Salavauk purgannah in Chingleput.
Production Relation in Chittahlamungalum First we will examine the various economic interests found in one of
the villages in Salavauk. The name of the village is Chittahlamungalum.As mentioned before, the data of all the villages (more than 2,000 villages in the district) are now under computer processing. As the processing started from Salavauk purgannah, the sample cases are taken from Salavauk. There is no other reason for this sampling. Any village or any purgannah can be taken up for study. The result of the processing of all the villages will be reported in a few years.
0. Caste Composition There were 15 households in Chittahlamungalum. The number of households of the respective castes in Chittahlamungalum were as follows: Tooliva Vellara landholders 2 Conicoply farmer 1 Vistnoo Braminy 1 Tooliva Vellara 1 Puccolum Vellara 1 Pandarum 1 Pally servants 2 Washerman 1 Barber 1 Pariars 4 ----- 15 households
According to Bernard's classification, the lands in Chittahlamungalum were divided into three (see Figure.III-4-1). They were as follows (bracket is T.M):1. Lands for public purpose (Poramboke) Caw.Cul. Tanks &ca. 8.75 Yary 34.50 Wood 2.25 Town 9.00 Parckery & burying ground 3.00 ------- 57.50 or 21%
2. Free gift lands (Maniam) 2A.village establishments, paddy(wet) 12.00 2B.village establishments, cumbu(dry) 12.75 2C.the property of strangers, paddy(wet) 4.00 ------ 28.75 or 11%
The free gift lands (Maniam) were allotted to poligar, conicoply, artificers, shroff and others. The free gift lands were classified into those belonging to the village establishments and those belonging to the property of the strangers. The free gift lands in CM were possessed as follows:
2A.2B. Belonging to the village establishments. 2A.Paddy(Wet) land 2B.Cumbu(Dry) land Landholders 1.50 Poligar 3.50 3.00 Conicoply 3.50 3.25 Artificers 1.75 3.50 Shroff 1.00 1.75 Cornmeters 0.75 1.25 ------ ------ 12.00 12.75 2c. Property of strangers
Paddy(Wet) land Permal Pagoda of Wyouool 1.25 Unnauca Braminy of Wyouool 0.50 Town Conicoply 2.25 ------- 4.00 3. 'Circar' or state land 3A.Paddy, cultivated 100.25 3B.Cumbu, cultivated 30.00 3C.Paddy, uncultivated 20.00 3D.Cumbu, uncultivated 35.75 ------- ------- 120.25 65.75 Total 186.00 or 68%4. Dues The rest of the lands were called 'Circar' or state grounds. The produce from the state lands were divided in the following way in Chittahlamungalum.
Before the crop was measured for division between the state and cultivators, two kinds of fixed amounts of various dues in kind were deducted from the crop. First were the dues collected before treading the crop. In Chittahlamungalum this type of dues amounted to 3.6.4 (C.M.M:Cullum, Marakkal, Measure).The conversion rates in Chingleput in this period were as follows: 1 Cullum = 12 Marakkals 1 Marakkal = 8 Measures 1 Cullum = 9,000 Cubic Inches
(Manual of Chingleput, p.58) They were shared as follows: 4A.Shares in dues deducted before treading Pooliar Pagoda 4. 9.0 Ammun Padari Pagoda 0. 1.0 Annumar Pagoda 0. 0.4 Panjangum Braminy 0. 1.0 Tope Pundarum 0. 0.4 Poligar 1. 0.0 Artificers 0. 8.0
Shroff 0. 4.0 Washerman 0. 1.0 Barber 0. 1.0 Snake doctor 0. 1.0 Cornmeter 0. 4.0 Conicoply 0. 8.0 ---------- 3. 6.4 (C.M.M.) JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5 After the crop was tread and before the crop was measured, another kind of fixed amount of dues were collected in kind. The amount was 5.11.4 (C.M.M) and were shared as follows:
4B.Shares in dues deducted after treading and before measurement Pooliar Pagoda 0. 0.4 Ammun Padari Pagoda 0. 1.0 Annumar Pagoda 0. 0.? Village Pagoda 0. 4.0 Panjangum Braminy 0. 1.0 Landholders 0. 4.0 Poligar 0. 3.0 Conicoply 0. 7.0 Artificers 0. 2.0 Shroff 0. 1.0 Pandarum 0. 0.4 Washerman 0. 0.? Barber 0. 0.? Snake doctor 0. 0.4 Valloovun 0. 0.4 Cornmeter 0. 4.4 Cultivators' servants 3. 4.0 ----------- 5.11.4 (C.M.M.) These two kinds of dues collected before measurement for division between the state and cultivators were, therefore, out of the hand of the state.
The rest of the produce were measured and divided between the state and cultivators in the several different ways. But two other kinds of dues were again deducted from the produce before the crop was actually divided. First were the dues stated to be paid half by the state and half by cultivators, and the second were the dues paid wholly by the state. Both dues were fixed proportionally to the produce, so that the actual amount differed according to the total produce. Suppose the total produce were 100.0.0, the proportion of the first dues was 13.8.1 and that of the second dues was 5.7.3. in the case of Chittahlamungalum. The dues were shared as follows:
4C.shares in dues paid half by the state and half by cultivators Cultivators' servant 4. 9.0 Conigo of the District 0.11.7 Daismooc of the District 1.11.6 Dovetraw? 1.11.6 Conjiveram Pagoda 0.11.7 Mullahsaib of Saulivaum 0.11.7 Pauliapundarum of Conjeveram 0. 6.0 Yary fund 1. 6.0 ---------- 13. 8.1 (C.M.M.)
4D.shares in dues paid wholly by the state Poligar 1. 5.6 Conicoply 1.11.6 Artificers 1. 0.0. Shroff 0. 8.0 Cornmeter 0. 5.7 ---------- 5. 7.3 (C.M.M.)
It is to be observed that the enjoyers of the first dues paid half by the Government and half by the cultivators (4C) seemed to be 'strangers' or those not directly involved in the concerned village except the 'cultivators' servants'. On the other hand the enjoyers of the second dues paid wholly by
the state (4D) were same with the 'village establishments' who enjoyed the free gift lands except 'landholders'.
5. Division between the state and cultivators The divisional proportion of the produce between the state and cultivators differed according to the cultivators (landholders or non-landholders), to the irrigational condition of the lands (Yary, Well, Channel, Picotah, etc., and duration) and to the residential place of the cultivators (villagers or outsiders). They were as follows in Chittahlamungalum (total 100.0.0): Paddy ground watered Cultivators' State's Dues Dues from Yary by channels share share (5A,5B) (5C) (4C) (4D)
5A.Toolivavellara landholders 38.10.1 41.10.3 13.8.1 5.7.3 5B.Farmers in the village 43. 1.7 37. 6.5 13.8.1 5.7.3
Cambu ground 5A.Toolivavellara landholders 47. 5.6 33. 2.6 13.8.1 5.7.3 5B.Farmers in the village 51. 9.5 28.10.7 13.8.1 5.7.3
6. LandholdersThe landholders were Tooliva Vellaras in Chittahlamungalum who held
the village in shares (shares unknown).
7. PoligarThe poligar of this village is Moodrian Vindewar Siddamnaick of Chem
moondy. The names of the villages under the jurisdiction of Moodrian Vindewar Siddama Naick of Chemmoondy were as follows:
=============================================
VILLAGE NAME MAGAN CENSUS SHARE---------------------------------------------TUNDELUM SV07 MT051 1KINIPAUCUM SV07 1CHITTAHLAMUNGALUM SV08 MT020 1=============================================
The names of the villages possessed by the Tooliva Vellara caste in Salavauk purgannah and the number of the Tooliva Vellara households in the respective villages are indicated below:=======================================================VILLAGE NAME MAGAN CENSUS H.H TOTAL Per Cent CODE CODE-------------------------------------------------------AHLANJERRY SV02 KA313 1 8 13 ANNAHDOOR SVSH KA286 7 93 8 PERRAMATOOR SV05 MT007 8 42 19 MUNGALUM SV06 MT014 7 39 18 CARRIKILLY SV07 MT018 8 20 40 UNDAVAUCUM SV08 MT021 6 24 25 CHITTAHLAMUNGALUM SV08 MT020 3 15 20 COORIVELLUM 30 51 59 YARIVAUCUM SV08 2 13 15 YAILAPAUCUM SV06 KA316 0 12 0 =======================================================H.H - Number of households of the Tooliva Vellara caste.TOTAL - Total number of households in each village.
The distribution of the Tooliva Vellara households in Salavauk Purgannah was as follows:================================================
============VILLAGE NAME MAGAN CENSUS H.H TOTAL Per Cent CODE CODE ------------------------------------------------------------SAULAVAUKAM SV01 KA290 10 192 5AHLANJERRY SV02 KA313 1 8 13SAUTANUNJERRY SV03 KA258 3 78 4ANNAHDOOR SVSH KA286 7 93 8PERRAMATOOR SV05 MT007 8 42 19POOKETORY SV05 MT008 1 53 2MUNGALUM SV06 MT014 7 39 18KIRNAUGARACHERY SV06 MT011 1 25 4CARRIKILLY SV07 MT018 8 20 40UNDAVAUCUM SV08 MT021 6 24 25CHITTAHLAMUNGALUM SV08 MT020 3 15 20 WYOUOOR SVSH MT203 2 72 3COORIVELLUM 30 51 59YARIVAUCUM SV08 2 13 15------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL 14 Villages 89 725 12 ============================================================
Then, what would be the implications of these figures ?
Features of Production relation in the VillageManiam The first point to be noticed is that fairly a large proportion of the lands in the village were classified as free gift lands (2. Maniam). The per centage in Chittahlamungalum was 11 per cent of the total extent of the village, or 18 per cent out of the cultivated extent. If we take all the villages in Salavauk purgannah, 10 per cent of the whole area or 27 per cent out of the cultivated lands were assigned to the various people as the free gift lands (see Fig.III-4-1. See for detail Table.III-4-1). It is sure that such assign
ment of the large extent of free gift lands destroyed the very economic base of the State.
Nature of Maniam The second point is the nature of these free gift lands. The possessors of the free gift lands stated to belong to the village establishments (2A, 2B) were not necessarily the villagers living in the same village. They were in many cases living outside the village (See Table.III-4-2 indicating the caste distribution in Salavauk purgannah). But they were the people or institutions performing the duties and functions related to the activities requested by the respective villages. The main enjoyers of these lands were poligar, conicoply (accountant), artificers (carpenter and ironsmith ?), shroff (money changer), cornmeter (measurer), and pagoda (temple). The various possessors of these free gift lands in the 71 villages in Salavauk purgannah were as follows (The figures in the bracket signify the caste code used in Table.III-4-2, and the total number of villages where the members of the respective caste resided): a. Those who appear almost in every village.landholder poligar(36-21)conicoply(11-27) artificer(05-21,23-14), shroff(45-21), cornmeter(?). b. Those who appear very frequently.pagoda Punchanga Braminy(33-1,34-3) Braminy(21-16,47-16,61-20) talliar(50-1). c. Those who appear in some villages.barber(02-13) washerman(62-25) snake doctor(48-15) panisever(?) potmaker(37-11)
cowkeeper(16-35) cootaddy(14-1) tope fund(57-2) yary servant(68-4) choultry fund malabar schoolmaster(24-1). d. Those who appear mostly in towns.dancing girl(17-4) pagoda flower garden(19-1) tomtomman(54-1) fluteman(20-2) tickytawoman(?). FIGURE.III-4-1DIVISION OF PRODUCE IN SALAVAUK - A MODEL -====================================================================================================
.--------------------------------------------. : : Wet Lands : Dry Lands : : : : : : 5C : : : : : 5C : Govt. : : : : 5C : Govt. : : : : 5C : Govt. : : : : : Govt. : : : : : : : : :--------: : : : :--------: : : : :--------: : : : Maniam : : : : 5B : : Holder :--------: : 5A : Culti. : : : : 5B : Culti. : : : : 5A : Culti. : : : : : Culti. : : : : : :////////:////////:////////:////////: : ://///// Landlord's Share (6) //////: : :////////:////////:////////:////////:
: :-----------------------------------: : : Dues(fixed proportion) : : :4C.Paid half by Govt. half by Cult.: : :4D.Paid by Govt. : : :-----------------------------------: : : Dues(fixed amount) : : :4A.Before treading : : :4B.After treading, before Measuring::------------------------------------:--------:-----------------------------------:----------------: : Common : Maniam : Cultivated : Uncultivated : : 8200(37%) : 2096 : 7721(35%) : 3960(18%) : : 1 : 10% : 3A,3B Government 3C,3D :: :2A,2B,2C: 11681(53%) :: Total Extent 21977(100%) ::--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:
====================================================================================================
TABLE.III-4-1CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS IN THE VILLAGES IN SALAVAUK PURGANNAH========================================================================================================= Village Name Extents of the Lands (13777) Total Number Number of Free Gift Land(2096) State Land(11681) Village of household Old(1967) New(129) Cultivated(7721) Uncultivated(3960) Area H.H vil(812) str(155) vil(16) str(113) Pad(4808) Cum(2913)Pad(1792)
Cum(2168)21989 1877 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SALAVAUCUM 30.75 3.75 3.00 217.25 26.00 20.50 20.25 546.00 192 CRUUMBERRY 75.50 96.75 121.25 116.00 540.00 72 POOLIPAUCUM 16.50 38.25 9.00 40.00 10.00 210.00 8 AHLAPAUCUM 41.875 2.00 3.50 64.625 70.00 6.00 303.00 44 SIDDUNDY 15.00 4.75 88.25 2.75 135.00 27 SEETAUPOORUM 14.00 14.00 1 CULLACAUDY 33.75 45.75 23.00 70.00 43.25 737.00 10 CUDDUNGHERRY 24.00 4.00 1.00 30.00 101.25 5.50 204.00 20 NEERCOONUM 10.75 4.25 15.25 13.25 13.00 95.00 11 NAICOONUM 18.50 50.75 65.50 34.00 20.00 442.00 21 MAUMBOODOOR 15.00 14.50 14.00 14.00 15.00 127.50 15 MAYOOR 16.25 10.50 5.00 30.00 30.00 170.00 nil PAULAISHVERUM 74.50 42.00 83.50 25.00 20.00 400.00 18 COONAUVAUCUM 16.00 38.50 44.75 215.00 19 AHLANJERRY 25.75 58.25 40.00 60.00 260.00 8 TOTENOVEL 22.25 15.00 13.50 4.00 85.00 4 CRUMUNJERY 5.75 1.00 20.50 11.00 36.50 104.25 49
SAUTANUNJERRY 40.75 3.00 10.375 336.125 251.00 53.00 1028.00 78 PANNIOOR 31.00 8.00 7.50 211.75 32.00 20.00 50.00 626.25 89 TIROOMOOCCOODUL 40.75 1.50 127.75 83.00 11.00 370.00 57 ARROONCOONUM 17.50 2.00 40.75 34.75 15.00 145.00 12 PURRIAVAILEY 25.25 2.50 6.00 23.25 35.50 50.00 220.00 12 PAIRANACAUOOR 28.25 2.00 59.50 177.00 20.00 448.00 22 CULLIAPETTAH 26.75 5.00 198.25 30.00 350.00 69 VITCHOOR 18.00 1.25 5.00 92.25 10.25 31.25 180.00 34 MOLAGHINNAMAINY 17.50 2.00 107.75 19.00 250.00 6 CHITTENACOUOOR 11.375 4.375 5.00 77.25 6.00 35.00 202.00 47 TUNDRY 17.25 1.50 5.00 91.25 20.50 135.00 29 ANNAHDOOR 26.75 5.00 283.25 74.00 480.00 93PERRAMATOOR 30.25 4.75 10.00 245.50 20.00 16.00 10.50 375.00 42 TOOKETORY 26.25 2.50 160.25 78.00 27.25 52.00 675.00 53 CODYTUNDELUM 22.50 50.25 19.00 28.625 274.50 16 TIROOVUNDAVAROO 10.375 21.625 13.00 4.75 101.25 22 PERROONGURRY 17.25 0.375 1.50 32.625 13.00 102.75 12 SIROOPUNNIOOR 22.00 4.50 110.00 5.50 200.00 13
MAUMBAUCUM 17.00 4.00 112.00 9.50 58.00 30.00 228.25 5 CHUMBAHDYNELLOOR 5.00 30.00 50.00 4 MUNGALUM 116.75 115.75 216.00 10.00 625.75 1125.00 39 PALLIUGGERUM 40.75 11.25 30.00 42.50 414.00 26 CHUMBAUCUM 7.00 1.75 16.00 35.00 8.00 46.00 143.00 nil WORAOOR 24.00 1.00 45.50 32.00 12.50 20.00 320.00 34 KIRNAUGARACHERY 26.75 2.00 100.50 30.50 12.00 45.375 490.00 25 YAILAPAUCUM 32.75 35.25 52.00 22.50 69.00 324.50 12VELLATODOO 20.25 29.25 29.25 40.00 32.25 400.00 6 COONUMGOLATOOR 21.25 21.25 44.00 8.00 15.25 185.00 1 KIETUNDELUM 9.00 29.25 15.00 87.50 14.00 197.00 4 CAUTTOOPOOOTTOOR 6.75 0.75 8.00 9.00 10.00 50.50 1 NELLY 26.50 1.50 49.50 22.00 13.75 7.25 174.25 9 UGGRAHARUM 9.50 3.00 19.00 17.00 1.50 10.00 105.00 nil TORIOOR 14.75 0.50 1.75 13.75 20.00 40.50 162.50 1 VELLAPOOTOOR 52.75 1.00 99.00 105.75 35.00 119.75 900.00 61 CARRIKILLY 36.50 3.50 65.75 28.25 42.50 23.50 450.00 20 WODUNTONGEL 21.05 0.50 65.125 50.00 24.00 38.425 275.17 12
CHITTAHTOOR 20.75 18.00 20.00 6.50 26.00 172.00 17 VINAIAGANELLOOR 6.75 12.75 7.25 29.50 53.00 92.25 270.00 4 TUNDELUM 25.00 37.375 60.00 120.00 80.75 49.875 752.50 55 KINIPAUCUM 17.75 18.50 31.50 14.00 8.50 173.25 24 TEROOTOLLUM 52.75 64.75 200.00 5.00 40.50 474.50 43 UNDAVAUCUM 29.75 70.75 148.00 84.00 87.50 785.00 24 WODAVAUCUM 26.25 2.25 79.50 100.50 70.00 77.00 404.50 12 POORIDDIVAUCUM 30.50 3.50 41.50 13.00 26.50 21.50 230.00 17 CHITTAHLAMUNGALUM 24.75 4.00 100.25 30.00 20.00 35.75 272.25 15 POODAPUTTOO 25.50 54.75 56.00 9.25 20.75 230.00 16 PASHIMBOOR 16.75 2.00 30.00 27.00 29.25 19.25 137.50 17 SAUTUMMAY 12.75 1.25 6.00 46.25 79.25 nil WYOUOOR 31.50 18.75 5.50 10.00 109.00 72 NAICOOPY 16.75 9.25 12.75 24.00 102.00 nil COONAVAUCUM 9.75 21.00 20.25 8.25 16.75 90.25 6 COONVELUM 58.25 6.25 75.25 79.75 18.00 107.75 690.00 51 YARIVAUCUM 27.50 1.25 41.75 29.00 120.00 13 TOTENOVEL 19.00 10.50 31.50 13.75 5.50 8.00 140.00 6
========================================================================================================Source: Bernard Report, Salavauk. Note: The difference of old and new free gift lands or Mauniams is explained in the Bernard Report as follows: "The distinction of old and new free gift or Inaums lands is this. The old are such as have been regularly granted and are of many years standing. The new are such as have been granted in the present Nabob's time or since Saudatulla Cawns in many cases by the renter or other unauthorized persons."TABLE.III-4-2CASTE DISTRIBUTION IN SALAVAUK
CASTE CODES USED IN THE TABLE:01 AMMAN PAGODA SERVANT 21 GENTOO BRAMINY 41 RAJAH 61 VISTNOO BRAMINY02 BARBER 22 HIMBAYAN 42 REDDY 62 WASHERMAN 03 BONDELIAN 23 IRONSMITH 43 SAUTINIAN 63 WATERWOMAN 04 BRAZIER 24 MALABAR SCHOOLMASTER 44 SHOEMAKER 64 WEAVER 05 CARPENTER 25 MAUTOT PEON 45 SHROFF 65 WOCHUN 06 CAUMITY 26 MOODRIAN 46 SIDDA PANDARUM 66 WOODCUTTER 07 CAVARE 27 MOORMAN 47 SIVA BRAMINY 67 YAWKOOPSHAW TAKEER 08 CHITTY 28 OIL SELLER 48 SNAKE DOCTOR 68 YERY SERVANT 09 CHUNAM SELLER 29 PAGODA SERVANT 49 STONECUTTER 10 COMMAVAR 30 PALLY 50 TALLIAR 11 CONICOPLY 31 PANDARUM 51 THAUTHUN 12 CONIDIGHETTY VELLARA 32 PANISIVER 52 TIVISEREMAKER?
13 CONIGO BRAMINY 33 PANJANGUM 53 TODDY SELLER 14 COOTAUDY 34 PANJANGUM BRAMINY 54 TOMTOMMAN 15 COTTON REFINER 35 PARIAR 55 TOOLIVA VELLARA 16 COWKEEPER 36 POLIGAR 56 TOONDANINAD? 17 DANCING GIRL 37 POTMAKER 57 TOPE PANDARUM 18 FISHERMAN 38 PUCCOLUM VELLARA 58 VEERA PANDARUM 19 FLOWER GARDEN PANDARUM 39 PUTNAVER 59 VEERASIVA PANDARUM 20 FLUTEMAN 40 PUTTRAWAR 60 VELLARA JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5=============================================================================================================================== CASTE CODE 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Number of H.H.1877 1 16 1 1 27 3 30 63? 2 57 67? 1 3 1 9110?26 6 1 2 45 1 20 1?10 3 23 27 4208? 7 9 3 3 Number of Villages 1 13 1 1 21 3 13 28 2 9 27 1 1 1 6 35 4 1 1 2 16 1 14 1 1 3 1 11 2 41 6 6 1 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 SAULAVAUKAM 192 3 3 1 4 13 1 13 1 4 10 4 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 32 4 3 2 CRUIMBERRY 72 1 2 1 1 9 3 POOLIPAUCUM 8 4 2 4 AHLAPAUCUM 44 1 2 1 3 5 SIDDUNDY 27 1 1 1 6 SEETAUPOORUM 1 7 CULLACAUDY 10 2 2 6 8 CUDDUNGHERRY 20 1 1
4 9 NEERCOONUM 11 1 2 8 10 NAICOONUM 21 1 1 4 1 11 MAUMBOODOOR 15 1 1 1 2 1 4 12 MAYOOR 0 13 AHLANJERRY 18 1 4 14 COONAVAUCUM 19 1 1 15 AHLANJERRY 8 1 2 16 TOTENOVEL 4 1 1 17 CRUMUNJERRY 49 12 3 1 21 1 1 3 18 SAUTANUNJERRY 78 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 20 1 19 PANNIOOR 89 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 27 20 TIROOMOOCCOODUL 57 2 1 2 1 13 1 4 5 1 4 21 ARROONCOONUM 12 5 22 PURRAVAILY 12 2 2 23 PAIRANACAUOOR 22 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 24 CULLIAPETTAH 69 1 1 1 1 1 25 VITCHOOR 34 1 1 1 26 MOLAGHINNAMAINY 6 1 1 27 CHITTENACOUOOR 47 ? ? ? ? ? 28 TUNDRY 29 1 2 1
2 29 ANNAHDOOR 93 2 2 6 1 3 2 12 1 30 PERRAMATOOR 42 1 4 1 9 1 4 31 POOKETORY 53 1 1 1 13 4 4 32 COODYTUNDELUM 16 2 2 1 6 33 TIROOVUNDAVAROO 22 1 11 1 1 1 34 PERROONGURRY 12 1 35 SIROOPUNNIOOR 13 1 1 1 36 MAUMBAUCUM 5 37 CHUMBAHDYNELLOOR 4 38 MUNGALUM 39 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 39 PALLIUGGERUM 26 12 1 1 40 CHUMBAUCUM 0 41 WORAOOR 34 1 1 1 4 7 4 4 2 42 KIRNAUGARACHERY 25 1 3 1 8 2 1 43 YAILAPAUCUM 12 1 3 1 1 44 VILLATODOO 6 45 COONUMGOLATOOR 1 1 46 KIETUNDELUM 4 1 1 47 CAUTTOOPOOTTOOR 1 48 NELLY 9 4 2 149 UGGRAHARUM 0 50 TORIOOR 1 51 VELLAPOOTOOR 61 1 1 8 5 1 6 1 9 1
52 CARRIKILLY 20 1 1 2 1 1 53 WODUNTONGEL 12 1 54 CHITTAHTOOR 17 12 55 VINAIAGANELLOOR 4 1 2 56 TUNDELUM 55 1 1 2 1 2 5 57 KINIPAUCUM 24 1 3 1 1 58 TEROOTOLLUM 43 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 1 5 1 59 UNDAVAUCUM 24 1 4 1 3 1 60 WODAVAUCUM 12 1 ? 61 POORIDIVAUCUM 17 1 1 4 1 62 CHITTAHLAMUNGALUM 15 1 1 2 1 63 POODAPUTTOO 16 1 1 5 4 64 PASHIMBOOR 17 65 SAUTAMMAY 0 66 WYOUOOR 72 1 1 1 4 1 9 16 5 67 NAICOOPY 0 68 COONAVAUCUM 6 1 4 69 COORIVELLUM 51 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 70 YARIVAUCUM 13 2 2 2 71 TOTENOVEL 6 1 ================================================================================================================================TABLE.III-4-2(continued)================================================
================================================================================ CASTE CODE 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Number of H.H 287?33 13110? 1 1 1 78 3 2 35 3 67?22 2 1 3 1 2 1 89 1 2 14 51 1205?25? 2 38 7 41 1 6 Number of Villages 47 21 11 18 1 1 1 12 2 2 21 2 16 15 2 1 1 1 2 1 14 1 2 7 1 1 20 25 2 4 4 13 1 4-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 SAULAVAUKAM 21 1 1 1 3 2 3 10 6 1 1 1 2 CRUIMBERRY 3 3 51 1 3 POOLIPAUCUM 1 1 4 AHLAPAUCUM 1 1 1 3 5 SIDDUNDY 10 14 1 6 SEETAUPOORUM 1 7 CULLACAUDY 8 CUDDUNGHERRY 1 2 10 1 9 NEERCOONUM 10 NAICOONUM 4 3 1 2 1 3 11 MAUMBOODOOR 2 1 2 12 MAYOOR 13 PAULAISHVERUM 6 2 1 1 3 14 COONAVAUCUM 10 1 6 15 AHLANJERRY 4 1 16 TOTENOVEL 2 17 CRUMUNJERRY 5 2 1 2 10 3 2 18 SAUTANUNJERRY 5 8 2 7 1 3 17 1 1
19 PANNIOOR 3 2 1 4 1 22 2 1 9 1 1 120 TIROOMOOCCOODUL 10 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 21 ARROONCOONUM 4 1 1 1 22 PURRAVAILY 4 12 1 1 1 1 23 PAIRANACAUOOR 5 1 1 5 24 CULLIAPETTAH 4 2 23 1 1 69 1 24 25 VITCHOOR 14 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 26 MOLAGHINNAMAINY 4 27 CHITTENACOUOOR ? ? ? ? ? 28 TUNDRY 6 1 15 1 29 ANNAHDOOR 6 2 16 4 1 7 1 25 1 130 PERRAMATOOR 6 1 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 31 POOKETORY 17 1 1 7 1 1 1 32 COODYTUNDELUM 4 1 1 33 TIROOVUNDAVAROO 1 1 4 34 PERROONGURRY 8 1 2 35 SIROOPUNNIOOR 3 1 2 4 36 MAUMBAUCUM 5 37 CHUMBAHDYNELLOOR 4 38 MUNGALUM 7 3 7 1 39 PALLIUGGERUM 10 1 40 CHUMBAUCUM 41 WORAOOR 7 1 1 1
42 KIRNAUGARACHERY 7 1 1 43 YAILAPAUCUM 1 5 44 VILLATODOO 1 3 2 45 COONUMGOLATOOR 46 KIETUNDELUM 1 1 47 CAUTTOOPOOTTOOR 1 48 NELLY 1 1 49 UGGRAHARUM 50 TORIOOR 1 51 VELLAPOOTOOR 9 4 1 2 1 2 1 11 52 CARRIKILLY 3 2 8 1 53 WODUNTONGEL 4 6 1 54 CHITTAHTOOR 4 1 55 VINAIAGANELLOOR 1 56 TUNDELUM 9 33 2 1 1 1 57 KINIPAUCUM 3 1 2 1 1 9 1 58 TEROOTOLLUM 7 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 59 UNDAVAUCUM 4 1 1 1 6 1 60 WODAVAUCUM 5 4 61 POORIDIVAUCUM 7 2 1 62 CHITTAHLAMUNGALUM 4 1 3 1 1 63 POODAPUTTOO 4 1 64 PASHIMBOOR 7 6 4 65 SAUTAMMAY 66 WYOUOOR 7 1 1 2 1 2 20 1 1 67 NAICOOPY
68 COONAVAUCUM 1 69 COORIVELLUM 10 1 30 1 1 70 YARIVAUCUM 3 1 2 4 71 TOTENOVEL 6 2 =========================================================================================================================Note:1. ? - There are a few villages where the number of the households of the respective caste are not readable. They are indicated by question mark. The total figures includes these cases by allocating one household to them.
