The study of medieval South Indian polity has been carried out by numerous scholars, all of whom postulate a variety of often starkly differing arguments to make sense of the period from the 7th century ad to the 13th century ad. Due to the copious inscriptional evidence available for the Cholas, the study of south Indian medieval polity, society and culture will primarily focus itself on the Cholas and their rise from the 9th century onwards. In order to get a more coherent spatial picture of this region I shall begin by describing in detail the geographical and physical boundaries of the region defined as the south Indian macro region.

South India as described by Burton Stein consists of the regions south of the Karnataka watershed on the West and the Krishna- Godavari delta on the East. Stein moreover emphasises the fact that the core region of South India lies in the Coromandel plain, which is analogous to the Gangetic plain of the north as a cradle of population and culture. He also stresses that the Deccan cultural region is a separate core area, thus creating a structure of essentially three core areas, the Gangetic delta, the Deccan region and the Coromandel plain. He demarcates the boundaries of the Coromandel plain as extending from the southern tip of the Krishna- Godavari delta eastwards, broken by the Eastern Ghats. This was a prized region and a region that was fought for often as an agricultural bounty. The eastern boundary of the Coromandel plain lies along the eastern coast and evidences trade along this coast until the Period of Muslim stronghold in the Indian Ocean region. The plain is bounded on the west by the plateau region.

There appears to be a fundamental difference however in the way Burton Stein views the south Indian region and the way Kesavan Veluthat studies it in his “Political structures of early medieval south India”. Where Burton Stein categorically highlights the exclusion of Kerala from his analysis, Veluthat views the same region as a part, though a little dissociated in terms of polity and culture, of the macro region. This region was ruled by the Ceras, the more diminutive dynasty in the most prominent four to exist in this region, the others being the Pallavas, the Pandyas and the Cholas.

During the classical age in south Indian history, the Sangam age, Sangam literature depicts the presence of small peasant communities proliferating in a scattered manner right through the region with a concentration in the Kaveri basin. Such peasant settlements are seen to evolve from what was till this time essentially a tribal, pastoral society. Society was organised into clans and tribal leaders fought for domination of cattle and for the protection of the clan. The emergence of small peasant communities metamorphoses the culture of this region. This process of transformation is helped by accelerating trade both in terms of internal and external trade particularly in a region called the “marutam” region in the Sangam literature. Thus chiefdoms existing in this region progressed and the chieftains emerged as more dominant political rulers. It is from this region that the three ruling dynasties of the Cholas from Uraiyur, the Cheras from Vanji and the Pandyas of Madurai materialize. The less fortunate chiefs who were not affected by the change were left in their decadent formulations of clan based state. This phase is said to have said to come to a close by the 3rd century Ad. What follows is a period of histoiorgraphical darkness which extends till the seventh century ad when we see the emergence and development of the Pallava dynasty centred in the Tondaimandlama region. This particular period did carry a continuity from the early time however it was essentially quite unique.

WE see the emergence of large scale cultivation dominated by a non-peasant class of cultivators and we also witness the appearance of the domination of Brahmans, migrating from the north, in secular activities of the region. The rulers supported these Brahmans, who had already establihed themselves by the time of the pallavas, in order to gain legitimacy. A model of north Indian society is seen being imposed on the south, carried by the Brahmans who emerge as a major cultural influence on society.

This process of the pallavas is soon repeated in the south by the Pandyas in the Pondyamandalam region. The Pallavas however begin to decline in power by the eight century confronted by challenges from the North West, from the newly emerging dynasties of the Rashtrakuthas in the Deccan and also from the Pandyas in the south. A period of military strife follows after which we see the rise of the Cholas in the 9th century AD with their centre in Colamadnalam in the Kaveri basin under Vijaylaya the first Chola ruler who takes over the Colamandalam region by defeating the Mattaraiyar chiefs and driving them out of the Kaveri delta. Soon the Cholas under Aditya Chola defeated the Pallava ruler Aparajita thus creating a foothold in the Tondaimandalam region. The Chola power came to bear over the Pandya regions in the south as well. Parnataka Chola pressed Chola power in several region including Sri Lanka until in 949 AD the Rashtrakuta leader Krishna III brought a temporary stop to Chola expansion. Despite the setback the Cholas rose to be a major power under the leadership of Rajaraja I, who helped in reasserting the Chola status and also in extending Chola dominion over Gangavadi to the North West. Under the successor of Rajaraja, Rajendra chola, we observe Chola dominion spread even further right up to South East Asia. The dynasty remains stable till the rule of Kullotunga I when the Cholas lose Gangavadi. Moreover the Pandyas start to challenge the authority of the Cholas. By the time of Kullotunga III we observe the collapse of the Chola Empire. Pandyas unite to drive out the Cholas and there is a resurgence witnessed amongst the Pallavas as well.

Kesavan Veluthat who argues for a feudal model of state in South India says that the reason for collapse of the Chola dynasty was the centrifugal forces that were a necessary consequence of the political order. During the period of the demise of the Cholas we see that the chiefdoms start re-asserting themselves.

This idea of a feudal South Indian order is fairly recent however, and based on evidence recently analysed by the likes of N.Karashima and Subbarayalu. We observe the historical analysis of this region beginning with the study of the inscriptions, both copper plate and stone of this period. In 1886 of the department of epigraphy is establihed by the government of Madras under Dr. Hultzsch. Further analysis was carried out through the scrutiny of bhakti hymns and Sangam literature.

This region received exhaustive historical treatment for the first time under Nilakanta Shastri who wrote in the pre-independence period. Shastri however had the tendency to glorify and portrayed the state within medieval south India as highly centralized and bureaucratized. His views were supported blindly by other like Appadorai and went practically unchallenged for almost forty years until Burton Stein places some very pertinent questions challenging the “conventional” historical view and answers them with his theory of Segmentary state, borrowed from Aidan Southall. This view is later questioned by Kesavan Veluthat who suggests her feudal model based on the work of R.S. Sharma and Noburu Karashima. Another model of “early state” has been proposed by Hietzman and Subbarayalu.

In order to fully comprehend and visualize the purport of each of these arguments it would be important to first describe their most salient features.

The “Conventional” Argument

The first in depth studies carried out by Nilkanta Shastri as I mentioned before presented the Chola state as a highly centralized state. He describes the state as consisting of “divisions” and “districts” and the chiefs who rule these kingdoms as governors. These districts or nadus are described as being artificial divisions. A re-examination by both Burton Stein and Kesavan Veluthat reveals that these districts were in fact not artificial divisions for the purpose of administration and also that these territories were dominated by local chiefs with a considerable degree of autonomy.

The administrative systems of the three kingdoms are divided into central, provincial and local, by Shastri. The very existence of such administration has been questioned by Burton Stein. Veluthat argues for the presence of landed magnates who act as feudatories of the chiefs and of the king and like Burton Stein agrees that the system of administration was not one centralized bureaucracy. Moreover Conventional historiography under Shastri, Appadorai and other has ignored entirely the question of the Ur, the peasant assemblies and the nadu, the agglomeration of the peasant villages.

There was emphasis’ on centralized administration in the collection of land-revenue. Appadorai studies various taxes and construes terms such as Kadami and Kudami to mean land revenue paid to the centre. However both Burton Stein and Veluthat are of the opinion that these taxes aren’t paid directly to the centre. Veluthat goes on the say that these taxes were not taxes at all, but feudal rents, appropriated initially in labour and then later through landed rents.

Another argument for the centralized administration stems from the belief in a large military force consisting of an immense army and a mythic landed navy. The arguments for the presence of a navy, which are emphasised by Shastri, lie in the description of conquests of the Cholas in Sri-Lanka and South East Asia. Veluthat however argues that the occurrence of sea based conquests need not imply the existence of a navy but merely that the land troops were transported on ships to these regions. The argument for the existence of the highly centralized army that provided the Cholas with the power and legitimacy to have centralized rule has been disproved on the basis of empirical evidence, which as suggested by Veluthat had been misinterpreted by Nilkanta Shastri.

Thus where the scholarship of Nilkanta Shastri was invaluable in terms of providing the first detailed research on this region, it has been replaced by the later arguments of Burton stein and Veluthat which are based on empirical fact.

SEGMENTARY STATE

Burton Stein having questioned the validity of the centralized model of state goes on to suggest his own idea of Pyramidal segmentation of the state within the south Indian Medieval context.

The basic postulates of his theory are based on the Segmentary state model proposed by Aidan Southall for the Alur region in east Africa.

The Segmentary state as envisioned by Burton stein had a pyramidal segmented structure where the pyramid consist of units which in political formation are identical to the centre. These units which are the foundation blocks of segmentary states are called Nadus. Every nadu has a separate administrative system that is similar to the one at the centre. Each unit has identical stratification with the chief on top, followed by the peasantry, the artisans and finally the labourer. The nadu has its own internal tensions based on loyalties such as the idangai and velangai divisions.