Generally speaking free gift lands were originally created or granted by the state. 'Free gift' means nothing but the grant of the state tax or tax-exemption to the enjoyer. Can we, then, take them as the product of the state principle ? It is to be noted first in considering this matter that the state did not always grant them newly. Most of the free gift lands were often reconfirmed by the succeeding states as the inviolative rights. For instance, only 129 cawnies out of the 2,096 cawnies of the free gift lands (6 per cent) were the creation of the Nawab Government after Saudatulla Cawn's time (Nawab of Arcot in the years 1710-1732). Judging from the composition of the enjoyers of the free gift lands for village establishments (2A,2B), it is also known these lands were assigned to those who performed duties and functions essential to the village. State had little power to violate their rights. In this sense the free gift lands should be thought to be maintained not by the state principle but by the communal principle. It is at the same time to be notified that these free gift lands were sometimes transferred between the individuals. Such transfer could occur only in case the duties and functions were undertaken by the new possessor. But such duties and functions were often neglected especially in the period of political turmoil. Anyhow the possibility for the individual principle to work on the free gift lands for the 'village establishments' was not much (the significance of the exceptional case of landholders' maniam will be discussed later).
On the other hand the free gift lands stated to be the property of the strangers (2C. 267.75 cawnies or 13 per cent of the total free gift lands) were possesed by the individuals or institutions that were not directly related with the concerned village. The possessors were in almost all the cases those beyond the village level. The possessors in the villages in Salavauk were conigo (canungo) of the district level, conicoply of the town, chief inhabitants of the district (Nattar ?), Brahmin, Fakeer, Punchanga, Pandarum and other religious individuals or institutions in towns, funds for channel, yary, choultry, or tope, washerman, and dancing girl. The names of the possessors of these Maniam were as follows:
Ramacharia of Conjiveram Tautacharia Braminy of Conjiverum Allangoo Singarah Braminy of Conjiverum Groocul of Conjeverum Conjeevarum Pagoda Sydoomastapah Fakeer of Saulavaukum Sooltaun Fakeer of Saulavaucum Siddapundarum Eishverum Pagoda of Seetanunjery Unnavia Braminy of Wyouoor Perumal Pagoda of Wyouoor Vencatachela Braminy Ragroovumputter Braminy of Perramatoor Vaithaverty Braminy Eishveram Pagoda of Poodaputtoo
Chief Inhabitant Conicoply Chief Inhabitant of the District Moodoooramanaick Chief Inhabitants of the District Ramia Braminy of Panioor Chief inhabitants of the District Conigo of the district Varagoovamoodelliar Chief Inhabitants of the District Town Conicoply
Channel fund of Seetanunjery Channel fund of Panauyoor Channel fund of Parianaccouoor Channel Cutter Choultry fund Choultry fund of Saulavacum Tope fund Mudda Yary fund
Washerman Dancing Girl of Wyouoor Village doctor Braminy Amakdoor Spung?
The composition of the 'strangers' enjoying these free gift lands indicates they were originally granted by the state to those who played intermediary roles between the state and local society or between the localities. In this sense they are the product of the state principle and to a certain extent of the communal principle. But judging from the fact that some of the possessors were called by their personal names and that the lands were particulary stated to be the 'property' of the strangers, these individuals transacted them as individual property free from the state or communal principle. This can be thought to be another evidence indicating the weakening of the state and the communal principles in the society.
Dues before Measurement The third point is the nature of the fixed amount of dues collected before measurement (4A,4B). It is important that the dues were deducted before the crop was measured for division between the state and cultivators. This apparently signifies that these dues were maintained not by the state principle. This is also exemplified by the composition of the enjoyers of the dues. The composition has the very same feature as that of possessors of the free gift lands belonging to 'village establishments' (2A, 2B). The comparative list of the two fixed amount of dues deducted before measurement and the enjoyers of
the free gift lands for village establishment is shown below. The dues collected before measurement were thus maintained by the communal principle.
================================================================Deducted before Crop was tread Deducted after treading but before measurement------------------------------ ---------------------------- C. M.M. C. M.M. Pooliar Pagoda 4. 9.0 Pooliar Pagoda 0. 0.4 Ammun Padari Pagoda 0. 1.0 Ammun Padari Pagoda 0. 1.0 Annumar Pagoda 0. 0.4 Annumar Pagoda 0. 0.? Village Pagoda 0. 4.0 Panjangum Braminy 0. 1.0 Panjangum Braminy 0. 1.0 *Landholders 0. 4.0 *Poligar 1. 0.0 *Poligar 0. 3.0 *Conicoply 0. 8.0 *Conicoply 0. 7.0 *Artificers 0. 8.0 *Artificers 0. 2.0 *Shroff 0. 4.0 *Shroff 0. 1.0 Tope Pundarum 0. 0.4 Pandarum 0. 0.4 Washerman 0. 1.0 Washerman 0. 0.? Barber 0. 1.0 Barber 0. 0.? Snake doctor 0. 1.0 Snake doctor 0. 0.4 Valloovun 0. 0.4 *Cornmeter 0. 4.0 *Cornmeter 0. 4.4 Cultivators' servants 3. 4.0 ------------------------------ ---------------------------- 3. 6.4 5.11.4 =================================================================Note: 1. * - The possessors of the free gift lands for village establishments are indicated by asteric mark.2. The main difference between the two ways of sharing the dues before measurement was the large share given to the cultivators' servants. This is well understood as the cultivators' servants were expected to perform their
duties till the final stage of agricultural production, i.e. treading.
Dues after Measurement The fourth point is the nature of the proportional dues deducted after the crop was measured (4C,4D). It is important to find out the meaning why the first dues after measurement (4C) are stated to be paid half by the state and half by the cultivators, and the second dues (4D) being paid wholly by the state. This is known by studying the composition of the enjoyers of the two dues. There is a distinctive difference between the enjoyers of the first dues and those of the second dues. The former mostly consisted of the 'strangers' of the village except the cultivators' servant.It is important to find that the cultivators' servants had a share in the dues given half by the state and half by the cultivators. Why must they be maintained both by the state and by cultivators ? This problem is closely related with the argument on the historical development of South India and needs careful investigation. We will come back to this problem later in this chapter. Many of them overlap the 'strangers' who possessed the free gift lands above the village level (2C), in which town conicoply, chief inhabitant of the district and others were included. This evidence indicates that the people or institutions that connected the local society with the state were supported economically both by the free gift lands (2C) and by the first dues after measurement (4C). Their position in the intermediary level in the society is well suggested by the expression of 'dues paid half by the Circar half by the Cultivators'. They were supported from above and from below, i.e. by the state principle and by the communal principle. However, as was the case with the enjoyers of free gift lands for strangers, many of the enjoyers of these dues were called by their personal names, so that it may be judged that the dues had already been appropriated individually and were transacted freely as their property. On the other hand the enjoyers of the second dues after measurement (4D or dues paid by circar alone) were exactly the same people who were assigned
the free gift lands belonging to the village establishments (2A,2B). It is, therefore, judged the enjoyers of the dues are those related with the village establishments. Though they are stated to have been given the dues by the state, which may be interpreted as the state's intervention into the village establishments, they should be interpreted as the reconfirmation of the communal principle by the state by the same reason studied in the investigation of the free gift lands for village establishments.
Division of Produce between State and Cultivators The fifth point is the nature of the division of the rest of the produce between the state and cultivators (5A,5B,5C). As mentioned above, the divisional proportion of the produce between the state and the cultivators differed according to the cultivator (landholder or non-landholder), to the irrigational condition of the lands (irrigated by Yary, Well, Channel, Picotah, etc., and duration), and to the residential place of the cultivator (villager or outsider). It was the general principle for non-landholders, lands with poorer irrigational condition, or cultivators from other villages to be allowed higher share in the produce. It is understandable that those who cultivate the lands of low productivity or those from other villages were allowed higher share as the cost of proudction must have been more in such cases. But why was the landholders' share lower than others ? This problem is related with the difference of notions on landholding and mirasi rights among the Government (Governor and Council), Place, and the Board of Revenue at the time.
Argument on Mirasi RightsIt was an inrefutable belief of the Govenment that the Government was
the exclusive owner of the land, and the mirasi right was 'a preference of cultivation derived from hereditary residence'Extract from the Minutes of Consultations, dated 8th January, 1796, in Papers on Mirasi Right, p.28.
H.Kotani states that the popular notion on Asian State in Europe in the 18th century was to observe the non-existance of private land ownership as the very base of the
Asiatic despotism. The same notion of state ownership was also held by Marx till 1850's when his concern was directed towards communal landholding by village community. KOTANI Hiroyuki, Marx to Ajia, Aoki Syoten, 1979, p.31, (in Japanese).. Their notion is well expressed by the following remarks:
"It is the first feature in all the Governments of India that the Sovereign, whether he be a Mussulman or a Hindoo, is lord of the soil; and hence it is that no alienation of lands from the property of the Circar, or rather no possession of land whatever, is valid without a written instrument from the superior lord; and this distinction has invariably followed the conquests of all the nations who have established themselves in India."Extract from the Minutes of Consultations, dated 8th January, 1796, Para.13, in Papers on Mirasi Right, p.26.
On the contrary, Place acknowledged the mirasidars' hereditary right as well and perceived a kind of dual ownership of land. He remarks as follows:
"Lands cannot be alienated, without a written instrument; because both the sovereign and the subject have a mutual property in them; each, however, may alienate his own, and the other is not affected."Extract from Mr.Place's Final Report on the Jagir, dated 6th June, 1799, Para.97, in Papers on Mirasi Right, p.55.
"I think it must be admitted that the meerassadar has an undoubted hereditary property in the soil, that he derives his right originally from the sovereign, to whom he acknowledges obedience, and the renter of a stated proportion of the produce, as the tenure by which he holds it; that under this impression he uses it as may be most for his advantage, and that by law, he considers that right sacred, and unalienable, so long as he performs the condition annexed to it."Extract from Mr.Place's Final Report on the Jagir, dated 6th June, 1799, Para.91,in Papers on Mirasi Right, p.53.
It is at the same time to be noticed that Place thought the mirasidar's right to be sequestable if he does not observe the expected duties of cultivating lands, paying tax, or being obedient to the state authority. He states:
"it is a right to the use and substance of the soil, vested in the present proprietor his heirs and successors, so long as he does, or can cultivate it, and pays the dues of Government, and is obedient to its authority; and that when he does not, or cannot, cultivate his lands; when he withholds the dues of Government, or is disobedient to its authority, such part as he neglects, or in the latter case the whole, escheats to Government, who may confer it on whom it pleases." Extract from Mr.Place's Final Report on the Jagir, dated 6th June, 1799, Para.703, in Papers on Mirasi Right, p.68. Such notion on mirasidar was exactly what Raffles held about the Javanese society. See H.KOTANI, Marx to Ajia, op.cit., p.31.
Whatever the Place's notion of land ownership might be, it is important to note what he thought as the mirasidars' herediatry, unalianable right was not the landlord rent but the fees in the produce. He continues:
"Were I called upon to define the term meerassee, and its properties, I think it bears exact analogy to a fee. I would call meerassee a freehold estate of inheritance, and a meerassadar a tenant in fee simple, holding of a superior lord, on condition of rendering him service. His lord is the Circar, his estate the usufructuary right of the soil, and the service he owes, a renter of a stated portion of the produce of his labour."Extract from Mr.Place's Final Report on the Jagir, dated 6th June, 1799, Para.94, in Papers on Mirasi Right, pp.53-54.
Place's notion of the mirasi right is well expressed in his explanation of the difference between mirasidar and pyacarry, which is related with the problem why the mirasidar's share in the produce was lower than pyacarry. Place, in his report of 1795, explains that the share of the landholders
(mirasidar) lower than the others (pyacarries) was 'more than compensated to the meerassadar or proprietary cultivator, by his mauniams (free gift lands:T.M) and marah (dues:T.M), neither of which the other enjoys.'Extract from a letter from Mr.Place, Collector of the Jaghire (Chingleput) to the Board of Revenue, dated 6th October, 1795, Para. 63, in Papers on Mirasi Rights, pp.24-25. The point to be studied is whether the lower share allowed for mirasidars was really compensated by the maniam and marah. According to the same report about the division of the crops in the 854 villages in the three purgannahs of Tripassore, Carangooly, and Conjiveram,Extract from a letter from Mr.Place, Collector of the Jaghire (Chingleput), to the BOR, dated 6th October 1795, in Papers on Mirasi Rights, pp.17-25. the lands were classified into two categories, i.e. maniam (tax free land) and varapet (taxed land or circar land). The holders of the Mauniam lands were 'meerassee cultivators, Poligars, village and head Pagodas, and to all the various descriptions of village servants and artificers'.
The produce of the Varapet lands was divided in the following way. Firstly the fees called Swoduntra Dittum were deducted. Though Place does not report how these fees were actually divided, they were probably same as the dues deducted before measurement studied above (4A,4B). Place estimates that the per centage of the Swoduntra Dittum was around 12 per cent of the whole produce. Then two kinds of marahs (fees) were deducted. The first was 'Purdie marah or the proprietary indefeasible fees' given to hereditary cultivators, their servants, several descriptions of public officers, Pagodas, and to the tank repair. This is the equivalent of the dues 4C. In this category was included Cawny Semah or 'proprietary russoom of the meerassadar'. The per centages of Cawny Semah in the three purgannahs were 27/44 per cent in the Tripassore, 31/36 (unreadable) per cent in Carangooly, and to 1 12/64 per cent in Conjiveram. The second was called 'Aurdie marah' and was assigned as remuneration to the 'favorites of preceding Mahomedan princes, or as equiv
alents for certain services to be performed to the State'. This must be same as 4D. The whole of these marahs occupied 12 53/64 per cent in Tripassore, 9 46/?6 per cent in Carangooly, and 10 53/64 per cent in Conjiveram of the measured produce. Together with the produce from the mauniams, the deductions were estimated by Place to amount in Tripassore to 34 5/8 per cent, in Carangooly to 32 64/26 per cent, and in Conjiveram to 30 25/64 per cent. Though it is not clearly stated whether these figures include those of Swoduntra Dittum or not, probably the Swoduntra Dittum are not included. The total deduction from the village produce, therefore, would become more if they are included. Finally the rest of the produce was shared between the state and the cultivators in different proportion. In the concluding part of this report, Place wrote the above account stating that the mirasidar's lower share was more than compensated by maniam and fees. Place's understanding of the mirasidar's economic interests was, thus, to divide the whole produce from the lands into three parts (maniams and fees, cultivators' share, and state's share) and to regard the first part as the very privilege of the mirasidars, which the other cultivators were not allowed nor the state could interfere.Papers on Mirasi Rights, pp.19-25.
The Board of Revenue had the same view as Place at this stage. (Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, 16th January, 1796, in reply to the above Minutes of Government, Ibid., p.32.
Then, was the lower share of the landholders (mirasidar) than the others (pyacarries) really 'more than compensated to the meerassadar or proprietary cultivator, by his mauniams and marah' ? Factually the Maniams and dues allowed to the landholders (mirasidars) did not seem to be sufficient as compensation. This is indicated by the fact that several villages in Salavauk purgannah did not have any maniam for landholders (mirasidars). Maniam lands cannot be regarded as the indispensable right of the mirasidars.The extent of Maniam lands assigned to the mirasidars is not recorded in the Place's
report. As to the Marah, the Cawny Semah or 'proprietary russoom of the meerassadar' was as noted above only 27/44 per cent in the Tripassore, 31/36 (?) per cent in Carangooly, and 1 12/64 per cent in Conjiveram respectively. In the case of Chittahlamungalum which were held by the Tooliva Vellaras of the same village in shares, the landholders were assigned 1.50 Cawnies of paddy lands as free gift, and were given the fixed amount of dues of 4 Marakkals. It is clear from these evidences that the maniams and marahs allowed to the mirasidars cannot be conceived as the compensation of their lower share. It is, therefore, necessary to find out the mirasidars' concealed economic rights, which are unnoticed or intentionally neglected both by Bernard and Place. That is, the landlord's rent collected from other cultivators. In 1816 Ellis, the Collector of Chingleput, prepared a famous report on Mirasi rights in reply to the Mirasi questions. In the report he wrote what he considered to be the distinctive right of mirasidars as follows: "the proprietary Mirasidars holding a certain extent of land free of all assessment, and being entitled to receive fees under the various denomination of Cuppatam, Canimerei, Calpadi, Calvasem, &c. from the gross produce of all taxable lands, and Tunduvaram, a portion of the produce, or, as called in Sanscrit, Swamibhogam, the landlord's right, from all land cultivated by Payacaris, or persons not Mirasidars."Replies from Mr.F.W.Ellis, Collector of Madras, to the Mirasi Questions; dated 30th May, 1816, Ibid., pp.177-178.
Ellis thus distinguishes the Tunduvaram or landlord rent collected from other cultivators from the mirasidars' fees in the gross produce of all the taxable lands. As to the amount or per centage of the landlord rent, The Tiruvendipuram Report prepared in 1775 gives important information. According to the Report, the Nattars in Tiruvendipuram had enjoyed, besides other privileges such as higher share in the produce, deduction of rent, right of mortgage, or maniams, the landlord rent from the land cultivated or rented by ulkudi or parakudi till 1768, when all of them were abolished. The landlord rent amounted to 10 per cent of produce from the wet land cultivated by others or 10 per cent of
the amount of the rent from the land rented by others.When the Nattars were restored in 1775, however, this landlord rent from the other cultvators disappeared. After the second abolishment of the Nattarship in 1779 and their reinstatement in 1785, all their former privileges were amalgamated into the five per cent allowance upon the net annual revenue from the country. The Nattars' allowance survived till their appointment as Mittahdars in the Permanent Settlement in 1807 (for detail see Chapter II-3). The per centage of 10 per cent is qualitatively diffrent from the trifle fees called (cawny Semah'. The mirasidars or landholders most probably received around ten per cent of the landlord's share from the non-mirasidars as well. It was this landlord rent that compensated the landholders' lower share in the produce compared with other cultivators. This landlord's right in the produce can be thought to be maintained originally by the communal principle. To see it from the other cultivators' side, the payment of the landlord's rent is the expression of the communal relation between the landholders and the others. What was striking in the period was that this relation had been significantly replaced by the individual principle. Before discussing further on this point, another important feature relevant to it must be referred to. That is, the extensive existence of uncultivated lands.
Uncultivated Land It was the remarkable feature of the period that a fairly large propor
tion of lands were left uncultivated. For instance as much as 18 per cent of the whole area in Salavauk purgannah was uncultivated. The per centage increases to 29 per cent if the lands for common use are excluded. What does this figure signify? The problem of the uncultivated land became the very important issue in the land revenue administration of the 19th century. As the Munro's Raiyatwari Settlement expected to increase the revenue collection not by the increase of assessment but by the extention of the cultivated extent,
mirasidars' assertion to exclude others from cultivating waste lands appeared as great hindrance against their policy. The mirasidar's right on the waste lands also became the critical issue in the latter part of the 19th century when railway started to be constructed. If the uncultivated lands were the property of the mirasidars, the Government had to spare much budget for compensation. Anyhow, whatever the government policy might be, it is sufficient here to note that the mirasidars' assertion of the right over the whole village area was a popular one. In the period when man-land ratio was low like the period under the present study, it was essential for farmers to secure the labour for agricultural production. Securing the labour for their cultivation became possible for the landholders or mirasidars only by excluding non-mirasidars' landholding in the village. This control was impossible if the landholders had not controlled other cultivators communaly.As stated in Note.7 of this section, one of the main duties of the Poligar of Tiruvendipuram was to prevent the cultivators from quitting the village. Therefore landholding (or collection of landlord rent) and the agricultural production in the period can be said to be maintained basically by communal principle. It is, however, to be observed in this regard that there were frequent transfers of shares of landholding or mirasi rights. Many villages were held by the outside landholders as discussed in Chapter.III-2. The communal principle was thus steadily and significantly invaded by the individual principle.
Interaction of Three Principles The production relation expressed in the division of crop in the village level was as has been clarified so far the product of the interactions of the three principles - state, communal, and individual. If we summarise the above investigation, the relation between the three principles and the different sections of the people becomes as follows:
============================================================================================ Dues Deducted Landlord Share in Free Gift Before After Measurement Rent from Produce Lands Measurement 1st 2nd Others
2A,2B,2C 4A,4B 4C 4D 6 5A,5B,5C--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Village Establishments communal communal communal 2A,2B 4A,4B 4D 'Strangers' individual communal 2C & state 4C Cultivators' Servants communal communal 4A & state 4CLandholders(Mirasidars) communal communal communal communal 2A,2B 4B & individual 5A 6 Other Cultivators communal 5B
State state 5B============================================================================================
Economic Structure of South India in the Pre-Colonial Period What is finally to be done is to define the character of the economic structure of the period and to define the stage of historical development. Such various rights in the produce in the shape of free gift lands, dues, and shares in the crop as have been studied were originally the products of power balance between the state and communal(local) principle. Both the state and local society faced with each other in increasing their own share in the produce. In its course the shares of the both sides had been gradually consolidated to a certain level and had become conventional. The succeeding states had to recognize the vested rights of the local society for their rule.
If not, they could not have expected the co-operation of local societies and their power would have become fragile. Reconfirmation of tax-free lands and dues enjoyed by local societies was the only choice of the state so far as the latter sought the support of the former. If the state needs support from the local societies more than before, all what they could do was to assign new free gift lands or dues by cutting their own share. It was an ironical choice. From the investigation done so far, it has already been indicated that the economic base of the state had been fairly eroded by the assignment of free gift lands and by the allowance of various dues. For instance as much as 27 per cent out of the whole cultivated extent in Salavauk purgannah was enjoyed free of tax by various people and institutions. The dues deducted from the produce of the 'circar' lands also occupied fairly large portion. The total amount of dues after measurement - first dues assigned originally as the fees for maintaining the persons or institutions that connected the state with the local society (4C), and the second dues assigned to maintain those village establishments (4D) - occupied around 19 per cent of the measured crops from all the villages in Salavauk. If we add the dues deducted for the village establishments before measurement, the total amount of produce taken before the division of crop between the state and the cultivators would have been much more. If we take the Place's figure of Swoduntra Dittum (i.e. dues before measurement) amounting to 12 per cent, the whole share of the dues occupies more than 30 per cent of the total produce from the 'circar lands'. As the produce of the maniam or free gift lands was out of the hand of the state as well, the state's share in the whole produce would be around one-fourth or one third at most.
It may be added that the state tried to recover the lost share by imposing various taxes. Table.III-4-3 and Table.III-4-4 shows the taxes existent in Terriore (Turaiyur) and Wodiarpolliam (Udaiyarpalaiyam) Talooks (Taluks), which were abolished by Wallace. TABLE.III-4-3TAXES ABOLISHED IN TERRIORE TALOOK IN FUSLY 1215 BY WALLACE====================================================================== Agricultural Taxes -2199 Pagodas- Tax on grass 1698 Comaravurgumbaree 2
Jungle rent 40 Nanttoovaree 48 Vempaudaputta rent 3 Saivaree 277 Fish rent 44 Vavel coondanee varee 5 Toranavaree 4 Malatavasengoottaga 20 Canchevaree 55 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Tax on Manufactures and Trades -675 Pagodas- Tax on oil mills 35 Shops of goldsmith 17 Bazar 205 Shops of iron smith 1 Merchants 1 Shops of shoemakers 51 Load bullocks 17 Thread sellers 24 Looms of Cumbalees 106 Charcoal rent 1 Looms of hatts 7 Choyvaree 1 Houses 201 Cora rent 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tax on Individual -226 Pagodas- Barbers and Weavers 43 Cooroombercoruen, Pullen, 164 Voodoopoovaree 5 and Parayen Varee Mameliers rent 13====================================================================== Source: Letter from the Principal Collector of Tanjore and Trichinopoly, 15.6.1806, in BOR Proceedings, pp.4113-4119.TABLE.III-4-4TAXES ABOLISHED IN WODIARPOLLAM TALOOK IN FUSLY 1215 BY WALLACE=====================================================================Agricultural Tax -496 Pagodas- Tax on grass 119 Jungles 335 Toranums 42---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tax on manufactures and Trades -1119 Pagodas- Cloth shops 9 Oil mills 18 Cash shops 13 Oil sellers 7
Shops of Vallan Chittee 8 Fish sellers 1 Shops of dry goods 12 Villan Chitty Madippoovaree 5 Shops of cotton 3 Fishing people 3 Shops of Banions 153 Mat sellers 1 Sundry merchants 18 Shops of fish 1 Shops of Caru Chittees 2 Volayore Chitty 175 Shops of thread 7 Files Caulavay 2 Shops of rice 2 Arippooyar 1 Houses of dyers 5 Chunam sellers 1 Sellers of gold 1 Shops of vegitables 2 or silver threads Loads of Palmira jaggery 1 Bullocks of merchants 79 Onion sellers 1 Load bullocks 134 Coconut sellers 1 Cavarasalvaree 3 Cow keepers 392 Pauvooloachelcauravaru 1 Chunam Caulavoy 8 Shops of Coconuts 10 Bricks Caularay 4 Shops of goldsmiths 35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Individual Tax -45 Pagodas- Load coolies 45======================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector of Tanjore and Trichinopoly, 15.6.1806, in BOR Proceedings, pp.4113-4119.
It is known from these Tables that the state had imposed various taxes on the economic activities which did not fall within the category of agricultural production. The total amount of these taxes were, however, only 4,770 Pagodas. Wallace stated that the very reason of the abolishment of these taxes was the very low amount of taxes. His statement was as follows: "many taxes oppressive both to the commercial and agricultural classes, which were formed apparently without any regular plan, and which although they bore heavily on individuals, were, trifling in their comparative amount have
been abolished. The sum total of them is 4,770."Letter from the Principal Collector of Tanjore and Trichinopoly, 15.6.1806, in BOR Proceedings, pp.4113-4119. According to my own calculation, the total taxes indicated in the Tables were 3,100 Pagodas in Turaiyur and 1,115 Pagodas in Udaiyarpalaiyam. The total amount is 4,215 Pagodas.
The imposition of various taxes was also found in Chingleput. It is reported by Hepburn, the Collector of Chingleput, that the following 'undefined collections' indicated in Table.III-4-5 were entered in the curnum's accounts in Sattavaid district.These various taxes were abolished when the Raiyatwari settlement was introduced in Sattavaid. As mentioned before, one of the most important features of the Raiyatwari settlement was the abolishment of various collections and their consolidation into land-tax. Many traditional vested interests expressed in these collections were also simplified into the land ownership in the British period. TABLE.III-4-5TAXES ABOLISHED IN SATTAVAID IN 1805 BY HEPBURN==========================================================Toranadurasanum 5.30.72 Tax paid by Chitties 28. 1.24Tax paid by bullock people 2. 0. 0Tax paid by oil mongers 2. 0. 0Tax paid by oil press 1.31.20Loom tax 53.21.27Cutnum on the looms 8. 0. 0Hemp tax 0.14.76Tax paid by the people who sells glasswares 1.34.40Tax paid by cow keepers 1.43.10
Tax paid by iron smiths 1.20.70Tax paid by artificers 1.16.43Tax paid by gold smiths 0. 5.60Tax paid by putnavers 2.28. 0Tax paid by pallanqueen boys 0.30. 0Tax paid by tookeries 2.34.40Tax paid by toty 0.23. 0Tax paid by chuckler 0.11.40Cutnum on the Mauniam of Calatty Easoovarer 5. 0. 0Cutnum on Cawny Mauniams 215.21.45 Muctah paid by Chitties 15. 5.60 Muctah paid by weavers 1. 0. 0Muctah for garden and tope 18.22.23Neercooly paid by the Mauniamdars 2.17.30Tookery Neketum 2. 0. 0Tax upon Grass from Toty 3. 0. 0Sauderevared 218. 3.57 Cundayem by the inhabitants 254.23.34Anuntaverdom by the inhabitants 2. 0. 0Calavery by the inhabitants 59.35.40Cutnum upon cawny mauniams 3.23. 0Ponvary 16. 5.60Payment at the time of the Pongal feast 4.32.40Adoocole 153.19. 4Cundayem paid by Chitties and Comutties 28.35.50Cundayem paid by Palaputtada people 0.23. 0Cundayem paid by Beetleuttada gardener 5. 2. 0Cundayem paid by weavers 35.32.61 Cundayem paid by oil mongers 3.33.60 Cundayem paid by bullock people 0.23. 0Cundayem paid by cow keepers 0.36.75 Cundayem paid by toddy drawers 0.11.40Cundayem paid by artificers 0. 6.38Cundayem paid by watchmen and ba(-n-?)ker 0. 2.71Cundayem paid by taliar 5. 6.66 Cundayem paid by toty 3.29.32
------------------ TOTAL 578.15.31==========================================================Source: Letter from the Collector in Zilla Chingleput, in BOR Proceedings, 4.7.1805, p.4827.
Though the state principle was degraded to a great extent in the period, it was not the communal or local principle that took the leading role in the period. Instead, it was the individual principle that lead the social change of the period. The free gift lands and dues, created by the state and communal principle, were frequently transacted as if they were individual properties. The 'strangers' who were granted the free gift lands and the dues paid by the state perceived their privileges as their private propterty. The free gift lands and dues for 'village establishments' were also transacted individually as was the case of the Oppah Mudali or Poonamallee Nattar, who purchased the conicoply's privileges but did not perform the expected duties (see Chapter II-1). It is true that the person who acquired the rights was expected to perform the duties attached to the rights. They were in this sense still under the control of the communal principle. But there must have been many such cases of transaction of privileges separate from duties as Oppah Mudali. What is more important is that the entity of the local society which maintained the communal principle had already been deteriorated to a great extent. As was discussed before, the communal principle had already lost its territorial base by the period. The caste composition of the respective locality was so complexed that none of the castes could dominate any locality. Few localities could hold the communal principle based on the caste factor. On the other hand there were not a small number of individuals who gathered the free gift lands, dues, and landlord's right over many villages or magans. Accumulation of the landed rights across the several magans by Nattars was already discussed before. The ownership of the mirasidars or landholders were frequently transacted across villages and across magans as well. As a result many of the villages in the period were held by outsiders. The communal entity of the local
society had already been cut to pieces by the individual principle. In a word both state and communal principles had been considerably replaced by the individual principle. The extreme but very popular case showing the shift from the state principle to the individual principle is the shrotrium villages granted to individuals (See Fig.III-4-2). In the case of shrotrium village, the renter (i.e. shrotriumdar) receives the state's share (5C) in the produce from the cultivators and pays the fixed rent (9) to the state after deducting his share (net profit). State has no power to intervene into these shrotrium villages. Moreover, the per centage of the shrotrium villages in the whole number of villages was very high in Chingleput.The number of the shrotrium villages in South Arcot recorded at the time of Graham's village settlement in Fusly 1211 (1801-02) was very small (See table below). The per centage of the shrotrium villages out of the total villages was only 1 per cent. Even if the number of peshkash villages is added, the per centage is less than three per cent. It is not clear why there was such difference. A possible explanation is that enumerators did not count the shrotrium villages separately as the village lease system introduced by Graham itself was in a sense a new version of shrotrium system. Those counted may be the villages which received special treatment by Graham in its assessment. Another possibility is that Graham abolished shrotrium villages as much as possible. Anyhow further study is required to clarify this point.
NUMBER OF SHROTRIUM VILLAGES IN SOUTH ARCOT IN 1801========================================================TAHSILDARY TURRUF VILLAGE SHROTRIUM PESHKASH-------------------------------------------------------- ARCOT 9 151 0 0
VELLORE 10 179 2 0POLOOR 21 280 3 0TRINOMALY 38 520 0 7ELVANASORE 14 269 2 0VIRDACHEL 22 246 3 5BHOVANGEERY 23 244 3 11VILPOOR 6 120 4 0TIRVADI 6 155 5 4VECRAVANDI 26 302 0 1VURDAVOOR 6 175 3 1TRIVATTOOR 22 337 1 4ELENGAR 29 338 9 26--------------------------------------------------------TOTAL 232 3316 35 59 ========================================================Source: Jummabundy of Each Village for Fusli 1211, Board's Consultations, 13.7.1802, in BOR Miscellaneous Records, Vol.12,. Out of 2,170 villages in the district, 288 villages or 13 per cent were shrotriums. As the shrotrium rent was fixed low, the net profit secured by the individual shrotriumdars must have been considerable. The numbers of villages in the different purgannahs in the Jagir are indicated in Table.III-4-6.
FIG.III-4-2DIVISION OF PRODUCE IN SHROTRIUM VILLAGE - A MODEL - ==================================================================================================== Wet Lands Dry Lands .--------------------------------------------. : : Shrotrium Rent (state share).9 : : :-----------------------------------: : : : : : :
: : Share or Income of Shrotriumdar : : : 5C : : : :--------: : : :--------: : : : :--------: : : : Maniam : : : : 5B : : Holder :--------: : 5A : Culti. : : : : 5B : Culti. : : : : 5A : Culti. : : : : : Culti. : : : : : :////////:////////:////////:////////: : ://///// Landlord's Share (6)///////: : :////////:////////:////////:////////: : :-----------------------------------: : : Dues(fixed proportion) : : :4C.Paid half by Govt. half by Cult.: : :4D.Paid by Govt. : : :-----------------------------------: : : Dues(fixed amount) : : :4A.Before treading : : :4B.After treading, before Measuring::------------------------------------:--------:-----------------------------------:----------------:: Common : Maniam : Cultivated 3A,3B : Uncultivated :: 1 : 2 : Government 3C,3D ::--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:====================================================================================================TABLE.III-4-6NUMBER OF SHROTRIUM VILLAGES IN THE JAGIR IN 1799===============================================PURGANNAH MAGAN VILLAGE SHROTRIUM-----------------------------------------------CONJEEVERAM 18 229 24CARANGOOLY 38 410 1/2 32
CHINGLEPUT 46 354 1/2 48TREPASSORE 29 233 41POONAMALLEE 19 191 38SAUTMAGAN 4 69 12PONNARY 8 146 26PEDDAPOLLAM 8 81 13MANIMUNGALUM 5 82 15SALIVAUK 8 69 3OUTRAMALORE 10 58 2CAVANTANDALUM 3 68 9COVELONG 7 50 12TRIVATORE 8 46 4PERUMBAUK 4 32 9- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 215 2119 288 (14%) -----------------------------------------------(PULLEE) 1 13 (VELANGAUDAWAUKUM) 1 5 (VULLOOR) 1 5 (POROOR) 1 10 DUTCH 9 OTHERS 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 51----------------------------------------------- 219 2170 288 (13%) ===============================================Source: Jammabundy and Kistbundy of the Jagir for Fusly 1208 (1798-99), in Revenue Consultaions, 3.6.1799, Miscellaneous Records, Vol.35.Nayakas Then, which class can be thought to represent the individual principle ? Can we take Nayakas (or Poligars) as representing the individual principle ?
The position of Nayakas in the local society was already indicated in the above investigation. What Nayakas enjoyed were the free gift lands and dues allotted to the village establishments. They performed the duties to keep
peace and order in the concerned villages and were alloted the rights as one of the village establishements. It is impossible to assume that they held an exclusive power in the local society even if they had jurisdiction in the number of villages in a locality.
It is true some poligars had a certain number of shrotrium villages and received a faily large annual income. In the case of the Poligar in Tiruvendipuram, he had the following privileges (See for details Table.III-4-7).1. Shrotrium villages.He held five villages as Shrotrium. He received Pagodas 722.9.4. from the cultivators of the five villages and paid Pagodas 250 to the state as shrotrium rent.2. Inam lands.He had likewise small inam lands in the 26 villages of which he performed the duties of poligar.3. AllowancesOn all paddy and small grain lands cultivated in share in those 26 villages to which he appointed Taliars to watch, he was allowed 2 bundles of grain supposed to contain 2 marakkals, out of every 400 marakkals produce, as soon as the grain was cut down in the field and before the Circar and cultivators divided their share. On all paddy and small grain land cultivated for rent in these villages, he was allowed 2 bundles of grain supposed to contain 2 marakkals for every cawnee of such land. 4. Fees on LoomHe was also allowed a fee or tax of 2 fanams yearly on every loom in these villages. 5. Fees on JuncansHe was allowed one-eighth part of the amount of the Juncans collected for the Government or the Company in the whole farm, except on the amount of the Juncans collected in the village of Arriavetty, from which he received no part. The total amount of his income from these income-sources is reported to be Pagodas 573.40.41.Tiruvendipuram Report, pp.4-5, 128-129.
There are some more information about the income of poligars. Table.III-
4-8 gives information as to their net annual income. The five poligars in Sattavaid had the gross income between 62 and 1,165 pagodas. Their net income after deducting the various expenses was between 55 and 398 Pagodas. As was studied above, the average income of the Nattars in the Jagir was 349 Pagodas (see Appendix.4). It is apparent from these investigation that the Nattars' and the Nayakas' annual incomes were more or less same.
TABLE.III-4-7 INAMS AND SHROTRIUMS OF THE POLIGAR OF TIRUVENDIPURAM==================================================================== INAM LANDS ALLOTED TO POLIGAR SHROTRIUM Paddy Small Grain Caw.Cu P. F. C Caw.Cu P. F. C P. F. C ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANAMADAVY 2.00 12.01.06 2.00 1.38.00 2. WOTARY 1.00 4.24.40 3. KEELACOPANG 1.00 1.13.00 4. SUNDARAWANDY 1.00 1.13.00 5. TREMANICULY 2.50 11.05.15 6. MURDAUD 1.40 7.39.50 7. TOATAPUT 1.00 8.17.02 8. RAMAPORAM 7.00 13.06.00 9. ANNAVELLY 10. VADAGUMBUM 11. CUDICAUD 12. ALLAGYNUTTUM 13. CHINNAGANGANAMCOPAM 0.80 3.09.15 0.50 1.06.45 14. MUNDAGAPUT 2.00 3.01.25 0.50 0.13.?? 15. NELLATTORE 2.50 4.05.20 2.05 4.38.65 16. TIRTORIORE 0.75 1.22.78 2.50 2.27.46 17. AULAPAUKUM 0.50 1.40.40 18. TONDAMANUTTUM 1.70 13.19.65 19. WARGALPUT 6.00 12.00.00 20. ARRIAVETTY 3.00 5.19.55 21. PATCHACOOPANG 3.00 2.00.00 0.15 4.00.00
22. TREVENDAPURAM 23. ARISHEPERIANCOOPANG 1.50 4.25.12 24. CARUPEDYTUNDO 25. PUDOPETTAH* 26. COOTAVOKUM** 1.25 1.33.00 27. VEERAPERUMAUNELLORE 4.00 4.05.20 8.00 9.08.43 SH. PILLARY 375.40.44 SH. PONNIANCOPANG 236.10.40 SH. COMARAPETTA 55.30.00 SH. MAVEDYPOLLAM 39.01.40 SH. VETTUCOLUM 15.10.40 --------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 722.09.04=====================================================================Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, Printed at the Collectorate Press, 1888.Note: * - This is a fishing village on the sea beach. ** - This village is held wholly by the Brahmins. SH - Shrotrium village of the Poligar.TABLE.III-4-8LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL POLIGARS WITH THEIR PRIVILEGES IN THE DISTRICT OF SATTAVAID==================================================================================================CALAMA NAICK - Profit 398.33.10 INCOME 1165.33.10 EXPENSE 767. 0. 0--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ready money collections 328.42.72 peshcush (tribute or rent to the state) 250. 0. 0 mauniams 224.40.22 sibbendy (expense) 517. 0. 0
marahs 343. 4.61 1 Vakeel @3 Ps.per month swaduntrums 98.37.15 1 sumperty @2 Ps.per month sawyer 170.00.00 1 roysum @1 1/4 Ps.per month 4 moneygars @1 Ps.per month 50 cutbudy peons @2 Cawnies of Mauniam (250 Ps) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IRLAMA NAICK - Profit 170. 3.76 INCOME 851. 3.76 EXPENSE 681. 0. 0--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ready money collections 165.35.41 peshcush (tribute or rent to the state) 250. 0. 0 mauniams 225.44.75 sibbendy (expense) 431. 0. 0 marahs 356.44.59 1 Vakeel @3 Ps.per month swaduntrums 42.16.61 1 sumperty @2 Ps.per month sawyer 60.00.00 1 roysum @1 1/4 Ps.per month 2 moneygars @1 P. per month 2 curnums @1 P. per month 4 peons @1 P. per month 52 cutbudy peons @2 Cawnies of Mauniam (260 Ps) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NULLAPAH NAICK - Profit 55.41.58 INCOME 321.34.58 EXPENSE 265.39.40 (?)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ready money collections 64.29.61 peshcush (tribute or rent to the state) 142.39.40 mauniams 111.30.40 sibbendy (expense) 123. 0. 0 marahs 45.20.37 1 Vakeel @3 Ps.per month sawyer 100.00.00 1 sumperty @1 1/4 Ps.per month 1 moneygars @1 P.per month 3 peons @3/4 P. per month 10 cutbudy peons @3 Cawnies of Mauniam (45 Ps) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------COLOOR VENCATARAUZE - Profit 95.05.37 INCOME 353.05.37 EXPENSE 258. 0. 0--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ready money collections 8.44.19 peshcush (tribute or rent to the state)
not recordedmauniams 218.25.19 sibbendy (expense) 252. 0. 0marahs 73.37.25 1 Vakeel @3 Ps.per month swaduntrums 1.36.54 1 sumperty @2 Ps.per month sawyer 50.00.00 1 roysum @1 P.per month Total 353.05.37 2 moneygars @1 1/4 Ps.per month 5 peons @1 20 cutbudy peons @3 Cawnies of Mauniam (90 Ps)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KISTNAMARAUZE INCOME 62.18.20 EXPENSE N.A --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ready money collections 35.38.75 N.A mauniams 13.18.10 marahs 13.07.15 ==================================================================================================Source: Letter from James Hepburn, Collector in Zilla Chingleput, 18.6.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 4.7.1805.Note: There are two miscalculations in the table. They are indicated by question mark. The correct figures cannot be confirmed because of the lack of information. The difference of the amount is negligible and does not affect the conclusion. The most indicative evidence to show the relation between the Poligars (Nayakas) and the other local leaders is the Ravenshaw's remark on the Gramattans (village leaders. Nattars are included) discussed in Chapter II-2. It was as follows: "These people (Gramattans:T.M) during the Nabob time assumed the entire control over their villages. They were in fact a set of petty Poligars."Letter from Ravenshaw, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806, Para.4.
This account clearly shows that the local leaders of the time had a
poligar-like power in the area. It is to be added here that the argument to observe the 'feudal' features in the activities of the Nayakas is hardly feasible so far as the period under the present study is concerned. It is again to be notified in this regard that they were assigned neither the free gift lands for 'strangers' or the first dues after measurement which were assigned for those connecting the local society with the state. They were one of the 'village establishments' supported not by the state principle but by the communal principle. Their role in the society was a limited one. It is true that the base of the state and Nayaka power was basically founded on the military principle. But it was also true that soldiers in the period were in almost all the cases paid-soldiers temporary employed. Lots of incidences of the soldiers' desertion from the army due to the arrears of payment arerecorded in the Diary of A.R.Pillai.See the accounts of Diary of A.R.Pillai of the following dates. 9.7.1748, 18.6.1750, 14.9.1752, 13.5.1758, 17.10.1759, 8.8.1760, Those who could take the military leadership were the people with sufficient military fund. The possibility of the increase of the individual principle can be also found here. Anyhow there is no reason to assign the leading role sorely to the Nayakas so far as the studied area in the 18th century was concerned.Poligars' power differs from area to area. The poligars in the southern districts are known to be more independent from the central authority and more powerful. The power of Poligars of the coastal districts under study, generally speaking, seemed to be relatively much smaller both military and politically. . There were several big Poligars in the coastal districts, too. For instances Vettavalam Poligar fought with the Nawab for several months with 2,000 soldiers. Karvetipalaiyam Poligar paid revenue to the Nawab to the amount of one lakh (1,00,000) rupees from his land-tax collection of two lakhs pagodas (or 7 lakh rupees) (Diary of A.R.Pillai, 8.8.1746). These big Poligars were, however, usually
found only in the remote or hilly places such as Karunguli, Alattur, and Udaiyarpalaiyam (Diary of A.R.Pillai, 15.11.1746, 10.3.1747, 2.2.1748). They were one of the many local leaders of the period.
Collections of Fees by Local Leaders One of the expressions of the local leaders' power in the society was the 'unlegitimate' collections of various fees from the inhabitants. The British officers judged it as 'unlegitimate' because the collection was done purely individually without being sanctioned by the state or by the communal principles. Ravenshaw reported many 'unauthorized collections' by Gramattans and categorized them as follows:Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
1. Rent of land, which the Gramattans persuade the Curnums not to bring to account but which they collect for themselves.2. Rent of land, which has been remitted by government on account of the crops having failed, commonly called Shaver, but which the Gramattan has nevertheless collected from the ryots.3. Rent of land, deducted from the circar accounts by the Curnums as 'Sunnud Enam Land' but which has turned out to be circar land, the Teerwah of which the Gramattans collected.4. Money advanced the Gramattans for repairs of Tanks & ca. which work they make the villagers do, and never pay them for it.5. Allowances to village sibbendy vizt. Totty, blacksmith and carpenter, which the Gramattan has collected but not paid to those people.6. Cooputum or a fee in grain extorted by the Gramattans under the late Government from the cultivators of Enam and other lands. It has since been abolished, but the Gramattans nevertheless collect it.7. Excess of collections above the circar demand made from the ryots on
account of topes, &c.8. Fees collected by Gramattans from owners of cattle in another village which come to feed in his.9. Ditto from shop keepers &ca. in his village.10. Ditto from ryots of another village who want to cultivate in his.11. Ditto from the ryots of his own village, on the plea of his being surety for payment of their rents.12. Ditto from ditto for settling disputes among them.13. Collection from the sale of trees belonging to government for building houses, firewood, &ca. It is remarkable that these 'unauthorized collections' sometimes amounted to nearly fifty per cent above the bereez (state's share:T.M) of the village. The details of such 'unauthorized collections' of a certain number of villages are recorded by Ravenshaw. The per centage of the collections to the assessment in the eight villages were 27, 37, 34, 6, 22, 49, 10, and 4 per cent respectively. Table.III-4-9 is the list of such collections in one of the villages (see Appendix.8 for other villages). It is known from the Table that the Gramattans collected certain amount of money from the inhabitants and disbursed it to various people and institutions. Those who received the money were curnum, taliar, Brahmin, pagodas, peons etc. The individual local leader had, thus, already started as the chief supporter of various activities in the locality and, by such means, controlled the local society.
These evidences indicate clearly the degree of invasion of the individual principle into the state and the communal principles in the production relations of the period.
The economic base supporting the state and the communal principles had, thus, already deteriorated to a great extent. Instead the individual principle based on the individual economic activities was subjugating the other two. Those who could take the leadership in the local society were the people whose power base rested on their own. If 'feudal' relation should be observed in the period, it should not be in the relation between the state and the nayakas but
in the inter-relationship among the state, locality, and the individuals. TABLE.III-4-9ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN VULLUM VILLAGE OF TRIVADY DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED ================================================================= AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR 119.10.37 --------------------------- 119.10.37 DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDERBy cash taken by Ponmumbalum Vadiatchy Gramattan on 20. 7.59 account of his private expense By cash paid to Appoo Vadiatchy a debt due to him 2.33.60 by the puttah monigar By cash paid to Valavoodian on account of a debt due 0.26. 1 to him by the puttah monigar By cash paid for bullocks purchased for the Gramattan 2. 2.65By cash paid for his batta expense 6.36.45 By cash taken by the Gramattan. He alleging it to be 21. 0. 0a balance of Fusley 1213, due to the Circar, but which he never paid. By cash paid for mangoes to send to the Pundaram 0. 6.26of Trivady By cash paid to Cavelgar Punchal Ninary 0.23.73By cash paid Tribady Pundaram as charity 0.27. 0By cash paid for seeing a play 0.16. 0By cash paid to a Punchangam Bramin of Keelyoor 0. 4. 0By cash paid to Sabaputhy carpenter 0. 3. 0By cash paid to a Pariah player 0. 3. 0By cash paid to Venketram Iosey of Valacolay 0. 2. 0
By cash paid to Ramiah Punchangum Bramin at Cuddalore 0.22. 0By cash paid to Natt Curnum Soobrayah Pillay 0. 2. 0By cash paid to Tillian as charity 0. 2. 0 By cash paid to Bramins as charity 0. 2. 0 By cash paid to Arnachellum Pundarum 0. 2. 0By cash paid to Veeran Atboochacoopam 0. 2. 0By cash paid to a player of Coonghancoopum 0. 2. 0By cash paid to a player of Paraparumcoopum 0. 2. 0By cash paid for digging a tank at Marangoor 1. 0. 0By cash paid for charity to a water pundel 0.12. 0By cash paid to a woman Vetty at Villapooram 0. 2. 0By cash paid a man for killing a tiger 0. 1. 0By cash paid to the pagoda at Trivady 0. 2. 0By cash paid to Valum Pundaram on going to Pylney 0. 2. 0 By cash taken by the puttah monigar on account of 0.29.43interest for money said to be borrowed by him to pay to the Circar for this village but which he never paidBy cash taken by the puttah monigar for Vuttum expence 1.40.63By cash paid to the pagoda of Ishwar at Guddaloor 3.17.46 By cash paid to the pagoda of Vanoo Gopalla Sawmy at 0.14. 5Venketampette By cash paid for Abashangrem a ceremony at Iynarcovil 4.34.36pagodaBy cash paid to persons who came to make an enquiry in the time of Purseram Pillah late Tahsildar into the management of this village vizt. Soobah Padiatchy of Permadoor who charged the Pattah 7. 5.50 monigar with over collecting sapillah of the Tahsildar's 1.36.45 relations Ramalingum Pillah surveyor 12.24.34 Venkata Chitti Naig surveyor 0. 6.26 Kistnah Pillah surveyor 1.11.20By cash paid for batta to Mahatady peons 5.16.12By cash paid to Moorgapillah Curnum above his pay 16.32.28By cash paid to Ooligie people above their pay 5.33.60
--------------------------- Total 119.10.37-----------------------------------------------------------------Bereez (assessment) for Fusley 1214 --- 317.14. 4, about 37.26.10 1/2 per cent on the whole assessment. ================================================================= Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.Stage of Historical Development of South India in the Pre-Colonial Period Then, in what historical stage can we locate the South Indian society of the pre-colonial period ? For considering this point, it is essential to assess the opportunities given to the different classes of people in the period. Any definition of the historical period should indicate the trend of historical change, and a trend is destined by the people's choices of particular opportunities given to the society. Through the study of the opportunities given to the state, poligars, landholders (mirasidars), cultivators (non-mirasidars), village servicing castes, and cultivators' servants respectively and by clarifying the relation among them, we may expect to characterize the distinctive feature of the historical development of the period.K.Gough analyses the class structure of Tanjavur in the Chola and in the pre-colonial periods (Rural Society in Southeast India, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981, pp.105-116).
According to her, the Chola kingdom comprised the following five main classes and she observes the main conflict in the period between the state class (1) and the peasantry and artisans (4):
1. the state classking, royalty, the ministers and upper ranks of administrators of department, the highest religious officials in temples and monasteries, and officers of the army and navy,
2. the state servantsBrahman temple priests, certain classes of urban artisans, scribes, soldiers,
palace, temple and monastic servants, lower ranks of monks, hetaerae, and artists, all serving the ruling class,
3. the commodity producers and merchantsartisans' and trading groups,
4. the peasants and their artisan and service attaches in villagesfree Vellalar peasnats, serflike tenants who held lands communally from Brahmans and high-ranking Vellalars of the state class, village servants,
5. the slaveswar captives, indigenous slaves of different grades and occupations, Panchama castes.
As to the class structure in the pre-colonial period, Gough adds two more classes (European capitalist merchant companies, semiproletarian workers) found in the colonial port cities. She observes two (old and new) forms of class struggles among these seven classes. The old one took the form of peasants resisting taxation by the state class and also resisting the process of enslavement as they became indebted and were ousted from their lands, and the other new form of struggle occurred between the new semiproletarians and the European merchant companies.
Such presentation of class structure as Gough's is acceptable as a starting point for the analysis of the concerned society. But it is also undeniable that it often fails to describe vividly how the different categories of the people actually try to do, how they feel and expect, what choices are given to them, or to which direction the society proceeds, and, therefore, becomes colorless. For instance, some historians describe the
history as a product of class struggles. However, what they actually analyse are sometimes confined to the armed revolts alone. It is to be stressed that the armed revolt is one of the expressions of class struggle, though the most apparent one. To make a historical study more convincing and more scientific, we should intentionally try to present all the opportunities given to the society and the differentiated opportunities given to the different sections of the society. The class analysis would become fruitful only after this procedure. The discussion done below is the product of such understanding of mine. We will start the investigation from the bottam of the society, i.e., the cultivators' servants. It is known from the investigation in the present chapter that the cultivators' servants had a share in the first dues after measurement paid half by the state and half by the cultivators(4C). As they also had a share in the produce before measurement(4B) with other 'village establishments', it is sure they were basically maintained by the local or communal principle. It is at the same time to be observed they were supported or rather controlled both by the state and cultivators. Unlike the others who received the same dues paid by the state as well as by the cultivators, they were apparently not in the position connecting the state and local society. They had no other income-source, either. They were placed under the control of the local society and the state, so that they had to serve them whenever required by either of them. According to the account of the Diary of A.R.Pillai on 17 March 1747, the village leaders in Ariyankuppam and other suburban villages of Pondichery were ordered to supply coolies to the Company. The cultivators' servants had to obey such orders without choice. It is easily imaginable they did not have freedom to move freely as they had to subject to the same situation so far as they were tied to the rural area. They might be in this sense called as serfs under the dual control of state and of local society. It is also quite possible they were privately controlled by the individual local leaders in
proportion to the invasion of the individual principle into the state and local principle. There is, however, no source to indicate it at the moment.
It should be added that the cultivators' servants were the core labourers in agricultural production. For instance the per centage of Palli and Pariah castes, which were the main cultivators' servants castes, in the total number of households in Salavauk purgannah was as high as 27 per cent.As there are two villages where the caste composition are not known due to the bad condition of microfilming, they are excluded from this calculation.
Barber, washerman, and other servicing castes were given shares in the produce before measurement (4A,4B). They must have been placed under the control of local society so far as they remained in the locality. There is an instance for the state to impose tax on barbers in Turaiyur taluk (see Table.III-4-3). In this case, the barbers were probably the town dwellers judging from the fact that they were taxed together with weavers. Anyhow the state's control on them is hardly recognizable.
Then, how was the position of the cultivators other than the landholders (i.e. non-mirasidars). Their only income source was the divisional share in the crops from his cultivated lands. They were in the position to utilise or control the cultivators' servants, but had to pay the landlord's rent to the landholder from their share after the crop was divided with the state. They had to confront both with the state and with the landholders in increasing their share. As they were excluded from landholding, their economic position could not be an independent one even in case occupancy right had been secured. The produce they could obtain was not sufficient to keep independent position in the society. It is dubious whether they had accumulated the power that enabled them to confront with the state or with the landholders. Though they had to subject to the state and to the landholders at the same time, they were more directly placed under the control of landholders as the residents of the local society.
On the other hand the position of the landholders or mirasidars was by far stronger and more independent than any others in the local society. They possessed as their unviolatable rights rent free lands, the fees before measurement, and the landlord rent from other cultivators. As they were the controllers of the local resources, they could also control the cultivators' servants and the other cultivators in the locality for their own benefits. It was also quite possible that they invaded even into the state's share in the 18th when no revenue (i.e. state's share) could be levied without military threat. It was quite natural for some of them to emerge as the leaders of local societies.
The relation between the poligars and the landholders was a subtle one. In the period of growing political unrest of the 18th century the poligars, who were the military specialists, could have taken the leadership in some cases. But any military operation needs financial support from the local dominant class. Those who could afford to maintain the soldiers in the local society was not necessarily the poligars but the leading landholders. Even if the poligars had landed rights in several villages, they could not expect the income from the lands without the assistance of the local landholders. What they could do was either to keep co-operative, if not subjugative, relation with the leading landholders or to seek temporary sponsorship of the state by joining the military operation as hired soldiers.
The choice given to the state was quite limited. Before the division of produce between the state and cultivators, already about a half of the produce was pre-occupied in the shape of maniams and fees, which were the conventional rights and, therefore, inviolative. The rest of the produce had to be divided with the cultivators, and the share left for the state was only around one fourth of the total produce from the lands. Moreover even the small share left for the state often became uncollectable without military operations in the 18th century. The assignment of various maniams and fees by the state for the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of the local leaders meant, ironically enough, the erosion of its own economic base. The state had to seek some other income sources or allies to survive in the confused political situation.
It is important in this regard to note that the growth of independence
of the local leaders was closely related with the growing commercial activities in the period. As we will examine in detail in the next chapter, fairly a large amount of grain was transacted between the rural area and urban centers. This is not at all strange if we remember the large surplus produce appropriated by the Nattars and other local leaders. Fairly a large proportion of the produce in the respective village was appropriated by the landholders (including many outsiders) and carried outside. The surplus produce sucked up from the village were thrown into the rural-urban grain trade, which were growing rapidly in proportion to the urbanization promoted by the inflow of wealth through foreign trade. People were deeply involved in cash economy, which is well attested by the cash disbursements by Gramattans or poligars as indicated by Table.III-4-8. It is to be stressed in this regard that the prevalence of 'cash economy' was not the result of the one-way intrusion of the 'outside' marketing economy into the 'closed' 'passive' local economy. It was the product of inter-reactions between the growing urban economy promoted by the inflow of the great amount of wealth from abroad and the growing economic activities in the local societies. This is clearly indicated by the items of state taxes imposed on the various manufacturing and commercial activities. The following two Tables (Table.III-4-10, Table.III-4-11) prepared from the Table.III-4-3 and Table.III-4-4 cited above well support the qualitative change occurring in the local society. It is known from the Tables that goldsmiths, iron smiths, and shoemakers opened their own shops, that there were sellers of oil, fish, mat, onion, and coconut, that coolies, and load bullocks used for transport were taxed a fairly large amount, and that Pullen and Parayen (Pallan, Pariah) who were probably engeged in transport also paid high tax. This evidence clearly shows that the conventional economic system of granting maniams or fees by the state to maintain the local economy could not hold or incorporate the ever-increasing economic activities of the period any more. There had emerged many core commercial centers which could absorb village servicing castes and cultivators' servants who had cut themselves from their native local society. Many of such people gathered to towns and were en
gaged in various economic activities. Even the cultivators' servants, who had been subject to the state and the communal, local principles in the rural area, were given chance to free themselves from the position of 'serf' once they migrated to the urban centers. It was especially so if the migrated place was under the control of foreign powers. It was already argued that the local entity was cut to pieces in the aspect of landholding or caste (communal) relationship. The growing economic activities which went far beyond the conventional economic sphere was another critical factor for weakening the communal principle. TABLE.III-4-10TAXES ABOLISHED IN TERRIORE TALOOK IN FUSLY 1215 BY WALLACE=============================================================== Tax on Manufactures and Trades - 675 Pagodas- Tax on oil mills 35 Shops of goldsmith 17 Bazar 205 Shops of iron smith 1 Merchants 1 Shops of shoemakers 51 Load bullocks 17 Thread sellers 24 Looms of Cumbalees 106 Charcoal rent 1 Looms of hatts 7 Choyvaree 1 Houses 201 Cora rent 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- Tax on Individual - 226 Pagodas- Barbers and Weavers 43 Cooroombercoruen, Pullen, 164 Voodoopoovaree 5 and Parayen Varee Mameliers rent 13===============================================================
TABLE.III-4-11TAXES ABOLISHED IN WODIARPOLLAM TALOOK IN FUSLY 1215 BY WALLACE================================================
===============Tax on manufactures and Trades -1,119 Pagodas- Cloth shops 9 Oil mills 18 Cash shops 13 Oil sellers 7 Shops of Vallan Chittee 8 Fish sellers 1 Shops of dry goods 12 Villan Chitty Madippoovaree 5 Shops of cotton 3 Fishing people 3 Shops of Banions 153 Mat sellers 1 Sundry merchants 18 Shops of fish 1 Shops of Caru Chittees 2 Volayore Chitty 175 Shops of thread 7 Files Caulavay 2 Shops of rice 2 Arippooyar 1 Houses of dyers 5 Chunam sellers 1 Sellers of gold 1 Shops of vegitables 2 or silver threads Loads of Palmira jaggery 1 Bullocks of merchants 79 Onion sellers 1 Load bullocks 134 Coconut sellers 1 Cavarasalvaree 3 Cow keepers 392 Pauvooloachelcauravaru 1 Chunam Caulavoy 8 Shops of Coconuts 10 Bricks Caularay 4 Shops of goldsmiths 35 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Individual Tax -45 Pagodas- Load coolies 45================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector of Tanjore and Trichinopoly, 15.6.1806, in BOR Proceedings, pp.4113-4119.
III-4. NOTESSuch society as described here presents the image far from the
stagnant, changeless Asiatic Society. If the power of Chola state was based on the communal principle in the local societies, the society under study was controlled by the individual leadership which was not based on the communal
relationship. If the Vijayanagar state could be viewed as highly centralized, military -oriented 'feudal' state, the society in the studied period presents completely different picture in which the local leaders held fairly independent position from the state and from the local society both economically and politically. The peculiar feature of the period is, as will be examined in the next chapter, the deep involvement of the local leaders with the growing rural-urban commercial activities. We will investigate in the next chapter how the economic structure of the pre-colonial period was related with the confused political situation, which finally resulted as the colonization of South India.
IV. NATTAR AND THE ECONOMIC CHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
CHAPTER IV. NATTAR AND THE ECONOMIC CHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
So far we have been pursuing the first objective of the present study, that is, to investigate the Nattars' social position, social roles, and power base in the pre-British period and to trace the historical process faced by the Nattars from that time onwards. Some theoretical implications of the Nattar study in understanding the nature of historical development in South India were also discussed. It was indicated by the investigation that the Nattars and other local leaders whose power was based on the individual economic rights were the core elements in causing the changes in the society. In the case of the Nattars, their economic interests were consisted of the agricultural production - which was often based on the privileged land tenures -, livestock farming, and fees on commercial goods. Though Nattars seemed to be assigned official post and had been granted several privileges for that, the extents of their landholding were in most of the cases big enough to take leadership in the locality without being given the official post or privileges by the state. Moreover their privileged tenures had already become hereditary, which none of the states could violate. Some Nattars were
quite independent and in some cases retained many followers under them when the British administration started. The situation of other local leaders did not differ much. They had maniam lands, received fees in the village produce, and collected landlord rent from other cultivators. Even if they were not allowed the part of privileges enjoyed by Nattars, their economic interests would have been more or less same.
Local Leaders and Grain Trade It should be questioned in this regard by what mechanism the surplus produce appropriated by Nattars and other local leaders were linked with the commercial activities of the period. The answer would be found in their deep involvement with grain trade of the period. As we will see later, a large amount of grain was transferred from rural area to urban centers for the consumption of urban dwellers, who were predominantly engaged in non-agricultural occupations. It is true that some part of the surplus produce appropriated by the landholders or mirasidars was consumed within the locality. It is, however, also doubtless that the greater portion was carried outside, especially to the urban towns which were growing rapidly in the late 17th-18th centuries. There was the process for the local leaders to monetize the surplus produce through participation in the commercial transaction in the period. Nattars and other local leaders found the chance to increase their economic power in the participation in grain trade, which enabled them to maintain their followers and to control the local society. It is, therefore, important to assess the stage of the commercial development of the period and its significance in the historical development of South India.
Hypothesis to be Examined The hypothesis to be examined hereafter in this chapter may be briefly stated as follows: With the advent of European trading companies seeking textiles from the latter half of the 17th century, an enormous amount of bullion was brought into South India in exchange. Such colonial port cities as Madras or Pondichery attracted many migrants from the inland cities or rural area especially from the beginning of the 18th century. To support the growing urban population, grain had to be brought to the urban centers from the rural
area. The Nattars and other local leaders participated in such rural-urban grain trade and accumulated wealth.Irfan Habib states that the flow of the commodities in the economic structure of Mughal society was one way, i.e., from rural to urban. For instance he mentions as follows:
"...rural monetization was thus almost entirely the result of the need to transfer surplus agricultural produce to the town." (Potentialities of Capitalist Development in the Economy of Mughal India, The Journal of Economic History, XXIX, No.1, 1969, p.77)
I would like to suggest instead that the flow of commercial goods was bilateral. The local leaders who accumulated wealth must have offered the important market for various commodities such as textiles. The domestic market of cotton goods must have developed to a great extent along with foreign market in the early part of the 18th century. It may be added that the decline of the domestic market caused by the prolonged political confusion in the latter half of the 18th century gave serious damage to the weaving industry and accelerated the subjection of the merchant class to the foreing powers. This is another aspect of the colonization in the economic field. Though the concrete evidences cannot be produced at the moment, the location of many weaving centers in inland areas (such as Salem, Udaiyarpalaiyam) may well prove the sifnificance of domestic market. It is also to be pointed that the share in the whole produce from lands appropriated by the state was between one-third and one-fourth and other share was secured by the local leaders and others.
Their involvement with grain trade enabled them to retain and increase both political and economic independence from their overlords. Though the political instability of the 18th century was initiated by the successive invasions of Marathas or the succession war for the Nawabship of Arcot, it was the growing independence of local leaders that accelerated the political confusion of the period, which finally resulted in the colonization of South India. It should be again stressed that the agricultural surplus appropriated and brought to the urban markets by the Nattars and other local leaders had been enjoyed by them customarily and had been regarded as the inalianable individual property. The state's share in the produce had been eroded by these local leaders with the deepening of political instability in the 18th century when no revenue could be collected without military coercion. To examine this hypothesis it is essential to clarify the significance of grain trade as concrete as possible in the economic structure of the time. Mainly due to the lack of informative sources, we don't have so far any substantial study concerning the present subject. Many of the essential information such as wages, commodity prices, weights and measures, population per capita consumption etc. are not known to us except those relating to the textile industry. We have to, therefore, start the study by gathering all the available information. By taking up Madras and Pondichery, which were the most important colonial cities of the period and have comparatively dependable information relevant to this study, we will attempt to make estimate of the annual grain transaction between the rural area and the two cities. After this rather experimental - somewhat adventurous - attempt, the qualitative change in the economic structure of South India and its relation with the political change of the period will be discussed. South Indian society experienced unprecedented political change in the 18th century. It was unprecedented in the sense European powers were directly involved in the struggle for the political hegemony, which finally led to the colonization of India. The most important historical problem to be questioned in this period is, therefore, to ask why the British or the French could emerge as the leading political powers in the period. Their well-known manipulation of the na
tive rulers cannot explain the situation satisfactory. People of the period must have been given the limited choices in the period, one of which was to seek political leadership of foreign powers. For considering this subject, we have to investigate the choices given to the people not only in the sphere of economic situation but also in the political situation of the period and to clarify the rationality of their choice.
IV-1. GRAIN TRADE IN MADRAS AND PONDICHERY
IV-1. GRAIN TRADE IN MADRAS AND PONDICHERY
IV-1A. Growth of Colonial Cities
Inflow of Bullion According to the study by R.N.BanerjiR.N.Banerji, Economic Progress of the East India Company on the Coromandel Coast 1702-1746, Nagpur University, 1974., bullion received at Madras, bullions and goods allotted to the Coromandel Coast, and investment in the same region by the E.I.Co. in the years between 1703 and 1745 were as shown in Table.IV-1-1. In the period under his study, total amount of bullion received at Madras was 2,20,04,375 pagodas, total amount of bullion and goods allotted to Coromandel coast was 46,55,715 pagodas, and the total investment was 1,10,08,984 pagodas. K.N.Chaudhuri covers longer period than BanerjiK.N.Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the Ecglish East India Company 1660-1760, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978. and gives the figures of imports from Madras between the years 1664 and 1760 (Table.IV-1-2). According to the Table, 21,527,927 pagodas worth of goods were exported from Madras during the period. The annual average is 2,15,279 Pagodas.
The English East India Co. was not the only trading companies having
transaction in South India. French, Dutch, and other people were also trying hard to increase their share in textile trade.As to the commercial activities of the Dutch, see for instance, S.Arasaratnam, The Dutch East India Company and Its Coromandel Trade 1700-1740, Inhoud Van Deel 123, 3e Aflevering, 1966. For instance A.R.Pillai recorded the following figures as the amount of regular contract of the French East India Company in Pondichery:
TABLE.IV-1-3ANNUAL CONTRACT OF THE FRENCH E.I.CO. AT PONDICHERY======================================== Date Pagodas---------------------------------------- 3.10.1736, 4.10.1736 2,35,277 9. 4.1740 3,50,000 10. 4.1742 3,27,000 +16. 5.1743 1,14,000 +17. 4.1751 3,00,000 24. 7.1753 1,00,000 23. 6.1756 1,00,000 ----------------------------------------Source: Diary of A.R.Pillai.Note: 1 Pagoda was around 3.5 Rupees in the period.
TABLE.IV-1-1ENGLISH EAST INDIA COMPANY TRADE IN COROMANDEL IN THE EARLY HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY=============================================================YEAR BULLION RECEIVED BULLION & GOODS INVESTMENT
AT MADRAS ALLOTTED TO COAST ESTIMATE -------------------------------------------------------------1703/04 53,125 04/05 1,50,203 1,00,755 05/06 3,07,308 72,795 06/07 2,24,559 82,500 07/08 4,25,748 1,25,000
Ｂ４横.FRM 5.00 LPI a 英 12 漢 6JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5
APPENDIX.1
APPENDIX.1COWLES GRANTED TO THE RENTERS OF TIRUVENDIPURAM IN 1750
================================================================= This indenture made this fifth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifty and in the twenty fourth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second by the grace of God King of Great Britain , France, and Ireland, Defender of the faith & c. between the Hon'ble Thomas Saunders Esqr. President and Governor & ca. Council of Fort St. David on the coast of Choromandel in behalf of the Hon'ble United company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies on the one part and Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy of Fort St.David inhabitants on
the other part. Witnesseth. that the said President and Council for diverse good causes and consideration thereunto moving have demised granted and to farm letten and do by these presents (demise grant and to farm lett/ ? typing mistake ?/) unto the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns all the ground, towns, houses and gardens, Juncan places and Poligars' villages belonging to the said company within the districts of the Trevendaporum Country and the rents and revenues thereof to have and to hold the said demised premises and every part and parcell thereof unto the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns unto the full end and expiration of five years and eight months to be accounted from the 1st of this instant November and ending the last day of June one thousand seven hundred and fifty six. The yielding and paying to the said President and Council the yearly rent or sum of eight thousand /8,000/ pagodas the fourth part whereof being two thousand /2,000/ pagodas is to be paid in every three months. That is to say the first payment to be made on the first day of February and to continuing due and to be paid on the first day of every succeeding three months until the expiration of this lease, - and If it shall happen that the aforesaid three months' rent or any part or parcell thereof shall be behind or unpaid by the space of ten days after the same is due, being lawfully demanded that then the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns shall forfeit and pay unto the said President & Council for every such default twelve hundred chuckrums amounting to ten fanams each chuckrum, and for failure in paying the said quarterly rent within twenty days after the same is due the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy,
and Jaganada Reddy shall pay three thousand six hundred chuckrums to the said President and Council for the use of the Company aforesaid. It is further covenanted and agreed by and between the Parties to these presents that the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their administrators or assigns shall not receive or cause to be received the duties and fees of the pagoda and braminyes nor any duties and fees of the Reddies or chief Inhabitants but allow them for their own use and benefit the usual paddy grounds and privileges as they have alway enjoyed. It is likewise further agreed that the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their administrators or assigns shall not receive or cause to be received more in any kind or degree. Whatsoever for the rates of Juncan than has been heretofore collected and if the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their administrators or assigns shall act anything contrary to the true intent and meaning of these premises they shall be subject to such a fine as the said President & Council shall adjudge. It is further agreed that for all persons that may come to inhabit within the limits of the demised premises the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their administrators or assigns shall no way molest, impede or hinder them but shall allow them such ground to build upon as the President and Council shall think fit and further. That the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy, their administrators or assigns shall not exercise any judicial authority over any of the said Company's inhabitants either by confinement, inflicting corporal punishments, or extorting from them any of their goods or chattells but if there be any just cause of complaint, they shall make ap
plication for justice to the President and Council aforesaid. And it is also agreed that in case the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy should be molested or any ways obstructed in the collection of the aforesaid rents by any of the Morattas or Mogulls people or the ground destroyed by them the President and Council aforesaid are to protect them from the incroachment of such or any other people that shall in any wise (?:T.M) disturb the quiet occupation and in case of any damage being sustained an equitable allowance shall be made the said renters as the president and council may judge adequate. The plowmen inhabiting the premises the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy are at liberty to agree with for the renting any parcell of their ground or to till and sow the same themselves as may seem most of their advantage. Lastly it is agreed as aforesaid that if at any time a disagreement should arise concerning any of the aforementioned articles or concerning any matter or thing that may hereafter be disputable and not herein provided for, In such case it shall be left to the determination of the President and Council in witness whereof the said President and Council have set their hands and caused the said Company's seal to affixed to one part of this indenture and the said Sambasheva Reddy, Maleiruma Permal Pilla, Vishevanada Reddy, Vencataputty Reddy, Jannardan Reddy, Shevenaga Reddy, and Jaganada Reddy to the other part have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Sambasheva Reddy Vishevanada Reddy Vencataputty Reddy Jannardan Reddy Shevenaga Reddy Maleirumpermal Pilla Jaganada Reddy
=================================================================Source: Revenue Department, Cowle Books, 1748-52, Vol.5, 5.11.1750, pp.46-50.
APPENDIX.2
APPENDIX.2A COWLE GRANTED BY ROBERT PALK ESQR. GOVERNOR OF FORT ST.GEORGE & CA. AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL THEREOF TO MOODOO KISTNAH PILLAHin 1766
================================================================= We reposing especial confidence in your integrety and good management do hereby appoint you to be renter of the Bounds of Fort St.Davids for the term of five years that is to say from the first of this instant August until the thirty first day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy one English Style, you are therefore to take upon yourself the management thereof and to collect all the revenues arising therefrom according to custom protecting the inhabitants in their rights and allowing unto every one in like manner as has been heretofore allowed provided nevertheless that you do punctually pay unto us yearly for the use of the Hon'ble East India Company the sum of five thousand five hundred Pagodas free from all charges and deductions as a rent for the same in manner following that is to say, and provided also that the tanks, sluices and gutters be compleatly and effectually repaired in three years from the commencement of this cowle at which we the President and Council will order the said tanks , sluices, and gutters to be regularly surveyed and if on the said survey being reported to us. We find you have not complied herewith, you shall be subject to having the said farm immediately taken from your management and such other fines or penalties as by us shall be thought proper, and in case you fail in any of the above payment by the space of ten days, we will immediately take the aforementioned district from your manage
ment but if you do puncutally observe the before mentioned conditions you will merit our favour and protections and we do promise to make you a reasonable and equitable allowance for all losses that you may sustain in the said districts by means of the Marrattas or other enemies but you are to keep at your charge a proper sibbendy to keep peace and good order and prevent the depredations of the Pollygars. In witness whereof we the President and Council aforesaid have hereunto set our hands and caused the seal of the said Company to be affixed hereto in Fort St.George this day of August one thousand seven hundred and sixty six.=================================================================Source: Revenue Department, Sundries, Cowle Books, Vol.18, 1766, p.26.
APPENDIX.3
APPENDIX.3LIST OF THE NATTARS WHOSE INAMS WERE RESUMED BY GARROW
================================================================= NAME OF TAHSILDARY LOCATION CODE TURRUF CODE CASTE NAME OF THE NATTARS (1971 CENSUS) (GRAHAM)-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCOT 1stTrepenemboor Davarozmnar
VELLORE 2ndTERVATTORE 3rdELENGAUD 4th
Wolegapoorum Venkatachel Naig NAIG Gresnbe Raghoopaty Naig NAIGKotacoor Poonshottum Reddy REDDY Menoor Moevensitputty Reddy EG222 04 REDDY Brumdasser Mooddumulla Reddy VV156 07 REDDY
Yendoor Kamling Reddy EG213 06 REDDY Kolepaukum Cuddeppa Reddy EF208 03 REDDY Pooberapella Sowana Moodely MOODELY Vanoor Koomarsami Moodely EG231 05 MOODELY Poodupaukum Sokatmga Moodely EG231 07 MOODELY Belwaputty Vydeputy Naig EG PK 25 NAIG Aulatoor Appoo Row EG219 20 BRAHMIN? or EG220 03 Elengaud Grumvasa Chary WW113A EG205 01 BRAHMIN Nilary Soobaroyana WW097A EG205 15 Veliveli Samanyengaur WW016 EG209 06 BRAHMIN Tyaur Sreeneevasungaur WW136B EG216 10 BRAHMIN Veelemode Kurdungar WW043C BH118 06 Nelore Soondra Vurdacharry WW195B EG200 01 BRAHMIN Paupenellore Sreenevasyengaur WW128A EG211 08 BRAHMIN Murdaud Moottu Soobbier WW176E EG207 01 Baudoor Narain Reddy WW187A EG210 11 REDDY Kodeyalum Konda Reddy WW133A REDDY Mungalum Venkitram Naig WW182A EG209 13 NAIG Aunulogy Narsim Naig WW064A EG206 20 NAIG Velun Gungum Naig NAIG Ponoor Aooibubar WW098 EG205 12 Nimby Iyanaur Musanellore Jayacharry WW137A EG211 06 BRAHMIN Vauloore Tirmulroyen WW161A EG224 01 Congoi Narain Rayen
VECRAVANDY TOOKDY 5th Cusba Venketram Reddy REDDY Jagunnad Reddy REDDY Vedoor Huredoss Ninaur VV160 16 NINARAulapaukum Ramlinga Reddy VV150 24 REDDY Maleconda Venketram Reddy VI129A REDDYAuvediaput Sambasiva Reddy VI139A VV150 08 REDDY Conamunglum Vurda Reddy VV151 10 REDDY Aunoor Davaraj VV171 01 Kuncam Moota Reddy REDDY
Satanoor Jagunnat Reddy VI141A VV151 31 REDDY Satanoor Sreeniwas Reddy VI141A VV151 31 REDDY Satanoor Aude Reddy VI141A VV151 31 REDDY Timbare Kasem Reddy VI124B VV151 12 REDDY Nimaury Sooba Reddy VI029A VV151 09 REDDY Paupenbut Aupavier VI143A VV151 19 BRAHMIN Paula Pundarem PANDARUMKulunoor Comarepa Reddy VI172A REDDY Kulunoor Ramalinga Reddy VI172A REDDY Kulunoor Tindevenum Mooddaumulla Reddy VI172A REDDY Cuppoor Sambseva Reddy VI083B REDDY Modunracle Cunnuit MUSLIM Jilaulcaun Cunnuit MUSLIM Paudery Kasiva Reddy TI153 EG217 04 REDDY Nuryanoor Mooddu Venkutputty Reddy VV152 13 REDDY Tennel Kistna Reddy VV152 07 REDDY Kaunyaper Mooddu Venkitputty ReddY REDDY Condamunglum Narain Goden VI213A GOUNDAN Punchamadavy Goorvupnaig VI167D VV152 16 NAIG Punchamadavy Venket Kistna Reddy VI167D VV152 16 REDDY Punchamadavy Audeyoor Ramalingvodain VI167D VV152 16 UDAIYAN Poodeeput Conda Reddy TI216 VV152 03 REDDY Colapauk Ramlinga Reddy TI018 VV157 04 REDDY Neyoor Hurridass Rauze VI167C Putchary Venkutram Reddy REDDY Chittalaput Ramaneppa Reddy VI200A VV155 73 REDDY Coodapaurecoopem Audenworu Naig NAIG Kurknoor Permaul Naig NAIG Panderapulore Mooddoo Coma Reddy VV154 01 REDDY Motore Cooteninaur VV155 61 NINAR Tormbore Resauldaut Cunuit VI117 VV161 01 MUSLIM
VELAPOORUM TOOKDY 6TH Perumbaukum Sreenevasungaru VI074A TI146 16 BRAHMIN Coopayem Burrayore Vurdyengaur BRAHMINPeddagham Munnaria VI087C VP139 08 Valavanoor Eyaramia & Venketnarnier VI171D VP141 01
Mutton Venketramanachary BRAHMINGoolamully Subadar Vullata Reddy Charreyer Aulem Cooppum Linga Reddy VP142 33 REDDY Annatore Moottu Vera Reddy GI192A REDDY Limmar Reyachary BRAHMIN Ackadavully Peddia CU009A VP138 30 Culput Coorparuyer Soobarayen VI056
GINGEE TOOKDY 7TH Daivanore Letchimi Nursimmacary GI169A BRAHMIN Rettina Soondaria TN045B Pauny Kistnia TN281A Nerbondum Seeshia Taiyore Soobaroyne GI147A Coonryphy Soobaraylu GI152A Moottulore Auntia TI047A Simbaid Culluppia GI064 Aulumboondy Kistna Chary GI085B BRAHMIN Savelapoonray Eyavia GI052E Ungatore Ramauvamier BRAHMIMNeghanore Eyavia GI191A Munnore Venket Raghavia GI051A Culletumbut Girrymaji Row GI060A BRAHMIN?Permundoor Appandnynar NINAR Tainore Vadayar Mulyanore Eynenaur NINAR Vutti Appandnynar NINAR Chittanore Appandnynar GI231A NINAR Culpodyanore Eyanynar NINAR Annamunglum Paurswanadhanynaur GI168A NINAR Vurnunellore Naga Coomanynaur GI065A NINAR Pait Soobbarayen Peringpoor Audund Gaur GI088A Nuttambla Pettaul Vydduppanaig GI074 NAIG Chettairy Ramchendra Naig GI181A NAIG Arghavoor Govind Pillah GI224A PILLAI
Conegarput Narain Pillah GI235A PILLAI Dalvanore Nullatumbe Vadayen GI130A UDAIYAN Coonnattore Mooddu Linga Reddy REDDY Sendaipoondy Ramavadien GI020B UDAIYAN Permagur Appa Pillah PILLAI Ellud Coauruppanyanur GI209A NINAR Soruppaudy Eyennynaur NINAR Paupenbaddy Soobbarayen GI063A TM049 04 Poodupat Soobbaroyen GI131A TM055 51 Erimbelay Appasamyer GI179A Arrunpoody Eyanynaur GI019A NINAR
TIRVAUDY TOOKDY 8TH Servuttore Ramaswamia CU031D TI144 20 BRAHMIN Paukum Codund Ramia VI222 TI145 10 BRAHMIN Poongonum Venketramanachary CU084A TI145 01 BRAHMIN Munpaulkum Timmappyengaur CU027D TI144 13 BRAHMIN Maligamoda Rame Reddy CU087C TI145 13 REDDY Vedupaulkum Anna Reddy CU141C REDDY Moollegrambut Pedda Reddy CU139A VD179 24 REDDY Cangaraynellore Cote Reddy CU091B TI145 03 REDDY Male Puttumbaulkum Pedda Reddy CU135A REDDY Valaput Mooddu Narain Reddy REDDY Kulaputtum Paulkam Pedda Reddy CU092 REDDY Yaryodanore Pedda Reddy CU147 REDDY Solavully Mooddu Nynaure CU141A NINAR Coolepaulkum Pettoo Reddy CU023A REDDY Kulacowerput Nack Reddy CU092 REDDY Conamungle Rame Reddy CU159A VV151 10 REDDY Setteputtada Gopaul Naig TI144 26 NAIG Toocknaumpaulkum Polena Reddy CU164B REDDY Ternamanellore Anna Reddy TK320B TI146 01 REDDY Somaupalliam Nullavanda Naik NAIG Errenda Eiyempella Vadavun TK283A TI146 15 UDAIYAN Sondmungle Peddeppa Reddy TK288G TI146 21 REDDY Sundernaud Ramanooja Naick TK341C NAIG Venkatampatte Moodduvijia Pellah CU107C TI147 01 PILLAI
Tumempaulkum Pedda Reddy CU167 REDDY Gramum Rami Reddy TK297A REDDYCarnaput Sambasiva Reddy CU169 REDDYArreyem Goondum Punnoo Reddy CU149 REDDYSunniaspatte Peddu Reddy CU094C TI144 15 REDDY Nelle Cooppum Vudu Reddy CU145C VD179 04 REDDY or VV156 09Rampaulkum Veera Reddy VI229 REDDY
VIRDACHELLUM TOOKDY 9TH Culkoordryt Ramalingier
BHOOVANJIRRY TOOKDY 10TH Cusba Soobbia Meera Chia Senkaria Sercamia Eyavia Venketramyengaur BRAHMINNarnyengaur BRAHMINAnnaviyengaur BRAHMINAudeveraha Reddy REDDYMooddu Viswanadha Reddy REDDYJungal Naig NAIG Sambasiva Reddy REDDY Linga Reddy REDDY Ramalinga Reddy REDDY Vurdyengar BRAHMIN Kistnyengar BRAHMIN Ramanujyengar BRAHMIN Gungagdum Venkatchel Naig BH130 42 NAIGValayoor Venkaetram Reddy REDDYMoottau Pillah PILLAI
TERNAMALE TOOKDY 11TH Toorenjepoorum Chinna Reddy TM044 19 REDDY
POLOOR TOOKDY 12TH Daiyaroyer &ca. Yenju Maid Appasamyengaur WW043 PL039 81 BRAHMIN
Satermbaudy Eyavier PL039 89 BRAHMINSaulempoondy Dausapunt EG215 04 Raghoonadha Poorum Rungyengaur WW048 PL039 73 BRAHMINMaunundul Narain Reddy PL039 72 REDDY Cuppaulumpaudy Narain Reddy PL039 30 REDDY Cunnanore Saundava Vadun PL136 PL039 40 Chaitput Mooddu Kistna Vadur PL115 PL039 01 ================================================================= Source: Letter from Garrow on the Settlement of the Southern Division of Arcot for Fusly 1212, in BOR Proceedings, 18.7.1803, pp.7760-7768. Note:1. Abbreviations (Tahsildary Names): AR - Arcot VE - Vellore PL - Poloor TM - Trinomaly ES - Elvanasore VC - Virdachel BH - Bhovangeery VP - Vilpoor TI - Tirvadi VV - Vecravandi VD - Vurdavoor TT - TrivattoorEG - Elengar 2. Abbreviations (Taluk Names in Census Code): WW - Wandiwash VI - Villupuram GI - Gingee TI - Tindivanam CU - Cuddalore TK - Tirukoilur PO - Polur 3. Turruf Code corresponds to the serial number given to the Turrufs and Villages in the Graham's Jamabundy of Each Village for Fasli 1211, in Board's Consultations dated 13th July 1802, in BOR Miscellanious Records, Vol.12. The list is too bulky to be reproduced in this book. But the readers may have information whether the villages were localed in the same Turruf or not by this Turruf Code.4. The village names are guessed from the personal names. Though it is true that the place names in the personal names don't always indicate their residential places, it can be said at the same time they or their ancestors had some kind of connection with the places. In the case of the Nattars with place names in their names in Chingleput, most of them had landed rights in the same places.
JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5
JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5
APPENDIX.4
APPENDIX.4ABSTRACT OF THE OLD AND NEW NATTARS' PRIVILEGES IN CHINGLEPUT SPECIFIED IN THE COWLES GRANTED BY PLACE IN 1797
============================================================================================================================= Caste Name of the Nattar Shrotrium Maniam High Warum N.C Profit Warum Total No. code Vi.Profit Vi. Caw. P. Vi. P. F. C. Vi. P. F. C. Pag. Pag.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------KA01 ?? VENCATARAMIAH 7 17 34 2 91.30.15 125.30.15 398 523 KA02 AI JEAPIENGAR 1 10 20 9 83.17.20 103.17.20 334 437KA03 ?? SOORAPIAH 7 21 42 6 49.42.04 91.42.04 274 365KA04 AI TAUTIENGAR 3 07 14 1 N.C 14.00.00 14KA05 MU MOOROOGAPA MOODELY 3 30.45.51 30.45.51 250 280KA06 MU DURMAROY MOODALY 5 07 14 2 12.36.53 26.36.53 61 107KA07 MU SOOBAROY MOODELY 1 05 10 4 86.23.58 96.23.58 340 436KA08 MU SHASHACHELLA MOODELY & AGUSTIAPAH MOODELY 1 05 10 1 35.45.23 45.45.23 128 173CG09 RE LETCHMAN REDDY 1 130 13 30 60 8
24.16.28 214.16.18 118 332CG10 MU MOOTTOO MOODALY 3 190 7 30 60 5 23.30.15 273.30.15 106 379CG11 RE SANJEEVA REDDY 1 100 8 30 60 4 61.17.19 221.17.19 256 477CG12 MU CALAPA MOODALY 1 130 7 30 60 7 23.32.27 213.32.27 121 334CG13 MU PARASERAM MOODALY 1 240 7 30 60 3 39.17.78 339.17.78 134 473CG14 PI TRIVENGADAH PILLAH 2 210 8 30 60 6 211. 2.70 481.02.70 692 1173CG15 AC RAGAVACHARRY 1 250 9 30 60 3 42.17.20 352.17.20 149 501CH16* MU WOLAGAPA MOODELY 3 166 10 30 60 5 76. 5. 4 3 302.05.04 312 614CH17* RE VENCATA REDDY 4 164 12 30 60 2 38.22.23 279.22.23 141 420CH18 MU ARMOOTOO MOODELY 2 152 9 30 60 1 45. 7.15 2 257.07.15 212 469CH19 MU YERLAPAH MOODALY 1 240 6 30 60 4 116.17.77 316.17.77 457 773CH20 MU APPAGEE MOODALY 1 190 9 30 60 2 42.32.28 292.32.28 155 447CH21 MU NAMASHEVOY MOODALY 1 50 7 30 60 1 30.28.60 140.28.60 91 231CH22 NA RUNGAPA NAICK 2 80 11 30 60 4 68.23.57 268.23.57 328 596TP23* AI APPIENGAR 3 140 19 30 60 6 34.21.16 2 234.21.16 135 369TP24* AI+AC ROYALIENGAR & RAGOONAUDACHARRY 4 280 17 45 90 7 68.21.45 1 438.21.45 235 673TP25 AI ANNASAUMYIENGAR 2 137 9 30 60 2 51.43.10 2 248.43.10 208 456TP26* AI SHASHIENGAR 4 327 4 12 24 1 3. 4.25 3 354.04.25 13 367TP27* AC SHADAGOPACHARRY 4 144 14 30 60 1
25.31.50 1 229.31.50 103 332TP28* MU AYAH MOODALY 1 82 7 20 40 4 22.43.67 2 144.43.67 93 237PM29* ?? VENCATANARNAPIAH 4 671 7 48 96 4 54.39.43 8 821.39.43 219 1040PM30* MU VERDAPAH MOODELY 4 296 3 43 86 7 31.39.36 3 413.39.36 113 526PM31 AI VERDIENGAR 1 200 5 30 60 2 41.25.70 301.25.70 215 516PM32* MU RUNGASUMMY MOODELY 3 246 7 30 60 2 1.36.53 5 307.36.53 10 317PM33* MU TRIVENGADA MOODALY 1 311 5 30 60 2 24.35.18 395.35.18 148 543PM34* MU SHEVAPADA MOODELY 1 200 3 30 60 2 27.17.20 287.17.20 109 396PM35* MU APPAH MOODALY 2 262 6 30 60 3 123.25.12 445.25.12 425 870SM36* MU COOMARAPAH MOODELY 1 87 10 20 40 2 23.17.59 150.17.59 104 254SM37* MU PUTTARAVY MOODALY 1 60 4 20 40 1 13. 7.15 1 113. 7.15 79 192SM38 AI+AC ROYALIENGAR & RAGOONADACHARRY 1 80 5 20 40 4 7.12.29 1 107.12.29 29 136SM39 MU TOPPA MOODALY 1 60 9 20 40 2 64.30.73 164.30.73 265 429PO40* ?? NARNIAH 2 131 4 30 60 4 33.25.13 2 224.25.13 101 325PO41* MU VENCATACHELLAM MOODALY 3 149 3 30 60 4 61.20.67 2 270.20.67 163 433PO42* MU MOOTAPAH MOODALY 2 231 4 30 60 10 190.00.58 481.00.58 486 967PO43* MU CAUTANOOR SOOBRAMANEYA MOODALY 3 150 4 30 60 3 43.11.40 1 253.11.40 100 353PO44* MU CHINGLEROY MOODALY 2 142 4 30 60 4 18.27.45 2 220.27.25 55 275PP45 MU PERMAL MOODALY 2 113 6 20 40 4 40.
3.48 1 193.03.48 139 332PP46 MU SOOBOO MOODALY 2 80 7 20 40 2 31.27.45 2 151.27.25 109 260PP47 AI SAUMIENGAR 2 70 5 20 40 1 13.15.65 123.15.65 80 203PP48 RE MOOTAL REDDY 1 60 7 20 40 1 12.35.46 112.35.46 76 188MM49* AI RAMANJIENGAR 2 4 9 20 40 3 10.40.50 2 52.40.50 45 97MM50* AI RAGONAUDIENGAR 1 64 1 40 80 1 9.17.49 113.17.49 37 150MM51 AI+AI RUNGIENGAR & KISTNAIENGAR 2 50 10 30 60 1 29.14.30 139.14.30 117 256MM52 AI PILLAPAUKUM RAMANJIENGAR 2 40 11 20 40 1 12.19.30 1 92.19.30 50 142SV53 ?? SAUTUNJARY VENCATACHELLIAH 4 10 20 1 9.31.21 29.31.21 42 71SV54 MU TAUNDAVAROYA MOODELY 3 10 20 1 35.17.47 55.17.47 110 165SV55 ?? SHASHIAH 2 10 20 1 18.39.42 38.39.42 57 95SV56 NA VEERASAMY NAICK 4 10 20 3 18.29.07 38.29.07 134 172SV57 ?? ROYLIAH 2 10 20 1 7.11.40 27.11.40 50 77SV58 ?? VENCATARAMIAH 3 10 20 2 9.26.17 29.26.17 62 91OM59 AI KASAVIENGAR 1 250 6 28 56 2 1.34.40 308.34.40 10 318OM60 AI VELEVOY SEENIVASIENGAR 1 5 10 1 29.32.28 39.32.28 102 141OM61 AI RAMANIENGAR 1 7 14 3 51.36.53 65.36.53 186 251CT62 AI SINGIENGAR 1 80 7 20 40 3 29. 6.37 149.06.37 118 267CT63 AC SINGARACHARRY 1 80 7 20 40 1
26.17.20 1 146.17.20 111 257CT64 MU SOONDARA MOODALY 1 100 11 20 40 3 22.24.35 1 162.24.35 83 245CT65 MU CUNNEAPA MOODALY 1 70 6 20 40 2 18.21.45 128.21.45 58 186CL66 MU TOPPAH MOODALY 1 60 4 10 20 1 6.14.15 1 86.14.45 19 105CL67 AC RAMACHARRY 2 52 4 10 20 1 5.36.24 1 77.36.24 23 100PB68 AC RAGAVACHARRY 2 48 5 20 40 2 23.19.32 111.19.32 86 197PB69 NA VENCATASAMY NAICK 2 40 5 20 40 1 15.17.20 1 95.17.20 62 157-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL 100 7939 432 1560 3120 203 52 13649.08.75 10431 24080AVERAGE 1.45 115 6.3 22.6 45.2 2.9 0.8 198 151 349=============================================================================================================================Source: Permanent Settlement Records, Vol.25, Statement of the Privileges of the Nattawars, E.Greenway, 28.3.1801.Note: 1. * These Nattars were the old Nattars who had enjoyed the privileges before Place granted Cowles in 1797. 2. The Magan number used in the Location Codes corresponds with that of Hodgson's Report in 1799 (see Appendix.14). The Census number indicates that of Census in 1971. The below are the abbreviations of the purgannah names. KA -- Conjeveram 01-08 SM -- Sautmagans 36-39 OM -- Outramalore 59-61 CG -- Carangooly 09-15 PO -- Ponnary 40-44 CT -- Cavantundlum 62-65 CH -- Chingleput 16-22 PP -- Peddapollam 45-48 CL -- Covelong
66-67 TP -- Tripassore 23-28 MM -- Manimungalum 49-52 PB -- Perumbaukum 68-69 PM -- Poonamallee 29-35 SV -- Salivauk 53-58 3. Vi. - Number of villages where the privileged tenures were found. Caw.- Cawnie.4. KA01 VENCATARAMIAH -- The Nattar is Vencataramiah of Conjeveram. His Serial No. is 01.5. SH -- Shrotrium. SH03 means that he held three Shrotrium villages. The village rented by the Nattars by nominal rent. For instance a Nattar rent a village for 100 Pagodas a year, but may collect 150 Pagodas from the villagers. The balance of 50 Pagodas is his profit from the village. This is shown in the list as 150-100.6. MA -- Maniam. Tax free lands. Nattars possessed Maniam lands in different parts of the district. It is calculated by Greenway that one cawnie of Maniam land is equal to 2 Pagodas annual profit. MA30 means he possessed 30 cawnies of maniam lands in total. The figures indicates the cawnies in the respective villages where he possess Maniam. 7. WA -- Warum. Suppose the whole produce of the cultivation is 100 Cullums, the share(Warum) given to the ordinary inbitants were around 45-50 per cent. In the case of Nattars, the share given to them was either 60 per cent or 55 per ent, or 10 per cent higher than others. WA60 and WA55 was the share taken by the Nattars in the whole produce. 8. NC -- Uncultivated lands held by the Nattars.9. PR -- Profit held by the Nattar for the year. It consisted of the profits from the Shrotrium villages (Rent collected from the village minus rent to be paid to the Government), Maniam lands(1 cawnie = 2 Pagodas), and Warum lands difference between the Nattars' special share and the ordinary share). 125.12.36 indicates that the annual profit is 25 Pagodas 12 Fanams 36 Cash.
APPENDIX.5
APPENDIX.5PRIVILEGES OF NATTARS APPOINTED BY PLACE IN 1797
=================================================================Serial Names of Nattars or Villages Location Code No. Magan Census =================================================================KA01 VENCATARAMIAH SH00 MA17 3 DAMIRLAH KA03 03 KA001A? 1 CAREVAIDOO KA03 02 4 CALATOOR KA03 03 KA202A? 3 CANAPAUKUM KA03 04 2 VALOOR PO042I 2 CAREYACOODEL KA04 10 2 TERKUPUTTADA KA01 16 WA60 32/160DAMIRLAH KA03 01 KA001A 1/3 CALIANOOR KA06 04 KA113A PR 125.30.15 -----------------------------------------------------------------KA02 JEAPIENGAR SH00 MA10 10 NAWETTYCOLUM KA16 05 KA176A WA60 whole TERROVUNGARNAY KA16 18 KA177A whole PEDDAMADARAPAUK KA16 06 KA187A whole AUMBAUKUM CH17 11 CH179A whole SOORAPUTTOO PO06 08 PO029A whole MUNJAMADOO KA16 16 KA181A whole MULLASAMOODRAM KA16 17 whole AUGARUM KASH 14 KA180A whole POYANOOR KA12 04 whole TRIVADYPULLUM KASH 22
PR 103.17.20 -----------------------------------------------------------------KA03 SOORAPIAH SH00 MA21 10 ATCHEECUTTOO KA02 05 KA024A 2 POOTTARY KA02 01 KA026C 1 SAULABOGUM KA02 02 KA025A 2 PULLALOOR KA05 01 KA151A 1 WOREEKA KA10 09 KA056A 4 VISHAR KA17 02 KA007A 1 CAREVAIDOO KA03 02 WA60 2/20 POOTTARY KA02 01 KA026C 7/41 SALABOGUM KA02 02 KA025A 9/36 VISHAR KA17 02 KA007A 6/24 WOREEKA KA10 09 KA056A 6/24 PAREKENTONGEL KA10 11 2/ 8 VAIDEL KASH 12 KA044A? PR 91.42.04 -----------------------------------------------------------------KA04 TAUTIENGAR SH00 MA07 3 NUTTANELLOOR KA11 02 KA109A 2 KEELOTTYVAUKUM CG34 04 MT099A 2 VULLAPAUKUM KA11 03 KA107A WA60 1.5/73.5 SHIVERAM KA11 01 PR 14.00.00 -----------------------------------------------------------------KA05 MOOROOGAPA MOODELY SH MA00 WA55 1/12 POOLLALOOR KA05 01 KA151A 1.5/20 POOTTARY KA02 01 KA026C 1/ 6 CONARYCOOPAM KA06 01 KA078B PR 30.45.51 -----------------------------------------------------------------
KA06 DURMAROY MOODALY (NOT NATTAR. SEE NOTE) SH00 MA07 2 CONARYCOOPUM KA06 01 KA078B 1 GOVINDACHERRY KA13 04 1 COOPUM KA13 04 2 VALATODOO KA08 03 KA039A? 1 YANADOOR KA09 05 KA117A WA60 1/20 BAURAPETTAH KA07 06 1.5/6.5 POOLLARY MM05 16 CH263A PR 26.36.53 -----------------------------------------------------------------KA07 SOOBAROY MOODELY SH00 MA05 5 SENGAUDYVAUKUM KA16 25 KA132B WA60 4/10 SENGADYVAUKUM KA16 25 KA132B 4/10 MOOMMALAPUT KA16 26 KA170A 3/50 VILLYVALUM KA10 07 KA093B 1/ 8 COYEMBAUKUM KA10 10 KA049A PR 96.23.58 -----------------------------------------------------------------KA08 SHASHACHELLA MOODELY & AGUSTIAPAH MOODELY SH00 MA05 5 PINNAGAR KA14 01 WA60 ? PENNAGUR KA14 01 PR 45.45.23 =================================================================CG09 LETCHMAN REDDY SH01 CODOOR 230-100 CGSH 01 MT345A MA30 5 YENDATOOR 2 KEELACAURNAY CG27 02 MT242B 2 CHEAVAUDY CG11 23 MT366A 2 WOOLOODAMUNGALUM CG08 04 MT226A? or CG09 04 MT365A 2 COONNATOOR CG11 20 MT367A 2 POONNAMA CG11 22 MT372A
3 CODOOR CGSH 01 MT345A 2 COLATOOR CG34 03 MT098A? or CG21 03 MT292B 2 CARECAUMALU CG14 01 MT341C 2 CHITTAPOORAM CG35 09 MT105A 2 TRIMALACAUDOO CG35 03 MT070A 2 COLUMBAUKUM CG27 03 MT242C? or CG05 03 MT205A 2 VELANGAUD CG24 01 MT273A? or CG35 06 MT104A WA60 1 KEELACAURNAY CG27 02 MT242B 1 CAUTOODAIVADOOR CG10 07 MT276A 1 MAROOVALUM CG10 08 MT169B 1 YENDATOOR CG27 08 MT173B whole COLATOOR CG34 03 MT292B 1 COMAURACOOPUM CG14 06 MT386C 1 NEELAMUNGALUM CG11 18 MT368A 1 CHITTAPOORAM CG35 09 MT105A PR 214.16.18 -----------------------------------------------------------------CG10 MOOTTOO MOODALY SH03 VALOOR 80-25 CG15 09 MT308E AROOCAUDOO 100-15 CGSH 31 MT272B ARASOOR 60-10 CGSH 32 MT130A MA30 10 CHUNAMBUT CG23 01 MT266A 8 ESOOR CG37 01 MT127B? or CG06 09 MT221A 3 WOTTYVELAGAM CG22 03 MT288A 3 AUNDARCOOPAM CG37 12 MT260A 2 AUGAURUM CG37 13 MT259A 2 POODOOPUTTOO CG37 05 MT264A 2 ELLODOO CG37 11 MT267A WA60 1 ESHOOR CG37 01 MT127B? or CG06 09 MT221A 2 CHUNAMBUT CG23 01 MT266A 1 1/2 AGARUM CG37 13 MT259A
1/2 POODOOPUT CG37 05 MT264A 1/2 ARCAUDOO CGSH 31 MT272B PR 273.30.15 -----------------------------------------------------------------CG11 SANJEEVA REDDY SH01 POOTTANACOTAH 200-100 CGSH 26 MT257C MA30 15 CATACALOOR CG21 02 MT292A 3 TINNARYPUTTOO CG24 07 MT270D 2 CULPUTTOO CG10 10 MT237C 2 CALACAUDY CG25 09 2 PAROOR CG24 09 MT253A 2 PONDOOR CG24 06 MT255C 2 TORAYOOR CG25 06 MT127C 2 VELLARAH CG19 03 MT319A WA60 whole TENNARYPUTTOO CG24 07 MT270D 1/2 CATACALOOR CG21 02 MT292A N.F PAUKUM CG28 04 MT178B N.F ARINGOONAM CG08 21 MT184A PR 221.17.19 -----------------------------------------------------------------CG12 CALAPA MOODALY SH01 VADEL 230-100 CGSH 27 MT298A MA30 5 CHEYOOR CG18 01 MT312A 5 CHINNAVENMONEY CG10 11 MT239A 3 EROOMBAIDOO CG19 01 MT316A 2 AUGARUM CG37 13 MT259A 10 PANAYOOR CG21 13 MT304E 2 CADALORE CG13 09 MT395B 3 NULLOOR CG21 04 MT297C? or CG19 02 MT317A WA60 whole VELLARA CG19 03 MT319A 1/16 EROOMBAIDOO CG19 01 MT316A whole NULLOOR CG21 04 MT297C? or CG19 02 MT317A whole AUGARUM CG37 13 MT259A whole BASAVANATTAM CG11 08 MT363A
1/ 8 CHEYOOR CG18 01 MT312A 1/ 4 CADDALOOR CG13 09 MT395B PR 213.32.27 -----------------------------------------------------------------CG13 PARASERAM MOODALY SH01 PORPONDAY 400-160 CGSH 05 KA274A MA30 4 MAUMUNDOOR CG02 05 MT006A 4 MYOOR CG04 01 MT005A 4 PELAPOOR CG02 01 MT001A 4 ARIMBALOOR CG03 01 KA262A 4 POOLYANOOR CG34 06 MT122A 5 BOODOOR CG20 03 MT280A? or MT220A 5 PUTTALUM CG06 02 MT206A WA60 N.F BOODOOR CG20 03 MT220A? or MT280A PAUKUM CG28 04 MT178B PORPONDA CGSH 05 KA274A PR 339.87.78 -----------------------------------------------------------------CG14 TRIVENGADAH PILLAH SH02 NUTTRUMBAUKUM 170-60 CGSH 28 MT168A? or MT175B CADAMALAPUTTOOR 140-40 CGSH 29 MT113A MA30 5 PARASANELLOOR CG12 05 MT383A 5 CHEMBOOR CG12 04 MT384A 4 KEELNEERPULLUM CG12 06 MT380A 5 ANNACUT CG12 01 MT393B 4 COOVATOOR CG13 01 MT354A 4 NAICVONAPUT CG13 02 MT392A 2 MAUNICACOOPUM CG14 05 MT388A 1 COMARCOOPUM CG14 06 MT386C WA60 N.F AROONGOONUM CG08 21 MT184A N.F PAUKUM CG28 04 MT178B N.F MYOOR CG04 01 MT005A N.F MAUMUNDOOR CG02 05 MT006A
N.F YEDDAMUCHEU CG02 07 MT112A? N.F PALYANOOR CG06 01 MT205B PR 481.02.70 -----------------------------------------------------------------CG15 RAGAVACHARRY SH01 CAVANYPAUKUM CGSH 06 KA263A MA30 5 YADAMUCHU CG02 07 MT112A? 5 TRIVANACOVIL CG03 03 KA278A 2 POOLYPERCOVIL CG06 06 MT207A 2 VALIAPUTTOOR CG05 04 MT032A 4 PULLEEPUTTOO CG07 01 2 CHITTRACOOTUM CG08 26 MT027A 5 ATTEYOOR CG06 04 MT003A 2 VYAWOOR CG05 02 MT203A 3 THINAR WA60 N.F BOODOOR CG20 03 MT220A? or MT280A 1 VALIAPUTTOOR CG05 04 MT032A N.F PAUKUM CG28 04 MT178B PR 352.17.20 =================================================================CH16* WOLAGAPA MOODELY SH03 MUNGALUM 164-50 CHSH 04 CH220B POOLEYOOR 82-45 CHSH 05 CH169A MOODYOOR 20- 5 CHSH 44 CH297A? MA30 2 VYVUNDOOR CH19 02 2 VELLAPUNDEL CH19 03 CH296A 2 CALAPAUKUM CH19 04 CH295A 2 NARAMBOOR CH21 01 CH214B 4 VELLYVARAM CH19 01 2 PARUMBAUKUM CH17 01 4 SALOOR CH02 04 CH299A 4 TIMMOOR CH40 05 CH304A 4 AUNOOR CH41 01 CH301A 4 VALAGAM CH40 02 CH307A
WA60 2 SALOOR CH02 04 CH299A 1/2 VYVUNDOOR CH19 02 1/2 VELLAPUNDEL CH19 03 CH296A 3 CALAPAUKUM CH19 04 CH295A 1 VELLYVARAM CH19 01 1 VALAGAM CH40 02 CH307A NC TIMMOOR CH40 05 CH304A MOODYOOR CHSH 44 CH297A? PALIKUM PR 302.05.04 =================================================================CH17* VENCATA REDDY SH04 SHASTRUMBAUKUM 99-25 CHSH 28 CH075A PULLAVELLEE 107-30 CHSH 08 CH275B CORRAPATTOO 34-30 CHSH 45 CH302A? ANAMUNDAY 21-20 CH33 04 MA30 2 NAVALOOR CH20 03 SP178C 2 VUPPOOR CH20 04 SP214C 1 VILLIAMBAUKUM CH24 01 CH073A? 2 NARUMBOOR CH21 01 CH214B 2 VENGAVASSEL CH11 03 SA176B 10 AUTOOR CH18 01 CH074A 1 TRICHILCHICOONUM CH01 01 2 NADAVACARAY CH21 02 CH186A 2 PULEEPAUKUM CH05 02 CH255A 2 CURAVAMADOO CH15 05 CH161A 2 VANBAUKUM CH23 03 CH069A 2 COLATOOR CH23 02 CH079A WA60 1/2 NADAVACARRAY CH21 02 CH186A 1 AUTTOOR CH18 01 CH074A PR 279.22.23 -----------------------------------------------------------------CH18 ARMOOTOO MOODELY SH02 CADUMBOOR 42-20 CHSH 19 CH086A VENBAIDOO 350-220 CHSH 42 CH107A
MA30 5 MALOOR CH08 03 CH125A 2 CARUMBOOR CH10 03 CH087A 3 PONMAR CH11 01 CH030A 2 NELLYCOOPUM CH08 02 CH106B 4 COLATOOR CH23 02 CH079A 4 PAUNDOOR CH10 08 CH016A 2 CALEYMUNDAPUTTOO CH10 04 CH055A 4 PARUMBAIDOO CH21 07 CH216A 4 CAIRUMBAIDOO CH10 01 CH056A WA60 5 MALOOR CH08 03 CH125A NC CADUMBOOR CHSH 19 CH086A KUSNAPOORAM PMSH 21 PR 257.07.15 -----------------------------------------------------------------CH19 YERLAPAH MOODALY SH01 VEMBAUKUM 320-80 CHSH 23 CH273A MA30 5 WOLLAWOOR CH45 01 CH279A? 5 VADACAPUTTOO CH45 03 CH220D? 6 PAULOOR CH09 01 CH071E 4 WOODYENBAUKUM CH45 02 CH283B? 5 NUTTUM CH22 02 CH256A 5 AUPOOR CH23 04 CH067A WA60 7 WOLLAWOOR CH46 01 CH279A? 1 YARRAYOOR CH27 01 SP214A 1 PALLOOR CH09 01 CH071E 5 WOODYENBAUK CH45 02 CH283A? PR 316.17.77 -----------------------------------------------------------------CH20 APPAGEE MOODALY SH01 WORAGADUM 280-90 CHSH 34 CH228A MA30 5 VELLACOTAH CH45 05 SP205D? 4 YARAYOOR CH27 01 SP214A 4 YUHOOR CH26 01 SP173A 3 COONNAVAUKUM CH24 04 KA179A 2 COVALAVAIDOO CH24 06 KA175A 2 SUMANAMBUTTOO
3 SURPANUNJARY CH29 03 3 MOTOOPOLLAM CH20 01 SP209A 4 GOONDOOPERUMBAIDOO CH28 01 SP194A WA60 5 VALACOTA CH45 05 SP205D? whole CARANAPUT CH27 02 SP205B PR 292.32.28 -----------------------------------------------------------------CH21 NAMASHEVOY MOODALY SH01 EROONGANAPULLY 80-30 CHSH 10 CH278A MA30 5 WOOLALOOR CH46 01 CH279A? 5 MANAPAUKUM CH03 01 CH282A 5 AUMOOR CH37 01 CH133A 5 KYAR CH12 01 CH053C 3 COOLPANTUNDALUM CH44 07 CH167B 3 MANAMADARAY CH13 02 4 SERVONGOONUM CH08 01 WA60 1 WOLALOOR CH46 01 CH279A? PR 140.28.60 -----------------------------------------------------------------CH22 RUNGAPA NAICK SH02 CARYNELLUM 160-80 CH10 07 CH088A HANOOMUNTAPOORUM 120-60 CH34 01 CH100A? MA30 3 CHENGOONUM CH32 01 CH089B 2 CHITTAMANOOR CH44 04 CH084A? 3 GOODALORE CH10 02 CH085A 6 PAULIANELLOOR CH26 05 SP202C 3 TRIMUNGALUM CH30 09 CH064A 2 VALATANJARRY CH46 11 SP199A? 3 PARINJEMBAUKUM CH45 06 2 CHINNARY CH34 05 CH242C 3 PARANOOR CH33 07 CH251A 2 NINNA CH31 02 1 KEELAYOOR CH35 03 CH124A WA60 1/2 TEROOMUNGALUM CH30 09 CH064A 1/2 PALIANELLOOR CH26 02 SP169A whole CHENGOONUM CH32 01 CH089B
2 KEELYOOR CH35 03 CH124A PR 268.23.57 -----------------------------------------------------------------TP23* APPIENGAR SH03 PODAVOOR 90-40 TPSH 24 SP141A? YALUNBAUKUM 106-25 TPSH 30 POOVANOOR 20-11 PBSH 05 TV222C MA30 2 MAUTOOR TP25 02 SP211A 2 PODAVOOR TPSH 24 SP141A? 2 CUNNOOR TP24 10 TV218D? 2 SHEVANCODEL TP24 07 TV079A? 2 KEERANELLORE TP24 03 SP143A? 1 TODOOR TP12 02 TV037B 1 AURIAMBAUKUM TP24 06 SP033A? 0.5 RAMANAJAPOORAM TP24 08 SP165A 1 PASDOOPUT 1 CAROOR TPSH 22 KA122A 2 YALUMBAUKUM TPSH 30 1 VAUNDRAVASHEE TP18 03 1.5 SINGLEPAUDY SP160A? 1.5 YACANAPOORUM SP158A? 1 NELVOY 2 VALATOOR TP15 02 KA161A 3 PITCHIVAUKUM TP15 04 SP153B 2 PULRUMBAUKUM TP02 01 0.5 YARAYAMUNGALUM TP17 02 TV227A WA60 11 CAUNDOOR TP24 02 SP139A 1/2 KEERANELLORE TP24 03 SP143A whole TODOOR TP12 02 TV037B whole CONOOR TP24 10 TV218D 10 RAMANJAPOORAM TP24 08 SP165A 5 PADAWOOR TPSH 24 SP141A? NC CAROOR TPSH 22 KA122A NUNDEMADOD PR 234.21.16 -----------------------------------------------------------------
TP24* ROYALIENGAR & RAGOONAUDACHARRY SH04 SEROOVADEL 88-30 TPSH 21 PO293A ELOOPAPUT 42-20 TPSH 21 PO293A POODOOMAVALINGA 180-60 TPSH 39 TV005A AUGARUM 120-40 TPSH 39 YV005A MA45 4 TRIPASSORE TP01 01 TV045C 2 YACATOOR TP23 01 TV018B 1 AUGARUM TPSH 39 TV005A 2 VALLUM TP25 01 SP205E 2 MAUTOOR TP25 02 SP211A 2 MAUGANIUM TP13 02 SP189A? 1 VELLARA TP13 03 SP182A? 1 SALAMUNGALUM TP13 04 SP101A? 2 COOTRUMBAUKUM TP19 01 SP032B? 2 ADEGATOOR TP22 03 TV018A 2 CADAMATOOR TP23 03 TV016A 2 VEMMANUMBADOOR TP23 02 TV048A? 10 COOVUM TP16 01 TV223A 5 PARUNDOOR TP15 01 KA162B 2 AUTOOPUTTOOR TP18 02 2 SACKANGLUM TP19 03 3 MOODICHOOR TP13 01 SA168A? WA60 1 YACATOOR TP23 01 TV018B whole COONDATOOR 33 COOTRUMBAUK SM01 01 SP032B 5 ATTOOPATOOR TP18 02 1/2 ADDUNKYCAVANOOR whole AGARUM TPSH 39 TV005B whole VITTAVEDAHA TP18 07 SP168A? NC MUTTATOOR PR 438.21.45 -----------------------------------------------------------------TP25 ANNASAUMYIENGAR SH02 CONDAMANELLORE 149-80 TPSH 28 SP161A TUNDALUM 138-70 TPSH 27 TV039A? MA30 12 MADARAMUNGALUM TP24 01 SP144A
2 CADAMANELLORE TPSH 28 SP161A 0.5 RAMANJEEPOORAM TP24 08 SP165A 1 VADAVARYPUTTOO 4 TUNDALUM TPSH 27 TV039A? 2 PROYEMCOOPUM 1 JUMBODAY TP18 08 SP166A? 2.5 CHINNYVAUKUM TP19 05 PO072A? 5 COTOOR TP20 01 SP149A? WA60 MADARAMUNGALUM TP24 01 SP144A RAMANJAPOORUM TP24 08 SP165A NC CAYALAMBOORDY JUMBODAY TP18 08 SP166A? PR 248.43.10 -----------------------------------------------------------------TP26* SHASHIENGAR SH04 PERATOOR 196-94 TPSH 08 TV077D VEERAGAVAPOORAM 118-100 TPSH 17 TV028A AMOODOOR 57-50 TPSH 17 TV028A POOLYOOR 350-150 TPSH 16 MA12 6 PERATOOR TPSH 08 TV077D 2 VELLYOOR TP10 05 TV109F 2 KEELANOOR TP10 01 TV116A 2 VEERAGAVAPOORAM TPSH 17 TV028A WA60 1/2 PERATOOR TPSH 08 TV077D NC KEELANOOR TP10 01 TV116A VELEYOOR TP10 05 TV109F RAMENJARY PR 354.04.25 -----------------------------------------------------------------TP27* SHADAGOPACHARRY SH04 TEROOCANUNJARY 50-30 TPSH 06 TV114B? VEMBAIDOO 24-10 TPSH 05 TV113A OLD EREMITTYPOLLAM90-30 TPSH PO023B? NEW ERIMITTYPOLLAM130-80 TPSH PO024A? MA30 3 VADATOOR TP10 03 TV078C 2 MEYOOR TP03 01 TV126A
2 DAVUNDAVAUKUM TP03 04 TV189A 2 KEELANOOR TP10 01 TV116A 2 KARYKALYVAUKUM TP10 04 TV110A 2 ARUMBAUKUM TP04 02 TV118A 4 RAMANJARY TP29 01 TV060B 1 POODOOCOOPUM TP09 11 TV092A? 1 AYILCHERRY TP07 01 TV091A 2 TRICUNDLUM TP07 05 TV094C 1 MATAVALAGUM TP07 06 TV093A 2 VEMBAIDOO TPSH 05 TV113A 2 TEROOCANUNJARY TP02 08 4 BUNDECAVANOOR PO310A? WA60 5 WADATOOR TP10 03 TV078C NC RAMANJARY TP29 01 TP060B PR 229.31.50 -----------------------------------------------------------------TP28* AYAH MOODALY SH01 TUNDLUM 102-20 TPSH 27 TV039A? MA20 4 CHITTATTOOR TP10 02 TV076A 4 WOODICAUDOO TP05 01 TV123A 2 POONAPAUKUM TP05 04 TV124A 2 RAMATUNDLUM TP05 06 TV125B 4 CALIANAIVOPUM TP12 05 TV074A 2 COLUNDALOOR TP02 09 2 CALUMBAUKUM TP12 04 TV038B WA60 1/2 CHITATOOR TP10 O2 TV076A 1/2 AUGARUM TP07 09 TV014A? TP12 TV102A? whole CALLANYCOOPUM TP12 05 TV074A whole TALACANUNJARY TP02 08 TV114A? NC IVAILY AGARUM RAMUNJARY TP29 01 TP060B PR 144.43.67 =================================================================PM29* VENCATANARNAPIAH
SH04 GARAYUMBAUKUM PMSH 17 SP068A? CUNDEGA PMSH 16 CHITTATOOR PMSH 18 TV076A PADARYTONGEL PMSH 02 SP012B? 871-200 MA48 16 PALUNTUNDALUM PM06 01 SP090A 16 TEROOMOODYVAUKUM PM06 02 SP091B 4 PANAGAVOOR 1 PARAVALOOR 2 TEROOVAMOOR PMSH 15 SA172A? 5 TALASANUNJARY PM18 07 TV042O? 4 TRIMASHY PM05 01 SP076I WA60 1/2 GARAGUMBAUK PMSH 17 SP068A? 1 PANAGAVOOR 1/2 CUNDEGA PMSH 16 whole TIYEMBAUKUM NC CHITTATOOR PMSH 18 TV076A? CATREVADOR PADARYTONGEE PMSH 02 SP012B? TALACANANJARY PM18 07 TV042O? TRIMASHY PM05 01 SP076I VOYALANALLORE PM17 01 SP015F COOPUMADOO PM17 02 CALLEUPUTTADA PM17 03 SP015C? PR 821.39.43 -----------------------------------------------------------------PM30* VERDAPAH MOODELY SH04 VASANTPOORAM 96- COVILCHERRY PMSH 36 ARIAPUNJARY PMSH 37 SP015A? ALATOOR 170- PMSH 38 SA052A 426-130 MA43 40 MAPOOR PM07 02 SP075A 1 GOOLOOMOODYVAUKUM 2 PERIAPUNNYCHERRY PM02 02 SP069A WA60 1 1/2 CHUMBRUMBAUK PM07 01 SP076B
1 1/2 MAIPOOR PM07 02 SP075A 1 TEROONEERMALLY PM02 06 SA163C 1/2 CADAPARY PM02 07 SA165A 1/2 POOLYCORADOO PM02 08 SA164A 2 CAVANOOR PM06 05 SP086A 1 VELESHERVAUK NC AGARUM NASARUTPOORAM TOOCANAMBUT PR 413.39.36 -----------------------------------------------------------------PM31 VERDIENGAR SH01 MAVALOORCOOPUM 250-50 MA30 12 PALUNTUNDALUM PM06 01 SP090A 5 TERVOMOODYVAUKUM PM06 02 SP091B 5 POOTUNDALUM PM06 07 SP089A 5 PERANGALATOOR 3 CHEMBAUKUM PM18 11 WA60 1 PALUNTUNDALUM PM06 01 SP090A 1 TOOROOMODYVAUK PM06 02 SP091B PR 301.25.70 -----------------------------------------------------------------PM32* RUNGASUMMY MOODELY SH03 PUMBELL 162 PMSH 04 SA129C MAILMANUMBAID PMSH 05 SP026G? VADACAPUT PMSH 06 SP210A? 366-120 MA30 10 COVOOR 4 NERCOOPUM 4 PANAGAVOOR 4 TEROOMOODYVAUKUM PM06 02 SP091B 4 MANAPAUKUM PM15 01 SP066A? 2 MADANUMBAID PM05 14 2 KEELMANUMBAID PM05 13 SP040A WA60 1 CADAPARY PM02 07 SA165A 1 POOLYCORADOO PM02 08 SA164A
NC PUMBEL PMSH 04 SA129C POOLECHALOOR PM18 13 SA127A KEELMANAMBAID PM05 13 SP040A MADAVAMBAONDY MODARUMBAID PM05 14 PR 307.36.53 -----------------------------------------------------------------PM33* TRIVENGADA MOODALY SH01 AMBATOOR 411-100 PMSH 13 SA089A MA30 5 ATTYPUT PM09 05 SA086A 12 NAICOONUM PM16 03 SA100B 3 PATRAWAUKUM PM19 01 SA088A 5 MADURAVASSEL PM16 01 SA099B 5 AYANUMBAUKUM SA085A WA60 1 NECOONUM PM16 03 SA100B 1 AMBATOOR PMSH 13 SA089A PR 395.35.18 -----------------------------------------------------------------PM34* SHEVAPADA MOODELY SH01 CHINNAMANAICKCOOPUM 300-100 PMSH 34 MA30 22 POONAMALLEE PM01 01 SP051B 4 MALAYAMBAUKUM PM01 07 SP073B? 4 COLAPUNJARY PM01 08 SP013A WA60 1 POONAMALLEE PM01 01 SP051B 1 ARIAMANELLORE PM01 10 SP050A PR 287.17.20 -----------------------------------------------------------------PM35* APPAH MOODALY SH02 MOULEVAUKUM PMSH 03 SP063A? CURLAPAUKUM PMSH 33 SP067A? MA30 12 MAUNGAUD PM04 01 SP053C 2 RAGOONAUDAPOORAM PM04 04 SP053E 6 SEENIVASAPOORAM PM04 17 SP057A 2 CAUTOOPAUKUM PM04 13 SP117A? 4 GOOLUMOODYVAUKUM 4 MADANUNTAPOORUM PM15 06 SP064B?
WA60 9 MANGAUDOO PM04 01 SP053E 1 MADANUNTAPOORUM PM15 06 SP064B? 1/2 MAULEVAUK PMSH 03 SP063A? PR 445.25.12 =================================================================SM36* COOMARAPAH MOODELY SH01 CHINDRUMBAUKUM 147-60 SMSH 06 SP076B? MA20 2 PULLAVERAM SM03 01 SA129B 2 TUNDLUM SM03 11 SA082A 2 TURRAPAUKUM SM03 09 SP083A 2 VELLACHERRY SM03 16 SA137A 2 EROOMBALOOR SM03 06 SA170A 2 CHITTALAPAUKUM SM03 07 SA162A 2 TORAPAUKUM SM03 09 SP083A 2 SALOOR SM03 17 SA173A 2 NEMMALYCHERRY SM03 03 SA159A 2 COLAPAUKUM SM03 10 SP067A WA60 N.F VULLOOR 4/27 PULLEE PR 150.17.59 -----------------------------------------------------------------SM37* PUTTARAVY MOODALY SH01 ANNEMBUTTOO 134-74 SMSH 03 SP022A MA20 5 VAPUMBUTTOO SM02 10 TV026A 5 ILOOPANUTTAM 5 NEMMALYCHARRY SM03 03 SA159A 5 AGARAHARAM SM02 12 SP024A WA60 8/32 TENNANOOR SM02 01 SP022F NC ANNUMBUTTOO SMSH 03 SP022A -----------------------------------------------------------------SM38 RAGOONADACHARRY & ROYALIENGAR SH01 COOTRUMBAUKUM 140-60 SMSH 01 SP109A MA20 5 TINNANORE SM02 01 SP022F 3 AMARUMBAID SM04 01 SP185A 5 NAMUM SM01 SP030A?
5 COLATOOR SM04 09 SP187A 2 VELLAVAIDOO SM01 04 SP036A WA60 1/5 PANAVADOOR 1/5 CANAPOLAM 1/51 PURTIPET 26/517 AMARUMBAID SM04 01 SP185A NC KEERNAGARACHARRY PR 107.12.29 -----------------------------------------------------------------SM39 TOPPA MOODALY SH01 POODOOPARRY SMSH 02 SP107A MA20 1 NULLOOR SM04 10 SP106A 6 NARSINGAPOORUM SM01 02 SP035A 2 CORATOOR SM01 14 SP026D 2 NAUTCHEMAIDOO SM01 08 SP027A 2 COOTRUMBAUKUM SM01 01 SP109A 1 VELLUMTONGEL SM04 05 SP116E 2 CAUTARYPUTTOO 2 PARVATARAJAPURAM SM01 03 SP034A 2 TEROOMANUM SM01 09 SP015E WA60 1/32 COOTUMBAUK SM01 01 SP032B 1/4 NAIMUM SM01 07 SP030A PR 164.30.73 =================================================================PO40* NARNIAH SH02 AUTRYAMUNGALUM POSH 10 TADAPARUMBAUKUM POSH 26 PO112D MA30 5 AUMOOR PO01 21 PO078A 10 MADANUMBAIDOO PO04 03 5 SOMANUNJARRY PO02 07 PO102A 10 PONBAUKUM PO04 02WA60 1 AUVOOR PO209A? 3 PAUDYANALLOOR PO06 06 PO008A 1 MADANUMBAID PO04 03 3 PERUMBAID PO02 05 PO162C
NC ALINJAPAUKUM PO01 23 PO065A? CHARAVAUKUM PR 224.25.13 -----------------------------------------------------------------PO41* VENCATACHELLAM MOODALY SH03 VADATUNDLUM POSH 17 TRIPARY POSH 18 SAGOONIAM POSH 18 PO224B? 349-200 MA30 15 ARASOOR PO03 08 PO183A 5 MEDOOR PO03 07 PO178D 10 PANAPAUKUM PO03 17 PO212A WA60 1 ARASOOR PO03 08 PO183A 1 CHITTARASOOR PO03 09 PO182B 1 TADARASOOR PO03 10 PO208D 1 PERUMBAID PO02 05 PO162C NC VADATUNDLUM POSH 17 TRIPARY POSH 18 PR 270.20.67 -----------------------------------------------------------------PO42* MOOTAPAH MOODALY SH02 MERATOOR POSH 11 PO089A VEERUNGAVAUDY POSH 02 PO164A MA30 10 VALOOR PO02 10 PO087B? 5 CADAMUNJARY PO02 13 PO088A? 5 SEROOVALOOR PO02 11 PO086A 10 TUTTAMUNJEE PO02 02 PO100A WA60 1/4 CAUTOOR PO02 01 PO099A whole VELLOOR PO02 20 PO087B whole SEROOVALOOR PO02 11 PO086A whole NAGACHERRY PO02 12 PO087A whole CADAMUNJARY PO02 13 PO088A? whole TENAPAUKUM PO02 15 PO090A whole CADAPAUKUM POSH 14 PO098A whole SAUTAMUNGALUCHERRY PO02 18 1/16 TUTTAMUNJY PO02 02 PO100A
3.75/30 PERUMBAID PO02 05 PO162C PR 481.00.58 -----------------------------------------------------------------PO43* CAUTANOOR SOOBRAMANEYA MOODALY SH03 KANACAVELLYPOORAM POSH 07 PO148A CADOOVARJARRY POSH 09 PO088A AUSANABOODOOR POSH 08 PO165A 300-150 MA30 12 CAUTAWOOR PO01 19 PO184A 3 PALLUMBAUKUM PO01 20 PO185A 5 AYANELLORE PO04 01 PO208A? 10 MEDOOR PO03 07 PO178D WA60 1/4 CAUTAWOOR PO01 19 PO184A 1/4 POOLUMBAUK PO01 20 PO185A 1/10 PERUMBAID PO02 05 PO162C NC ALLADOO POSH 01 PO111A PR 253.11.40 -----------------------------------------------------------------PO44* CHINGLEROY MOODALY SH02 YAROOSHEVEN POSH 03 PO160A MANOHARAM POSH 04 222-80 MA30 10 ANDAVSIL PO03 18 PO207A 5 VALADALUMBAIDOO PO05 03 PO039A 5 CHEMRACAVANUM PO01 09 10 MUTTRAVAIDOO PO01 13 PO159A WA60 3/16 CHINNACAVANUM PO01 09 3/16 AUGARUM PO01 10 PO156A 3/16 COVUNTONGEL PO01 11 PO154A 1/10 PERUMBAID PO02 05 PO162C NC YAROOSHEVEN POSH 03 PO160A MUTTRAVAIDOO PO01 13 PO159A PR 220.27.25 =================================================================PP45 PERMAL MOODALY
SH02 MUNGALUM 128-75 PPSH 04 PO133B NUTTUM 135-75 PPSH 11 PO313B MA20 2 CHENNUMBAID PP03 11 PO127A 5 VADACANELLOOR PP03 02 PO124A 2 CHIVENDAPOORAM PP03 03 PO126A 5 PEROOVOYEL PP07 01 PO122D 4 YALIMBAIDOO PP07 04 PO147A 2 ACCARAPAUKUM PP08 02 TV160A WA60 5/48 CHINNUMBAID PP03 11 PO127A 1/4 VADACANELLOOR PP03 02 PO124A whole SEVUNDAPOORAM PP03 03 PO126A 1/3 MUNGALUM PPSH 04 PO133B NC NUTTAM PPSH 11 PO313B PR 193.03.48 -----------------------------------------------------------------PP46 SOOBOO MOODALY SH02 CAUDANELLOOR 100-60 PPSH 07 ATTYPUTTOO 100-60 PPSH 12 PO043A? MA20 2 CHINNUMBAID PP03 11 PO127A 3 TEROONALAY PP03 06 PO015A? 6 VADAMADARA PP04 01 TV165K 3 CHINNEVAUKUM PP05 03 KA128A? 2 YARANAVAUKUM PP05 16 PO311A 3 PENJETTY PP05 12 PO068A 1 TUCHOOR PP05 07 PO071A WA60 3/4 CHINNUMBAID PP03 11 PO127A 1/4 TEROONELLY PP03 06 PO015A? NC KULAMANY POODAVOIL PPSH 06 PO122E PR 151.27.25 -----------------------------------------------------------------PP47 SAUMIENGAR SH02 AUMUNJEEPAUKUM 100-70 PPSH 02 AULAPAUKUM 90-50 PPSH 01 TV167A MA20 10 MADRAVASSEL PP01 06 5 PANAGUNJARY PP01 05 TV159D
2 MAULEVAUKUM PP05 15 2 VELAPAUKUM PP01 03 TV162A? 1 ACCARAPAUKUM PP08 02 TV160A WA60 14/51 MADARAVASSEL PP01 06 PR 123.15.65 -----------------------------------------------------------------PP48 MOOTAL REDDY SH01 RAULLAPAUDY 150-90 PPSH 13 TV157A MA20 3 AURNEE PP02 01 PO129A 3 MULLIANCOOPUM PP02 03 PO128A 3 MADAVERAM PP05 14 PO130A? 4 MADANUMBAIDOO PP02 09 PO141A? 3 PAULEVAUKUM PP02 04 PO132A 2 YEROOCAUSY PP02 06 PO136A? 2 MOOKOORUMBAUKUM PP06 16 WA60 2/17 ARNEE PP02 01 PO129A PR 112.35.46 =================================================================MM49* RAMANJIENGAR SH02 NEELAMUNGALUM 14-12 MMSH 02 SP110A AMANUMBAUKUM 8-8 MMSH 01 SP037A MA20 2 ARUMBAUKUM MM02 10 SP033A 2 SEROOMATOOR MM02 11 SP102A? 3 AUDANUNJARY MM02 02 SP100A 3 PADAPA MM02 01 SP099B 2 AUDANOOR MM02 03 SP039A 2 MAUNDAMBAUKUM MM02 04 SP041A 3 CAVANOOR MM02 05 SP044A 2 AMUNUMBAUKUM MMSH 10 SP037A 1 CONAUDY MM02 07 CH059A WA60 13 ARUMBAUKUM MM02 10 SP033A 1 AMANUMBAUK MMSH 01 SP037A 1/2 NEELAMUNGALUM MMSH 02 SP110A NC PALANJOOR MM02 12 SP038A CORACUNTONGEL MM02 12 SP038A
-----------------------------------------------------------------MM50* RAGONAUDIENGAR SH01 PUTTYCAUDOO 104-40 MMSH 09 MA20 20 PUTTYCAUDOO MMSH 09 WA60 1 WORAGADUM MM05 01 CH228A? PR 113.17.49 -----------------------------------------------------------------MM51 RUNGIENGAR & KISTNAIENGAR SH02 MAILPUTTOO MMSH 12 SP188A TOONDAKYNIE MMSH 13 SP098B MA30 4 CUSBAH MANIMUNGALUM MM01 01 SP096A 5 SOMUNGALUM MM01 04 SP105C 3 NADAVAPUTTOO MM01 05 SP094B 4 YARYMYOOR MM01 06 SP092A 2 TAUMBRUM MM01 07 SP119B 3 MUMMAVAUKUM MM01 03 SP177B? 2 CAREENENGAL MM01 02 SP097A 1 WOORAPAUKUM MM03 11 CH004A 3 KALUMBAUKUM MM03 12 CH003A 3 NADOONGOONUM MM03 03 CH009B WA60 2 MANIMUNGALUM MM01 01 SP096A PR 139.14.30 -----------------------------------------------------------------MM52 PILLAPAUKUM RAMANJIENGAR SH02 EROOMBAID 65-26 MMSH 14 SP186A WOTUNGAURNAY 5-4 MMSH 15 SP195B MA20 2 WOTUNGAURNAY MMSH 15 SP195B 2 SOOMITRAMBAIDOO MM04 06 2 EROOMBAIDOO MMSH 14 SP186A 2 VENGAUDOO MM04 05 SP184B 1 ARINGAUL MM03 08 CH013A 1 COLAPAUKUM MM03 02 CH011A 2 MUNNOOR MM04 08 SP129A 2 VALAVERAM MM04 13 2 NUMMALY MM04 07 SP126C 2 PENNALOOR MM04 09 SP123A
2 PELLAPAUKUM MM04 01 SP181B WA60 8 PILLAPAUKUM MM04 01 SP181B NC ARENGAL MM03 08 CH013A PR 92.19.30 =================================================================SV53 SAUTUNJARY VENCATACHELLIAH SH00 MA10 2 SAUTUNJARY SV03 01 KA258A 2 AUNGOONUM SV03 05 KA264A 2 PALAVARY SV03 06 KA256A 2 PARANACAWOOR SV03 07 KA275A WA60 1 1/8 SAUTUNJARY SV03 01 KA258A PR 29.31.21 -----------------------------------------------------------------SV54 TAUNDAVAROYA MOODELY SH MA10 5 VECHOOR SV04 02 KA282A 4 CALIAPETTAH SV04 01 KA279A 1 TUNDRA SV04 05 KA283A? WA60 2 VECHOOR SV04 02 KA282A PR 35.17.47 -----------------------------------------------------------------SV55 SHASHIAH SH MA10 6 PALAMATOOR SV05 01 MT007A 4 BOOKITORAY SV05 02 MT008A WA60 3 3/8 PALAMATOOR SV05 01 MT007A PR 38.39.42 -----------------------------------------------------------------SV56 VEERASAMY NAICK SH MA10 4 PULLIAGARUM SV06 02 MT012A 1 CHEMBAUKUM SV06 03 4 MUNGALUM SV06 01 MT014A 1 WOLAYOOR SV06 04 KA298A
WA60 8 PULLIAGARUM SV06 02 MT012A 8 CHEMBAUKUM SV06 03 3 NELLY SV06 11 MT013A PR 38.29.07 -----------------------------------------------------------------SV57 ROYLIAH SH MA10 7 VELLAPUTTOOR SV07 01 MT030A 3 TUTALUM SV07 09 MT039A WA60 N.F VELLAPUTTOOR SV07 01 MT030A PR 27.11.40 -----------------------------------------------------------------SV58 VENCATARAMIAH SH MA10 5 POOLYDEVAUKUM SV08 03 MT019A 3 ANDAVAUKUM SV08 01 MT021A 2 POODOOPUT SV08 06 MT023A WA60 N.F POOLYDEVAUK SV08 03 MT019A N.F YALAPAUKUM SV06 06 KA316A PR 29.26.17 -----------------------------------------------------------------OM59 KASAVIENGAR SH01 MAILPAUKUM 450-200 OMSH 02 KA224A? MA28 18 MAILPAUKUM OMSH 02 KA224A? 4 WOOLOOGARA OM02 02 KA221B 2 COLYALUM OM06 03 MT036A 1 PERUMBAUKUM OM05 01 MY045A 2 CUMMALUMBOONDY OM07 01 KA329B 1 CALIAMBOONDY OM10 02 KA219A WA60 MAILPAUKUM OMSH 02 KA224A? COLYALUM OM06 03 MT036A PR 308.34.40 -----------------------------------------------------------------OM60 VELEVOY SEENIVASIENGAR SH00 MA05 5 NELEVOY OM04 01 MT015A
WA60 NELIVOY OM04 01 MT015A PR 39.32.28 -----------------------------------------------------------------OM61 RAMANIENGAR SH MA07 7 ALASOOR OM02 01 KA220A WA60 ALASOOR OM02 01 KA220A WOLOOGARA OM02 02 KA221B SELAMBAUK OM02 03 KA223A PR 65.36.53 =================================================================CT62 SINGIENGAR SH01 SEROODAMOOR 100-20 CTSH 01 KA269B? MA20 6 MALIANCOLUM CT01 08 KA306A 2 NAREYEMBAUKUM CT01 10 KA308A 2 PADOOR CT02 16 KA268A? 2 SEROOMYLOOR CT02 08 KA267A 4 CUMBARAJAHPOORUM CT01 11 KA205A 2 NAYADYVAUKUM CT01 02 KA252B 2 ANGUMBAUKUM CT02 05 KA196A WA60 5 AUSOOR CT03 06 KA201A 1 MALIANCOLUM CT01 08 KA306A 1 1/2 NAREYEMBAUK CT01 10 KA308A PR 149.06.37 -----------------------------------------------------------------CT63 SINGARACHARRY SH01 KEELAPOODOOR 160-80 MA20 4 VICHENTONGEL CT03 03 KA043A 4 CALACATOOR CT03 01 KA041A 2 ANJOOR CT03 04 KA050A 2 PARAMANELLORE CT03 02 KA045A 2 NEMMALY CT03 07 CH113B? 2 ASOOR CT03 06 KA201A 4 POOSEVAUKUM CT03 10 KA102A WA60 80 VICHENTONGEL CT03 03 KA043A
NC SATTUMTONGEL CT03 05 PR 146.17.20 -----------------------------------------------------------------CT64 SOONDARA MOODALY SH01 MADOOR 140-40 MA20 3 VYLACAWOOR CT02 01 1 CHITTAPAUKUM CT02 02 KA266A 3 POOLLUMBAUKUM CT02 13 KA254A 2 POOLYEMBAUKUM CT02 17 KA108A 2 POOSEVAUKUM CT03 10 KA102A 2 NEMMALY CT03 07 CH113B? 2 ASOOR CT03 06 KA201A 1 ANUMBAUKUM CT02 09 KA271A 2 VALOOR CT01 12 PO042I? 1 CHITTATOOR CT01 13 KA206A? 1 CUMBARAJAPOORAM CT01 11 KA205A WA60 1 1/2 AUNUMBAUKUM CT02 09 KA271A 1 VYLACAWOOR CT02 01 3 VALOOR CT01 06 KA208B NC AUSOOR CT03 06 KA201A PR 162.24.35 -----------------------------------------------------------------CT65 CUNNEAPA MOODALY SH01 VENGACHERRY CTSH 09 KA213A MA20 6 POOTALY CT01 14 KA248B 6 POOLYVAY CT01 17 KA246A 2 CUNNECOLUM CT01 18 KA247A 2 APPIANELLOOR CT01 15 KA248A 2 AUDAVAPAUKUM CT01 03 KA169A? 2 CHEMBAUKUM SV06 03 WA60 1 POOTALY CT01 14 KA248B 2 APPIYANELLORE CT01 15 KA248A PR 128.21.45 =================================================================CL66 TOPPAH MOODALY
SH01 VENGADAMUNGALUM CLSH 11 CH023A MA10 4 TYOOR CL02 01 CH052A 2 PADAWOOR CL04 01 CH046A 3 WOODUNDY CL05 03 1 KYPOTTOOR CL04 04 CH039A WA60 1 TYOOR CL02 01 CH052A NC VENGADAMUNGALUM CLSH 11 CH023A PR 86.14.15 -----------------------------------------------------------------CL67 RAMACHARRY SH02 VALICHOOR 32- CLSH CH042A? AMANUMBAUKUM 30- CH026A? 62-10 MA10 4 COLATOOR CL03 01 CH028A 2 COOMOOLY CL03 03 CH019A 2 CALVOY CL03 04 CH054A 2 SERAVARY WA60 7 COLATOOR CL03 01 CH028A PR 77.36.24 -----------------------------------------------------------------PB68 RAGAVACHARRY SH02 CALYANOOR 145-100 PBSH 06 TV054A CULLUMBUTTOO 13-10 PBSH 07 TV222B MA20 6 YADAYARYPAUKUM PB01 03 SP156A? 4 ARENVOIL PB03 04 TV025A 4 CAUKALOOR PB03 01 TV041A 2 CHEMBAIDOO PB04 01 TV108B? 4 NARSINGAPOORAM PB01 02 TV212A WA60 1 YADYARPAUK PB01 03 SP156A? 1/2 NARSINGAPOORAM PB01 02 TV212A PR 111.19.32 -----------------------------------------------------------------PB69 VENCATASAMY NAICK SH02 AUREYAMBAUKUM 30-5 PBSH 09 KA166A SEVAPOORAM 20-5 PBSH 08 PO110A? MA20 6 PERUMBAUK PB01 01 TV211A
4 PILLOOR PB03 03 TV024A 4 PEDDACOOPUM PB03 02 PO236A? 4 CAUDRAVAIDOO PB04 02 TV105A? 2 SALAY PB02 01 TV019C WA60 1 PERUMBAUKUM PB01 01 TV211A NC NARSINGAPOORAM PB01 02 TV212A PR 95.17.20 =================================================================Source: Statement of the Privileges of the Nattawars, E.Greenway, 28.3.1801, Permanent Settlement Records, Vol.25.Note: 1. * These Nattars were the old Nattars who had enjoyed the privileges before Place granted Cowles in 1797. 2. The Magan number used in the Location Codes corresponds with that of Hodgson's Report in 1799 (Appendix.14). The Census number indicates that of Census in 1971. Below are the abbreviations of the purgannah names. KA -- Conjeveram 01-08 PP -- Peddapollam 45-48 CG -- Carangooly 09-15 MM -- Manimungalum 49-52 CH -- Chingleput 16-22 SV -- Salivauk 53-58 TP -- Tripassore 23-28 OM -- Outramalore 59-61 PM -- Poonamallee 29-35 CT -- Cavantundlum 62-65 SM -- Sautmagans 36-39 CL -- Covelong 66-67 PO -- Ponnary 40-44 PB -- Perumbaukum 68-693. KA01 VENCATARAMIAH -- The Nattar is Vencataramiah of Conjeveram. His Serial No. is 01.4. SH -- Shrotrium. SH03 means that he held three Shrotrium villages. The village rented by the Nattars by a fixed rent. For instance a Nattar rent a village for 100 Pagodas a year, but may collect 150 Pagodas from the villagers. The balance of 50 Pagodas is his profit from the village. This is shown in the list as 150-100.5 . MA -- Maniam. Tax free lands. Nattars possessed Maniam lands in different parts of the district. It is calculated by Greenway that one cawnie of
Maniam land is equal to 2 Pagodas annual profit. MA30 means he possessed 30 cawnies of maniam lands in total. The figures indicates the cawnies in the respective village where he possess Maniam. 6. WA -- Warum. Suppose the whole produce of the cultivation is 100 Cullums, the share (Warum) given to the ordinary inhabitants were around 45-50 per cent. In the case of Nattars, the share given to them was either 60 per cent or 55 per cent, or 10 per cent higher than others. WA60 and WA55 was the share taken by the Nattars in the whole produce. 7. NC -- Uncultivated lands held by the Nattars.8. PR -- Profit held by the Nattar for the year. It consisted of the profits from the Shrotrium villages (Rent collected from the village minus rent to be paid to the Government), Maniam lands (1 cawnie = 2 Pagodas), and Warum lands (difference between the Nattars' special share and the ordinary share). 125.12.36 indicates that the annual profit is 125 Pagodas 12 Fanams 36 Cash.9. ? -- In case the village's Location Code in 1971 Census is not identified, question mark is added.
JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5
APPENDIX.6
APPENDIX.6GROUNDS CULTIVATED BY NATTARS, OULCUDIES, AND PERACUDIES IN THE 27 VILLAGES IN TIRUVENDIPURAM FARM
=================================================================== NATTARS OULCUDIES PERACUDIES TOTAL Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul -------------------------------------------------------------------
MANAMADAVY Paddy 54.31 In Share 22.96 4.00 Rent(Tax) 7.38 5/8 19.96 3/8 Small Grain 77.44 1/4 Rent(Tax) 20.60 3/8 19.71 3/8 16.47 1/2+20.65 TOTAL 50.95 43.68 3/4 37.12 1/2 131.75 1/4 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (A) 39 33 2 100
WOTARY Paddy 43.26 In Share 9 0.30 1.70 Rent(Tax) 6.20 2.21 23.85 Small Grain 19.38 Rent(Tax) 5.60 1.35 4.52 Rent(No Tax) 7.90 TOTAL 20.80 3.86 37.97 62.64 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (B) 33 6 61 100
KEELACOPANG Paddy 9.50 Rent(Tax) 2.88 4.91 1.71 Small Grain 40.94 Rent(Tax) 7.98 24.31 5.50 Rent(No Tax) 1.70 1.15 TOTAL 10.86 30.92 8.36 50.44 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (B) 21 61 17 100
SUNDARAWANDY Paddy 5.00 In Share 2.00 Rent(Tax) 2.12 0.85 Small Grain 49.15
Rent(Tax) 44.68 4.47 TOTAL 2.00 46.80 5.32 54.15 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (B) 4 86 10 100
NATTARS OULCUDIES PERACUDIES TOTAL Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul -------------------------------------------------------------------TREMANICULY Paddy 32.90 In Share 17.75 5.36 7.14 Rent(Tax) 2.65 Small Grain 88.37 Rent(Tax) 12.72 55.86 19.79 TOTAL 30.47 61.22 29.58 121.27 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (B) 25 50 24 100 MURDAUD Paddy 17.02 In Share 7.90 4.00 1.08 Rent(Tax) 2.24 1.80 Small Grain 7.37 Rent(Tax) 5.98 1/2 Rent(No Tax) 1.38 1/2 TOTAL 7.90 13.61 2.88 24.39 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (C) 32 59 12 100TOATAPUT Paddy 23.25 In Share 9.15 12.60+1.10* 0.40 Small Grain 19.58 Rent(No Tax) 4.00 15.58 TOTAL 13.15 29.28 0.40 42.83 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (C) 31 68 1 * Watered from Picotahs.
RAMAPORAM 17.22 Paddy Rent(Tax) 3.00 10.01 0.71 Rent(No Tax) 3.50 Small Grain 107.87 Rent(Tax) 10.26 86.76 3.85 Rent(No Tax) 7.00 TOTAL 13.26 96.77 15.06 125.09 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (D) 11 77 12 100CHINNAGANGANAMCOPAM Paddy 22.20 In Share 14.20 8.00 Small Grain 18.15 Rent(Tax) 18.15 TOTAL 32.35 8.00 40.35 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (E) 80 20 100 NATTARS OULCUDIES PERACUDIES TOTAL Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul -------------------------------------------------------------------MUNDAGAPUT Paddy 50.15 In Share 15.07 29.05+6.03 Small Grain 111.38 Rent(Tax) 5.76 105.62 TOTAL 20.83 140.70 161.53 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (A) 13 87 100
NELLATTORE Paddy 80.95 In Share 17.85 40.12 Rent(Tax) 20.33 Rent(No Tax) 2.65 Small Grain 149.66
Rent(Tax) 3.66 144.47 Rent(No Tax) 1.53 TOTAL 21.51 209.16 230.61 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (F) 9 91 100
TIRTORIORE Paddy 9.60 In Share 2.25 6.60+0.50 0.25 Small Grain 85.11 Rent(Tax) 9.45 7/8 63.24 5/8 3.16 Rent(No Tax) 9.24 1/2 TOTAL 11.70 7/8 69.85 1/8 12.65 1/2 94.71 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (E) 12 74 13 100
AULAPAUKUM Paddy 45.59 In Share 19.25 Rent(Tax) 21.22 5.12 Small Grain 7.93 Rent(Tax) 2.05 5.65 0.23 TOTAL 21.30 26.87 5.35 53.52 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (G) 40 50 10 100
NATTARS OULCUDIES PERACUDIES TOTAL Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul -------------------------------------------------------------------TONDAMANUTTAM
Paddy 47.54 In Share 6.00 Rent(Tax) 37.38 3.69 Rent(No Tax) 0.27 0.20 Small Grain 97.77 In Share 7.34 71.63 Rent(Tax) 9.14 Rent(No Tax) 0.95 8.71 TOTAL 13.34 110.23 21.74 145.31 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (D) 9 76 15 100
WARGALPUT Paddy 56.12 In Share 20.75 29.35 Rent(Tax) 6.02 Small Grain 30.49 Rent(Tax) 0.95 14.01 12.38 Rent(No Tax) 1.60 1.55 TOTAL 21.70 50.98 13.93 86.61 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (H) 25 59 16 100
ARRIAVETTY Paddy 133.64 In Share 19.40 Rent(Tax) 107.84 Rent(No Tax) 2.40 4.00 Small Grain 225.00 Rent(Tax) 200.65 3.05 Rent(No Tax) 13.00 8.30 TOTAL 343.29 15.35 358.64 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (I) 96 4 100
PACHANCOPANG
Paddy 3.37 Rent(Tax) 2.67 0.70 Small Grain 4.96 Rent(Tax) 4.96 TOTAL 7.63 0.70 8.33 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (J) 92 8 100
NATTARS OULCUDIES PERACUDIES TOTAL Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul -------------------------------------------------------------------TREVENDAPURAM Paddy 5.49 Rent(Tax) 5.49 Small Grain 58.10 Rent(Tax) 7.60 Rent(No Tax) 50.50 TOTAL 63.59 63.59 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (B) 100 100
ARISHEPERIANCOOPANG Paddy 4.81 Rent(Tax) 1.31 Rent(No Tax) 3.50 Small Grain 11.18 Rent(Tax) 7.96 Rent(No Tax) 3.22 TOTAL 15.99 15.99 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (J) 100 100
CARUPEDYTUNDO Paddy 1.90 Rent(No Tax) 1.90 Small Grain 4.40
Rent(No Tax) 4.40 TOTAL 6.30 6.30 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (J) 100 100
PUDOPETTAH -- A fishing village on the sea beach. TOTAL 0.00
COOTAVAKUM -- An Inam village held by the Brahmins. TOTAL 24.25 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (J) 100VEERAPERMALNELLORE Paddy 160.30 In Share 40.53 117.77 1.50 Rent(No Tax) 0.50 Small Grain 232.40 Rent(Tax) 25.56 150.90 12.27 Rent(No Tax) 3.06 40.65 TOTAL 69.15 309.32 14.27 392.70 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (E) 18 79 4 100 NATTARS OULCUDIES PERACUDIES TOTAL Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul Caw.Cul -------------------------------------------------------------------PILLALY Paddy 33.60 Rent(Tax) 12.84 Rent(No Tax) 12.12 8.64 Small Grain 61.60 Rent(Tax) 34.11 Rent(No Tax) 23.18 4.31 TOTAL 48.14 47.06 95.20 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (A) 51 49 100PONNIANCOPANG
Paddy 9.84 Rent(Tax) 9.60 Rent(No Tax) 0.24 Small Grain 1.07 Rent(Tax) 0.59 Rent(No Tax) 0.48 TOTAL 10.91 10.91 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (J) 100 100 COMARAPETTA Paddy 4.39 Rent(Tax) 4.39 Small Grain 5.83 Rent(Tax) 5.83 TOTAL 10.22 10.22 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (J) 100 100MAVEDYPOLLAM Paddy 1.00 Rent(Tax) 1.00 Small Grain 10.18 Rent(Tax) 10.18 TOTAL 11.18 11.18 -------------------------------------------------------------- % (J) 100 100VETTUCOLUM Paddy 1.00 Rent(Tax) 1.00 Small Grain 0.87 Rent(Tax) 0.87 TOTAL 1.87 1.87------------------------------------------------------------------- % (K) 100 100 ===================================================================Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in
Selections from the Records of the South Arcot District, No.IV, 1888.Note: The extent of Cawnie and Culie differs from village to village. 1 Cawnie = 100 Culies1 Culie = 1 square of (A=39), (B=34), (C=52), (D=49), (E=36), (F=38), (G=40.1 1/2), (H=33), (I=38 1/2), (J=51 1/2), (K=51) English feet.
APPENDIX.7
APPENDIX.7JUNCANS AND FEES COLLECTED IN THE TIRUVENDIPURAM FARM IN THE YEAR 1772
1. AT THE JUNCAN PLACES OF SHARADY, RAMAPORAM, PADRYCOPANG, COMERAPURAM, TOUTAPUT, CUDDALORE RIVER SIDE
Juncan *Fees Goods F C F C --------------------------------------------------------------- 3.25 1.55 Sandalwood, broad cloth of all sorts,nutmegs, mace cloves, lead, tin , tuthenaigur, washiing stuff, mahmoties, iron, steel, beetle nuts, turmeric, long pepper, pepper, chillies,suffron, copper, musk, ginger, garlic, quinter seeds, chayroot, jagary, sugar, salt petre, physic
salt,brimstone, hing, mustard seeds, mint seeds, common seeds, garlinger 6.50 3.30 Cotton thread, cotton, ghee, oil 6.50 3.30 Callicoes brought into the bounds 7.70 3.30 Callicoes passing from the southward to the northward nil nil Callicoes brought for the Company 7.70 3.30 Indigo, tobacco 16.50 3.30 Ganjee 2.49 1.55 Gingelee seeds, lamp oil seeds, horse gram, cotton seeds, sanigalo, wheat, amounds, callivances, green gram, black gram, red gram, indigo seeds, jayara seeds 1.73 1.27 Warago without husk, rice 1.06 0.69 Small quantity of paddy, combo, warago with husk, natcheny, shama, cholum, tena, caudacuuny (29.20)(35.60) 110 small oxen load of paddy, combo, warago with husk, natcheny, shama, cholum, tena, caudacuuny 2.24 0.56 Cocoanut, jagary ball, plantain, lime, jack 2.00 1.00 Beetle leaves (8.00) nil Piece goods carried in baskets ---------------------------------------------------------------Note: Juncans were levied on some other goods, but no fees were collected for the individuals.
The Fees to Individuals were shared as follows:---------------------------------------------One pagoda of Trevendeiporam 20One pagoda of Tremanycuyly 20One pagoda of Trepapolore 203 Inhabitants formerly Nattars 201 Head Conicoply of the farm 101 Naudashary Braminy 101 Shingrachary Braminy 101 Shamachary Braminy 51 Timmenachary Braminy 2 1/2
1 Ragavachary Braminy 2 1/2 1 Vencatachary Braminy 2 1/21 Vizeangar Braminy 2 1/21 Oppaniengar Braminy 2 1/21 Veragapermal Iyengar Braminy 2 1/21 Watiar Annaviangar Braminy 2 1/21 Fackeer Abdulla 1 1/41 Pandarum of a Choultry at Sharady 1 1/4--------------------------------------------- Fanam 1.55
2. CORAVER OR WESTWARD MERCHANTS WHO PAID LESS JUNCANS THAN OTHERS
Juncan *Fees Goods F C F C ---------------------------------------------------------- 1.43 0.52 Gingelee oil seeds, lamp oil seeds, horse gram, small grain of different sorts 2.23 0.52 Mustard seeds, mentiseeds, and other seeds for curry stuff (25.60) (4.40) 110 Oxen load of salt ----------------------------------------------------------
The Fees to Individuals were shared as follows:---------------------------------------------1 Pagoda of Trevendiporam 101 Pagoda of Tremaniculy 101 Pagoda of Trepopalore 103 Inhabitants formerly Nattars 101 Head Conicoply of the Farm 51 Madashary Bramin 51 Shamachary Bramin 2--------------------------------------------- Cash 52
Note: The fees for the salt are shared by the same individuals in the same proportion as above.3. RAMIA PONDARUM &C. PONDAREM MERCHANTS OF THE MERCHANTS OF THE WESTWARD COUNTRY
Juncan *Fees Goods F C F C --------------------------------------------------------- 0.48 0.52 Lamp and gengelee oil seeds, horse gram, wheat,sanigaloo,cotton seeds,callavanees, black,red and green grain, indigo seeds 1.18 0.52 Mustard seeds, mentiseeds, and other seeds for curry, sugar (15.50) (5.40) 110 oxen loads of salt ---------------------------------------------------------
The Fees to Individuals were shared as follows:--------------------------------------------1 Pagoda of Trevendiporam 101 Pagoda of Tremaniculy 101 Pagoda of Trepopalore 103 Inhabitants formerly Nattars 101 Head Conicoply of the Farm 51 Madashary Bramin 51 Shamachary Bramin 2-------------------------------------------- Cash 52
Note: The fees for the salt are shared by the same individuals in the same proportion as above.
4. CATCHALACHITTY AND MOODUNAIK MERCHANTS OF CUDDALORE
Juncan *Fees Goods
F C F C ----------------------------------------------------------- 0.37 0.47 Lamp and gingelee oil seeds, horse gram, wheat, sanigaloo, cotton seeds, callavanees, black and red gram, indigo seeds 1.07 0.47 Mustard seeds, mentiseeds, and other seeds for curry, sugar 0.25 0.47 Paddy and other grain (15.50) (5.40) 110 oxen load of salt -----------------------------------------------------------
The Fees to Individuals were shared as follows:-------------------------------------------1 Pagoda of Trevendiporam 101 Pagoda of Tremaniculy 101 Pagoda of Trepopalore 103 Inhabitants formerly Nattars 101 Head Conicoply of the Farm 51 Shamachary Bramin 2------------------------------------------- Cash 47
5. COOPA NAIK, SANJIVEE NAIK, AND RANGAPA NAIK PAINTERS OF TREPAPALORE
Juncan *Fees Goods F C F C ------------------------------------------- 5.35 1.55 All painted goods carried by them out of the bounds -------------------------------------------
The Fees to Individuals were shared as follows:-----------------------------------------------One pagoda of Trevendeiporam 20One pagoda of Tremanycuyly 20One pagoda of Trepapolore 203 Inhabitants formerly Nattars 201 Head Conicoply of the farm 101 Naudashary Braminy 101 Shingrachary Braminy 101 Shamachary Braminy 51 Timmenachary Braminy 2 1/21 Ragavachary Braminy 2 1/2 1 Vencatachary Braminy 2 1/21 Vizeangar Braminy 2 1/21 Oppaniengar Braminy 2 1/21 Veragapermal Iyengar Braminy 2 1/21 Watiar Annaviangar Braminy 2 1/21 Fackeer Abdulla 1 1/41 Pandarum of a Choultry at Sharady 1 1/4----------------------------------------------- Fanam 1.55
5. OIL PEOPLE AND CHITTEES OF TREVENDEEPORAM AND CUDDALORE BOUNDS
Juncans were levied on some goods, but no fees were collected for the individuals.6. JUNCAN PLACE OF TRIMANICULY
Juncan *Fees Goods F C F C ---------------------------------------------------- 1.60 0.60 Indigo, beetle nuts, ganjee or bang, coconuts, jagry, callicoes,----------------------------------------------------
The Fees to Individuals were shared as follows:-------------------------------------------1 Pagoda of Trevendiporam 203 Inhabitants formerly Nattars 201 Conicoply of the Farm 101 Naudachary Bramin 10------------------------------------------- Cash 60
Juncans were levied on some other goods, but no fees were collected for the individuals.
8. JUNCAN PLACE OF ARIAVETTY
Juncan *Fees Goods F C F C ------------------------------------------------------ 5.20 5.20a 100 oxen load of salt 3.20 2.61b Cotton thread, cotton and Indigo seeds 1.32 1.30c Indigo 0.53 0.52d Beetle Nuts, pepper, turmerick, tamarinds &c. goods 0.18 0.34e Paddy ------------------------------------------------------
The Fees of a,b,c,d,e to Individuals were shared as follows:a.1 Husbandman formerly a Nattar 2.00 1 Village Conicoply 2.00 1 Shroff 1.20------------------------------------------- 5.20
b.
1 Husbandman formerly a Nattar 531 Village Conicoply 52 1 Shroff 121 Watcher 1.24--------------------------------------------- 2.61c.1 Husbandman formerly a Nattar 261 Village Conicoply 26 1 Shroff 61 Watcher 52--------------------------------------------- 1.30
d.1 Husbandman formerly a Nattar 131 Village Conicoply 13 1 Watcher 26--------------------------------------------- 52
e.1 Husbandman formerly a Nattar 131 Village Conicoply 8 1 Shroff 11 Watcher 111 Toaty 1--------------------------------------------- 34
Juncans were levied on some other goods, but no fees were collected for the individuals.
Source: Reports and Accounts of the Old Farm of Tiruvendipuram, in Selections
fromthe Records of the South Arcot district, No.IV, Printed at the Coillectorate Press, 1888, pp.11-14.
APPENDIX.8
APPENDIX.8UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS BY GRAMATTANS IN SEVERAL VILLAGES IN SOUTH ARCOT
1. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN VEERTANAGERRY VILLAGE OF BOWANGHERRY DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED =========================================================================== AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR
56.21.64
DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDER BY CASHPaid Tutapilly curnum above his pay 17.26.58Paid an ironsmith his allowance fixed by the circar which the puttah monigar having embezzled he was ordered to pay if from his private account instead of which he did so from extra collections 1.11.20Paid a totty do, do 1.16.14 Paid for Vellore cows purchased by the puttah monigar for his private
2.14. 5Taken by Puttah Monigar as batta for exchanging pagodas deficient in weight 0.19.55Taken by Puttah Monigar he falsely alleging it to have been paid on account of the village
last year 1. 0. 0Paid to the church for a ceremony 2.22.40Paid to alms to Vurdacharry 1. 0. 0Paid to Chetumber Pundarum 0. 2.65Paid to a lame man 0. 1.32Paid for funeral ceremonies of a curnum 0.11.20Paid for 5 Mahataudu Peons as batta on their coming to collect the money
0.20.31Paid for bribe to Narrain Row Tasildar to withhold the collection of false shavie 25. 0. 0Paid for Nagayah Vakeel of Veerswanata Reddy Natwar 3. 0. 0Taken by Gramatan for his private expence 0. 7.59-------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 56.21.64--------------------------------------------------------------------------Bereez for Fusly 1214 - 203.12.1, or 27.35.33.3/4 per cent on the whole assesment.===========================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
2. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN VULLUM VILLAGE OF TRIVADY DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED - See TABLE.III-4-9 -
3. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN CARANGOOLY VILLAGE OF BHOVAN
GHERRY DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED ===========================================================================AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR 110.35.12
DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDERBy Cash Paid conicopillah Mootien on account of batta 4.42.15Paid notagar from this collction his allowance fixed by the circar having been embezzled by the monigar 1.14.5Paid on account of Olahs for writing village accounts 0.10.44Paid batta to cirkar people and charitable purposes 6. 5.50Paid Coollun Taliar his allowance paid by the cirkar having been embezzled by the monigar 1. 9.67Paid Toty his allowance fixed by the cirkar having been embezzled by the monigar2.36.45Paid the church on account of daily expenses 5.16.70Paid to the Mahatidee peon who came to colect money 3.18.22Paid alms to Ramalingyah 1. 0. 0Paid sundry charges in the village 2. 0. 0Paid Appajiyah on going to Rameswaram 1. 0. 0Paid Teeroovengadyah on account of his marriage 1. 0. 0Paid batta for exchanging pagodas deficient in weights 4.24.49Taken by Veerah Reddy Monigar on account of Batta 11.22.40Taken by Veerah Reddy Monigar in ready money 5.14. 5Paid bribe to Narrain Row Tasildar fo withholding the collection of false shavie 29. 0. 0Paid Colundavalapilla Zareebdar for making onto false account of shavie 30. 0. 0--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 110.35.12--------------------------------------------------------------------------Bereez for fusly 1214 - 317.19.35 or About 34.40.31 3/4 per cent on the whole assesment.==========================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
4. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN RETTANE VILLAGE OF TENDIVANUM DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED ==========================================================================AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR 32. 2. 9
DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDERBy CashPaid Severam Naig Cavelgar for his expence 2. 0. 0Paid the Pelliar Church for making Aubesharum 0.10. 0Paid to repair the Padarus church 2. 0. 0Paid for making Poojah to Padarus Church 2.11. 0Paid alms to a Bramin 0. 6. 0Paid alms to Allagramum Causeyputtiah Braminy 0.22.40Paid for the marriage of Appaje's son 1. 0. 0Paid alms to Apppausawmy Iyengar 0.13. 0Paid Senevasa Soobiah for ceremony 0. 8. 0Paid alms to fakeer 0.13. 0Paid the Malabar school for Dasara feast 0. 6. 0Paid charity for repairing a tank at Tendivanum 0. 8. 0Paid for Olahs to write the Curnum's account 0.22.40
Paid batta for exchanging deficient in weights 2.16.70Paid a peon to watch the charity Tamarind garden 0.36.46Paid Cootiah Pillah curnum above his pay for batta 3.40.63Paid to a peon employed to watch depredations in the produce of cultivation 1.22.40Paid batta to a curnum confined at Trevendepoorum 0.22.40Paid a taliar above his pay 1. 0. 0Paid Notagar to go to Treputty 1.22.40Paid Totty above his pay 1. 0. 0Paid the church for Navaratry feast 1. 0. 0Paid a Pundarum of a flower garden 0.22.40Paid batta to Sunjiviah and Nanavaiah Gramatans 1.32.20Paid a huntsman for watching the wild hogs in the fields 1. 0. 0Paid 13 peons batta &ca. on their coming to collect the money 5.25.50-------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 32. 2. 9--------------------------------------------------------------------------Bereez for F.1214, 498.22.19, about 6.19.10 per cent on the whole assessment.==========================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
5. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN PAURVATEPOORAM VILLAGE OF TENDIVANUM DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED ==========================================================================AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR
32. 2. 9
DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDERBy CashPaid Colundavalapillee surveyor 19.22.40Paid Soobaray Pillay curnum of Soo Hoogooley 9. 0. 0Paid a Mahatady peon who came to collect money 1.22.40Paid for the Peddarry church 2. 0. 0Paid the carpenter and ironsmith whose allowance as fixed by the circar, the monigar embezzled and paid them this from extra collections
1.11.20Taken by Soobbiah manager for his private expense 10.11.20-------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 45. 0. 0--------------------------------------------------------------------------Bereez for F.1214, 203.25.25, about 22. 5. 7 per cent on the whole assessment.==========================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
6. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN PAREPARIANCOOPPUM VILLAGE OF TREVADY DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED ==========================================================================AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR 122.28.54
DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDERBy Cash
Paid for Vuttum but embezzled by monigars 6.31.51 Paid for Ishvara church 4. 5.50Paid Pilliar and Padar churches 3.30.75Paid for olahs to write village accounts 0. 3.41
Taken by Puttah Monigar for private use 48. 7.59do do being the Teervah of Tamarind and Mungoe Topes not entered in Circar account 23. 7. 2do paid to bazar merchants on account of things 1.42.15 ------------- Brought by the Puttah Monigar 73.11.76
Paid to Puttah Monigar's friend inhabitants of this villages vizt. Shistnam 2. 3.41 Durmaraja Padiatchey 1. 0. 0 Curta Padiatchey 5. 1.32 Vellen Padiatchey 0.19.55 Colunda Padiatchey 0.24.49 Pogal Naick 2. 0. 0 Sub-total 11. 4.17 Paid to coolies employed on repairing the public roads 0.36.45Paid to the curnum above his pay 8.13.29Paid for Jack fruits to send to the Tasildar and his goomastahs at Villapooram0.12.53Paid to Ramalinga Pillah surveyor 5.29.43Paid to the Deloyet employed at overseer on repairing the public road
0. 6.26Paid to 13 Mahatady peons at the time they came to collect circar's kists money2. 0. 3Paid alms to Irseppillah 0.22.40Paid alms to Punchangum Ramalingheer 0. 2.65Paid a Bramin going to Ramashewaram 0. 8.35Paid alms to Venketramen 0. 5.50
Paid to the dancing girls at Trevady 0. 5.50Paid a Pundarum of Verdachellum 0. 5.50Paid to a Mootiah Pundarum 0. 5.50Paid to a Pariah player 0. 5.50Paid to Calletetan Nalavah 0. 5.50Batta to dancing girls 0. 2.66Paid to Soobaroya Goorookul 0. 2.50Paid to Collettoo Corrah 0. 5.50Paid to Dasherry Venketputty on going to Ramashvarum 1. 0. 0Paid a bullock purchased by Rasuppah Padiatchy Gramattan 3. 0. 0Paid for Varagoo grain purchased by Rasuppa Padiachey Gramattan 0.33.60 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 122.28.54--------------------------------------------------------------------------Bereez for F.1214, 249.14.61, about 49. 8.42 per cent on the whole assessment.==========================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
7. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN GUDALORE VILLAGE OF TREVADY DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED ==========================================================================AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR 46.30.75
DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDERBy Cash
Paid Vuttum for filed(fired?) pagoda 6.36.46Paid for the church of Gramattan 1.23.16Paid for olahs purchased to write village accounts 0.11.20Paid for alms to the poor as follows: Nadeput Iyengar 0. 3.41 Venketampetta Chinnatomby Pillah 0. 4.74 Treecovellore Venketachellum 1. 0. 0 Mavadundul Dasary 0. 5.50 Dancer 0. 2.65 Pariah dancer 0. 5.50 For the marriage of a Toty 0.11.20 Sub-total 1.33.60Paid to purchasing a seale(scale?) for a Notager 0. 2.65Paid 10 Mahatady peons on their proceeding to the village to collect circar money1.17.46Paid to curnum Veloydapilla above his pay 12.16.70Paid Gramattan Permal Naig's private expense 19. 1.32 Paid to surveyor Ramalinga Pilla 3.22.40-------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 46.30.75--------------------------------------------------------------------------Bereez for F.1214, 428. 1.32, about 10.42.17 per cent on the whole assessment.==========================================================================Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
8. ACCOUNT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS IN ACOLAGRAMUM VILLAGE OF TINDIVANUM DISTRICT IN FUSLEY 1214 AND HOW THE MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED
==========================================================================AMOUNT OF UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE GRAMATTAN OR PUTTAH MONIGAR 45. 2.65
DISBURSEMENTS THEREFROM BY PUTTA MONIGAR OR HIS ORDERBy CashPaid to a Malabar schoolmaster on Dasara feast 0.14. 0Paid to 2 Takeers at Mahurrum feast 0.25. 0Paid Permal Naig as charity 0. 6. 0Paid to the peons of Vatavalum Bundary on their coming to apprehend thieves
1.22.40Paid a Punchangum Bramin to celebrate his marriage 2. 0. 0Paid alms to a Bramin 0.12. 0Paid to a church Bramin for his Pagoda 2. 0. 0Taking by the Gramattan as Batta on his going to Cutcherry 2.22.40Paid Rungungar doctor for funeral ceremony 1.22.40Paid as charity to repair a tank at Trindevanum 0.24. 0Paid a merchant as a debt due by the Gramattan to him 1.18. 0Paid a peon for watching a tank1.22.40 Paid to repair the church at Sendamungalum 1. 0. 0Paid for a lamp oil on account of this village cutchery 0.26. 0Paid for olahs to write the curnum's account 0.24. 0Paid carpenter Aroonachellum 1. 0. 0
Paid for the expense of the church Abshagum 0.30. 0 on account of the feast of Shravanum 0.16. 0 on account of the feast of Nurratrie 2. 0. 0 on account of the feast of Southy 0.32. 0 oil for Abshagum 1. 0. 0 Abshagum made on account of the eclipses 0.22.40 Dupawaley feast 0.22.40 kawithikee feast 0.22.40 Pongal feast 1.22.40
Typoosem feast 0.11.20 Rannaowmey feast 1.22.40 Sub-total 9.21.60
Paid 12 Mahatady peons on their coming to collect the money 16.23.58 Paid kist on cutchery Iawabnevess as bribe 1. 5.50Paid kistnungar rossum Iawabnevess as bribe 0.26.57-------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 45. 2.65--------------------------------------------------------------------------Bereez for F.1214, 1033.4.73, about 4.16.21 3/4 per cent on the whole assessment.==========================================================================JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5Source: Letter from the Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, in BOR Proceedings, 2.1.1806.
APPENDIX.9
APPENDIX.9 ACCOUNTS OF BULLION TRADE RECORDED IN THE DIARY OF A.R.PILLAI
====================================================================================== DATE SHIP FROM TO SILVER--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. 6.1737 Phelippeaux Europe 30,000 marcs17. 6.1737 Duc de Bourbon Europe 30,000 marcs 20. 6.1737 Chauvelin Europe 25,000 marcs28. 6.1737 Phelippeaux Chandernagore 3,00,000 rupees13. 7.1737 Chauvelin Chandernagore 5,00,000 rupees
6. 5.1738 Comte de Toulouse France Chandernagore 40,000 marcs 9. 7.1738 Duchess France etc. Chandernagore 29. 6.1739 Duc d'Orleans L'Orient Perak 400,000 dollars 10. 1.1740 Penthievre 200 chests16. 6.1743 Phenix France 17. 6.1743 Argonaute France Goa,Porto Novo 4. 5.1745 Charles Manilla 9. 7.1746 8 ships France,Mascareigne 40,000 marcs 3. 8.1746 9 ships 25,000 rupees 8.10.1746 Centaure etc. France,Mascareigne 120 chests 1. 3.1747 220,000 dollars24. 3.1747 Princess Amelia Europe 42 chests 23. 6.1748 8 ships France 13,50,000 rupees 7. 7.1749 Machault Cochin-China 60,000 dollars29. 9.1749 Europe 133 chests 23.10.1749 Abeille Mahe,Europe 2,00,000 rupees 23.10.1747 Bengal 6,00,000 rupees 6. 1.1750 Vengeur Europe etc. China 400,000 dollars10. 6.1750 Maurepas Europe,Mauritious 40,000 marcs 6. 7.1750 Maurepas Bengal 40,0000 rupees 9. 7.1750 Fleury etc. Masulipatam 1,00,000 rupees 26. 7.1750 Achille Europe 145 chests or (40,000 marcs)28. 7.1750 La Reine Europe 135 chests or (40,000 marcs) 8.10.1750 Hercule Europe,Mascareigne 50 chests 19. 5.1751 Duc de Parme Europe 133 chests or (10,000 marcs)12. 6.1751 Rouille Europe 106 chests or (34,379 marcs)29. 6.1752 La Reine Europe 106 chests13. 7.1752 Centaure 121 chests30. 7.1752 La Reine Bengal 6,00,000 rupees24. 5.1753 Lys Europe 20,000 marcs
5. 2.1755 Machault Europe,Mahe 33 chests or (12,018 marcs)or (2,50,000 rupees)10. 8.1755 Bourbon Europe 10. 7.1756 Tranquebar Bengal 7 chests or (1,00,000 rupees)14.11.1757 Mahe 5,00,000 rupees28. 4.1758 Europe etc. 96,000 marcs16. 9.1759 (27 chests)or (7,800 marcs)or (1,60,000 rupees)====================================================================================== Source: Diary of A.R.Pillai.
APPENDIX.10JUSTIFY.FRM 6.00 LPI a 英 10 漢 5
APPENDIX.10 PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES TRANSACTED IN FORT ST.GEORGE
============================================================================================== DATE GOODS PRICES REMARKS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28. 2.1730 Paddy 25.22.40/G Bought by WHK. 30. 4.1730 Paddy 509.35.12/63G.80Mer. Bought by WHK.31.10.1730 Rice 60 P/G Bought by WHK.19. 1.1734 Rice Fine 3 Mer/P Present to Imam Sahib. Rice Coarse 5 Mer/P Ditto. Sugar Candy 20.18.0/CANDY Ditto. Sugar 26.18.0/CANDY Ditto. Almonds 40 P/CANDY Ditto. Raisons 19.12.0/10 MD Ditto.
Pistahshes 3.4.40/12 1/2 Seer Ditto. Cloves 11 P/20 Seer Ditto. Cinamon 4.18.0/2 MD Ditto. Nutmegs 14 F/Seer Ditto. Mau 34 F/Seer Ditto. Cardamum 10 F/Seer Ditto. Pepper 1.11.20/MD Ditto. Cummin Seeds 3.9.0/MD Ditto. Musk 10 P/Seer Ditto. Saffron 5 P/Seer Ditto. Gram 1.6.50/4 MER Ditto. Surat Wheat 150 P/G Ditto. Onion 0.14.60/5 MD Ditto. Turmeric 15 F/MD Ditto. Garlick 34 F/MD Ditto. Corianderseed 20 F/MD Ditto. Anni Seed 2 F/LB. Ditto. Wheat Flour 4 4/5 F/MEASURE Ditto.18.11.1735 Rice Fine 4 Mer/P Present to Imam Sahib. Rice Coarse 5.5 Mer/P Ditto. Horse Gram 60 Mer/P DITTO. Gram 4 Mer/P DITTO. Wheat 120 Mer/G DITTO. Pepper 1.15.24 /MD DITTO. Garlick 2.30.70 / 20 VISS DITTO. 6. 1.1736 Paddy 15 Mer/P Very low as the monsoon is very favourable.22. 3.1736 Paddy 22 3/4 P/G Bought by WHK. 3. 1.1737 Paddy 12 Mer/P Distributed among the Company's employee.28. 2.1737 Cotton 30 P/Candy Very high price.21. 4.1737 Rice Fine 4.5 Mer/P Present to Imam Sahib. Rice Coarse 8 Mer/P Ditto. Horse Gram 70 Mer/P Ditto. Gram 14 Mer/P Ditto. Wheat 168.27 Mer/G Ditto.
26. 5.1737 Cotton 30-32 P/Candy Very high price. Usually only 18-20 P/Candy. 11. 5.1738 Cotton 29-30 P/Candy Brought from Surat.19. 4.1739 Rice Fine 3 Mer/P Present to Imam Sahib. Rice Coarse 8 Mer/P Ditto.14. 2.1740 Paddy 22 P/G Bought by WHK.30. 4.1740 Cotton 24 P/Candy Brought from Surat.26. 1.1741 Paddy 26 3/4 P/G Carried to FSD. 8. 2.1741 Paddy 24 1/2 P/G Market price.17. 3.1742 Cotton 85-90 Rs/Candy Price in the north.16. 8.1742 Rice Fine 5.5P/CANDY Present to the Ambassadar from Mecca. Rice Coarse 4P/CANDY Ditto. Horse Gram 49 /G Ditto. Gram 5 1/2 Mer/P Ditto. Pepper 8 1/2 F/Viss Ditto. Garlick 15 F/4 VISS Ditto. Onion 1 F/VISS Ditto. Sugar 18 P/Candy Ditto.31. 8.1742 Rice 64.23.22/G(=1 3/8 M/F)Bought last month. Distributed among the military men. 1. 3.1743 Paddy Fine 36 P/G Delivered to Nizam. Rice Coarse 57 P/G Ditto. Rice Coarse 6 3/4 Mer/P Ditto. Rice Coarse 6 7/8 Mer/P Ditto. Green Gram 7 Mer/P Ditto. Green Gram 8 7/8 Mer/P Ditto. Red Gram 8 Mer/P Ditto. Red Gram 7 1/2 Mer/P Ditto. Black Gram 7 Mer/P Ditto. Horse Gram 50 P/G Ditto. Sanagalloo 50 P/G Ditto. Ghee 24 1/2 P/Candy Ditto. 8. 3.1744 Rice 43.29.48/G Bengal rice unfit for stock. Sold at outcry.
12. 9.1744 Paddy 16 Mer/P Previous contract of the Company's washers. Paddy 13-14 Mer/P Market price when the contract was done. 29. 4.1745 Sugar 14 P/Candy Market price. 30. 4.1745 Paddy 25 P/G Computed price of the rent from the farm. 1. 7.1745 Wheat 4 Rs/Bag Brought from Surat.23. 9.1749 Rice 80 P/G Purchased to keep down the price at buzar. 2.10.1749 Rice 80 P/G Ditto. 4. 4.1750 Rice 50 P/G Bengal Rice ordered to sell at the market.16. 4.1750 Rice 115 P/G To be sent to FSD. Rice 80 P/G Ditto.13. 8.1750 Rice 75 P/G Ordered to buy as the famine is approaching.13. 9.1750 Rice 90 P/G Ordered to sell by the higher price.19. 9.1750 Rice 80 P/G Ordered to sell by the reduced price.29. 9.1750 Rice 51.23.23/4485 lb. To be delivered to the squadron at FSD. 7.11.1750 Rice 90 P/G Ordered to sell at the market.29. 4.1751 Paddy 44 P/G or more Price in January of the year. 2. 7.1751 Rice 80-90 P/G Prices bought or sold by the Company. 24. 3.1753 Rice 65 P/G(=9256.5 lb./G) To be sent to Fort Marlborough. 4.12.1753 Rice Best 90 P/G Ordered to sell. Good price. Rice 2nd. 85 P/G Ditto.14. 1.1754 Rice 1st. 85 P/G To sell as the price is going down. Rice 2nd. 80 P/G Ditto.14. 1.1754 Paddy 900 P/24G Taken away by the French from Trivitore etc. Paddy 38 P/G Taken away by the French from Egmore etc.14. 1.1754 Salt 3 1/2 P/G Taken away by the French from Egmore etc.25. 3.1754 Rice 100 P/G Contracted price of Bengal Rice in
1747.19. 8.1754 Paddy 33 P/G Market price.24. 4.1755 Cotton 40 P/Candy Very high price. Usually 25 P/Candy.16. 7.1755 Rice 2/1 MM/F Price in Devacottah after flood.22. 6.1756 Paddy 30 P/G Rate in the Cowle to Tiruvendipuram renter.13. 9.1758 Rice Coarse 167.4.40/5G Brought in 1756-57 and sold at publick outcry. Rice Coarse 511 P/15G Ditto. Rice Coarse 71.18.0/1.405G Ditto. Rice Coarse 203.27.0/4.25G Ditto. Rice 44.15.33/G Ditto.16. 9.1758 Rice 60,62,62,65,67,80 P/G Sold though there was the defficieny of weight. Paddy 30 P/G Ditto. Red Gram 65 P/G Ditto. Black Gram 65 P/G Ditto. Green Gram 65 P/G Ditto. Brown Gram 66 P/G Ditto. Pea 362 Rs/Bengal MD Ditto. Doll 2 3/4 Rs/Bengal MD Ditto.21.11.1758 Rice 80 P/G(=60 Bags) Landed by the Speedwell. 15. 5.1759 Rice 90 P/G Contracted price of Bengal rice.26. 6.1759 Rice 90 P/G Received from Bengal.===============================================================================================Source: FSG Diary and ConsultationsAbbreviations:P - Pagoda Mer - Mercall F - Fanam G - Garce MD - Maund
APPENDIX.11
APPENDIX.11 PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES RECORDED IN OTHER
RECORDS============================================================================================= GRAIN PRICES SOURCE ============================================================================================= Paddy 13 3/4 Mer/P Letter from the Collector in Zilla Chingleput, Alloo 17 Mer/P 4.7.1805, App. No.1, Prices at which the different Nutcheny 10 Mer/P Principal Grains raised in the the District of Jonnaloo 10 Mer/P Sattavaid were commuted in fixing the Money Rent. Horse Gram 12 Mer/P Cumbooloo 12 Mer/P Menoomooloo 7 Mer/P Pasaloo 6 Mer/P GIngely oil seeds 4 Mer/P Samah 1 Mer/P Caramony 8 Mer/P Cundooloo 8 Mer/P ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paddy 13 Mer/P Letter from the Collector in Zilla Chingleput, 16 1/2 Mer/P in BOR Proceedings, 4.7.1805, No.22, Dowle of the 17 Mer/P Village for Caroongly. Cumbooloo 13 Mer/P Nutcheny 13 Mer/P Pasaloo 8 Mer/P Alloo 25 Mer/P Tobacco 1/8 Pag.per Goonta Chillies 1/16 Pag.per Goonta ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paddy 12 Mer/P (= 32 P/G) Dalaymple's Minute, in Madras Public Proceedings, 22.7.1776, p.339. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paddy 17 1/2 Mer/P Mr.Greenway's Report to BOR, 29.3.1801, Chingleput Alloo or ragee 25 1/2 Mer/P District Records, Vol.495, Para. 48, Rate fixed by Natheny 12 1/2 Mer/P Place in Fusly 1205. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gram 29 Seer/Rupee Public Sundries, Vol.17, Proceedings of Grain Sugar candy 15 P/13 MD Committee, 1768-71, No.1, Petition of Nanjungapa Cloves 48 P/MD Chitty and Oppeyasewamy Veerapa Chitty &ca. Mace 1 P/Seer Merchants of Ouscotta belonging to Madevarow. Tobacco 1 P/MD An Account of Goods and their Prime Cost taken at Jagery 44 P/110 MD Ramasamudrum by order of Mr.Parkinson from Beetlenut 194 P/108 MD Chinahpah Soobiah & ca. Merchants of Ouscotah Salt 42 P/13.5 MD Colar, belonging to Madavarow. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rice 9 Seer/Rupee Public Sundries, Vol.17, Proceedings of Grain Committee, 1768-71, No.2, The Petition of Balajangar Compana Chitty Merchants and Inhabitant of Waulanjaw Nagur near Arcot. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rice 17 3/4 Seer/Rupee Public Sundries, Vol.17, Proceedings of Grain Gram 29 Seer/Rupee Committee, 1768-71, No.9, An account of Provisions Paddy 41 Seer/Rupee Issued from the Carnatic and arrived in the Army Ghee 2 Seer/Rupee at Trenomally. Lamp oil 3 Seer/Rupee
Pepper 1 1/2 MD/Rupee Onions 5 Seer/Rupee ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rice 35 P/G Public Sundries, Vol.17, Proceedings of Grain Gram 29 Seer/Rupee Committee, 1768-71, No.9, An Account of Rice received in Camp by Colonel Joseph Smith. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rice and gram 10 M/Rupee* Public Sundries, Vol.17, Proceedings of Grain Rice and gram 8 M/Rupee* Committee, 1768-71, No.21. 15 1/2 M/Rupee ** * Distributed among the Army. 15 M/Rupee** ** Sold to the Buzar merchants. =============================================================================================
APPENDIX.12
APPENDIX.12PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES RECORDED IN THE DIARY OF A.R.PILLAI======================================================================================================================== DATE GRAIN PRICE REMARKS======================================================================================================================== 5. 5.1746 Arecanut 400/Pagoda25.12.1746 Paddy 3 1/2 M/F Ordered to be sold irrespective of any loss.30. 1.1746 Betel 9 leaves/cash Previous price. Betel 5 leaves/cash New price. Tobacco 12 Pollams/F Previous price. Tobacco 10 Pollams/F New price.
16. 7.1747 Paddy &c. 45 3/4 P/F Compensation to the Villagers for their damage.20. 9.1747 Rice 1/2 M/F Price at famine. 2.12.1747 Paddy Manakattai 6 M/F Higher than the market rate. Kar 5 M/F Ditto. Samba 4 1/2 M/F Ditto. 1. 1.1748 Raw Rice Samba 85 3/4 - 91 P/G Boiled Rice Samba 83 1/8 P/G Boiled Rice Kar 71 1/2 P/G Paddy Samba 41 P 16 F Maize 41 2/3 P/G Ragi 45 11/24 P/G Millet 26 3/8 P/G27. 1.1748 Wheat 4 3/8 Pagoda/Palla. Paddy 3 1/2 GM(=7 SM)/F Price till today. Paddy 4 GM(=8 SM)/F Price from tomorrow.29. 1.1748 Paddy Kar 4 GM/F Paddy Samba 3 1/2 GM/F Paddy 5 GM Expected price of this year. 13. 8.1748 Paddy 4 1/2 kalam /Pagoda 16. 8.1748 Paddy 6 M/F Sold at Valudavur. Paddy 3 SM/F Government price at pondichery.22. 8.1748 Cotton 30. 9.1748 Paddy 3 M/F Under besiegement. Sold to the Sepoys' women and to the poor. 2.10.1748 Paddy 1 1/2 GM/F Under besiegement. Sold to the Sepoys' women and to the poor. 4.10.1748 Paddy 3 SM/F 2.11.1748 Paddy 5 SM/F Proposed price of the seller. Paddy 3 GM/F Expected price of the buyer. 5.11.1748 Paddy 4 1/2 SM/F 18.11.1748 Paddy 5 M/F19.11.1748 Paddy Samba 4 3/4 M/F Paddy Kar 5 M/F 24.11.1748 Paddy Manakattai 6 M/F Paddy Annamuli 6 M/F
25.11.1748 Paddy Manakattai 6 1/2-3/4 M/F24. 3.1750 Rice 12 Seers/R Price in the camp of Nasir Jang. Black Gram 18 Seers/R Ditto. Ghee 1 3/4 Seers/R Ditto. Wheat 10 Seers/R Ditto. Kadalai(groundnut) 10 Seers/R Ditto.17. 4.1750 Paddy 4 3/4 M/F Sale price by A.R.Pillai. Paddy 5 M/F Sale price by Dupleix.25. 7.1750 Rice 1 1/2-3/4 M/F Price in the market. Paddy 5 M/F Price in the market. Rice 2 M/F Expected price by Dupleix. Batavia Sugar 59 R/candy 8.10.1750 Paddy 8 V/P(=50 P/G) Price at Fort St.David.10.10.1750 Rice 5 Seers/R Price at Arcot.12.10.1750 Rice 4 Seers/R Ditto. Horse Gram 5 Seers/R Ditto. Ragi 5 Seers/R Ditto.30. 9.1759 Rice 1 1/2 M/F 8. 7.1760 Rice 1 1/4-3/8 M/F Under besiegement. Very high price. Dholl 1 1/8 M/F Ditto. Pulse 1 3/4 M/F Ditto. Green Gram 1 1/8 M/F Ditto. Ragi 1 3/4 M/F Ditto. Black Gram 1 1/4 M/F Ditto. Gingelly Oil 3 F/Seer Ditto. Castor Oil 2 3/4 F/Seer Ditto. Ghi 2 R 5 F/Tukku Ditto. Tamarind 2 F/Tukku Ditto. Pepper 1 R 2 1/2 F/Tukku Ditto. Turmeric 1 1/4 F/Tukku Ditto. Mustard 2 1/2 F/Tukku Ditto. Cumin 1 R 6 F/Tukku Ditto. Fenugreek 2 1/2 F/Tukku Ditto.15. 7.1760 Rice 1 1/8 M/F Ordered to sell by this price.23. 7.1760 Rice 8 SM/R Unable to get even by this price.
1. 8.1760 Rice 1/8 Marakkal/F 5. 8.1760 Rice 3/4 M/F 6. 9.1760 Ghee 1/5 Seer/F Arecanut 8 - 10 /F Dyed nut 1 Palam/Fanam Green gram 3/4 SM/F Black gram 3/4 SM/F Dholl 3/4 SM/F Red Chillie 3 Palam/F Paddy 2 1/2 - 3 M/F Paddy 2 SM/F Today's market price. 8. 9.1760 Paddy 2 3/4-3 SM/F Former price. Paddy 2 M/F Today's price.========================================================================================================================Source: Note: Abbreviations:M/F - Measures/Fanam SM/F - Small Measures/Fanam GM/F - Great Measures/Fanam P/G - Pagoda/Garse
APPENDIX.13
APPENDIX.13LIST OF GRAIN TRANSACTIONS APPEARED IN THE DIARY OF A.R.PILLAI
======================================================================================================================= Date Goods Volume/Value Produced at or Brought Buyer Remarks Coming from to/by================================================================================================
=======================10.11.1747 Grain 500-600 B-L South of Ariyankuppam Waiting over the river.10.11.1747 Paddy 400 G Gingee & Valudavur forts Co. Going to buy if the price comes down.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28.11.1747 Paddy 300-400 B-L market Daily brought to the market. 2.12.1747 Paddy 400 G market Co. Ordered to buy. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27. 1.1748 Wheat 50-60 palla Arcot and Lalapettai A.Ayyan Co. Ordered to buy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 2.1748 Maize market-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14. 2.1748 Wheat 2000 bags merchant of Madras Co. 14. 2.1748 Wheat 2857 Rupees Cuddapah M.Lucas Co. Written not to buy any more. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16. 2.1748 Paddy 40 B-L Priest The buyer paid no dues. 16. 2.1748 Paddy 300 B-L market 16. 2.1748 Paddy 40-50 G out-villages Co. Brought to the Company till today.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20. 2.1748 Paddy 500 B-L market-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21. 2.1748 Paddy 725 B-L market21. 2.1748 Rice 57 B-L market-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23. 2.1748 Paddy 454 B-L market23. 2.1748 Rice 53 B-L market23. 2.1748 Cumbu 73 B-L market-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24. 2.1748 Paddy 610 B-L market
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26. 2.1748 Paddy 36 G out-villages Co. Brought to the Company till today.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 3.1748 Paddy 785 B-L market 5. 3.1748 Sugar 12 B-L market 5. 3.1748 Sugar 12 packages market----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. 3.1748 Paddy 6-7 G market Sold yesterday and today. 6. 3.1748 Paddy 100 G out-villages Stocked by the Company till today. 20-25 G Alisapakkam Ditto. 30-34 G northward Ditto. 27-30 G Already stocked by the Company. --------- 190-200 G -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10. 3.1748 Paddy 700-900 B-L market -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16. 3.1748 Paddy 940B-L market-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22. 3.1748 Paddy M.Mudali Co. To be given to the Company as pledge.22. 3.1748 Paddy 100 G out-villages(?) Co. Brought to the Company till today.22. 3.1748 Paddy 500-600 G Utramallur,Salavakkam Ordered to buy for the Company. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23. 3.1748 Paddy 1257 B-L market-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13. 8.1748 Paddy 0 No arrival.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16. 8.1748 Paddy 20 B-L market New arrival.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 8.1748 Paddy 10 B-L market18. 8.1748 Rice 11 B-L market 18. 8.1748 Rice 4 B-L Arcot Coja Sultan Permissions sought to being in rice.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. 9.1748 Raddy 6 G country A.R.Pillai Co. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.10.1748 Raddy 8 G.415 V out-villages Co. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22.10.1748 Paddy Villupuram Ordered to buy as there was no stock.22.10.1748 Paddy 300-400 G Ordered to procure from somewhere.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18.11.1748 Paddy 400 B-L market Brought in till noon. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19.11.1748 Paddy 468 B-L market Brought in yesterday.19.11.1748 Rice 24 B-L market Ditto.19.11.1748 Horse-gram 23 B-L market Ditto.19.11.1748 Cumbu 8 B-L market Ditto. 19.11.1748 Castor 17 B-L market Ditto. 19.11.1748 Ragi 5 B-L market Ditto. 19.11.1748 Ghee 23 duppers market Ditto.19.11.1748 Nut 2 bales market Ditto.19.11.1748 Paddy 200 B-L market Brought in from dawn to 11 a.m.=======================================================================================================================Source: Diary of A.R.Pillai.Note:1. AbbreviationsV - Vallams B-L - Bullock-Loads G - Garce Co. - Company
APPENDIX.14
APPENDIX.14MAGAN AND VILLAGE IN CHINGLEPUT
The following village list is prepared from the Hodgson's Report (Jamabundi and Kistbundi of the Jaghir for Fusly 1208 from Mr.Hodgson, 29th May in cons. June 3 1799, Jummahbundy of the Different Villages in the Several Districts of the Jagheer for Fusly 1208, in Miscellaneous Records, Vol.35).
The Magan and Village numbers are serially given. The Census Codes are take out directly from the one inch - one mile Taluk maps. As some of these maps were prepared in the 1960's and don't always have the same village codes of 1971 Census, they are changed so as to correspond with the 1971 Census village numbers. As there are usually more than two hamlets in one revenue village, each hamlet is given the hamlet code of A, B, C..., serially. In case the Census Location Code is not fully identified, these hamlet codes are not added in this list. APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14
APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14 APPENDIX.14
Related Documents