These units are controlled by the king through his ritual sovereignty. Stein emphasises Dual sovereignty of the king. One part of the sovereignty being the political power he enjoys at the centre and the other the ritual power that encompasses the each segment in the state which he uses to bind the separate units right across the state. Burton stein has borrowed this formulation from Lingat’s concepts of sastra and rajadharama. The first stands for the political rule of the king and the second perceives the king as an actor of limited power who bears the consequences of his own actions and those of his subjects.

Thus we also see the emergence of two centres: one based on the kings ritual authority over the state and the other at the numerous loci of administration spread right across the state.

Based on these centres of power we distinguish two kinds of royal functionaries being described by Stein as being part of the administration. The first are the political functionaries of the king within his core region and the second the ritual functionaries of the king that represent his power in individual segments. The actual spread of ritual power is described by Burton Stein as taking place through the spread of the Siva cult, which is being propagated by the brahmadeyas which have been set up by the kings in order to legitimize their own position. The kings, according to Stein encouraged the migration of these Brahmans from the north in order to legitimise their authority in the region.

Burton Stein’s concept of segmentary state is however questioned by Kesavan Veluthat on a number of points including his interpretation of sastra and rajadharma, both of which as described by Lingat are dual facets of the same ruler that help in creating a particular image of the king and are not a realistic embodiment of power.

Veluthat moreover reveals that the agamic religions were present in the country even before the Cholas, thus rendering Stein’s theory of legitimating through the Siva cut void. Moreover he shows that the brahmadeyas existed before the domination of Pallava rulers, clearly indicating that they are not a kingly construct.

He also proves that the replication of small individual units as copies of the centre is not possible, since where the core region is dominated by the king, the segments apart from chieftains also consist of landed magnates organised in assemblies such as the nattar who have a great degree of authority within the nadu. Burton Stein had not recognised a distinction between the chiefs and the landed magnates and thus proposed the replication of royal power in the chief.

Veluthat also insists that the duplication of specialised administration in the nadu of the kind that exists in core region does not bear out with empirical evidence.

Veluthat proposes instead an alternative feudal model of state.

 

Feudal Model

Previous attempts at delineating the Chola state as feudal were tentative and lacked concrete and thorough scrutiny. We see Karashima suggesting the feudal nature of state in the later Chola period. Veluthat proposes to study the feudal potential of the south Indian Macro region on a more thorough basis along with M.G.S Narayanan.

He first emphasises the major postulates of feudal society in India according to R.S.Sharma which include the alienation of administrative judicial and political power, which Veluthat suggests are alienated through religious grants, an erosion of state power and an elaborate hierarchy of officials between the rulers and the ruled.

Sharma identifies the late-Gupta and the Post-Gupta periods as being feudal. These periods witness the disintegration of society through the decline of trade and the decay of urban centres. He argues that the period witnessed the failure of existing means in the background of the emergence of new means and relations of production. The birth of a new kind of society is certainly advocated by a number of scholars; however the theory also received critique from Mukhiya, Kulke and Burton Stein. Stein suggested that the decline of power of state required the state to posses power in the first place, which he argues, it didn’t. However R.S.Sharma himself argues the assuming the peasantry to be a free peasantry would be erroneous as the peasantry were subject to their own “disabilities”.

Veluthat realizes that in order to place the feudalism model within the South Indian Medieval context it would require a clear definition of feudalism within that milieu.

He attempts to provide this in a brief model based on a framework provided by Noboru Karashima, whose work he describes as being more in the Marxist tradition.

To begin the argument Veluthat, basing her ideas on Karashima’s formulation demarcates a broad stratification of peasant society within the region. He starts by describing the individual peasant producers of Karashima’s formulation and links these with the kutis of south India. They appear to be serfs who officially hold the land and are not slaves but still have to pay a feudal rent. The rent is extracted initially in the form of surplus, and the later on as a land rent.

Veluthat then describes the landed magnates who have superior rights over the land and distinguishes them from the Chieftains. These magnates extracted the feudal rent through extra economic means. It was in fact these landed magnates that formed the membership of the ur, powerful bodies within the nadu that dealt with the apportioning of land and such other functions. At the bottom of this chain of peasant hierarchy was the landed labourer.

Thus Veluthat stratifies his feudal society with the king as the supreme head, followed by the chieftains in each nadu, followed by the units of the brahmadeya, the nadu and the nagarams and below them the tenants and finally the labourers.

Veluthat also suggests a similar stratification for the army with the “companions of honour” or the kings bodyguard at the centre, supplemented by similar forces in each nadu, enhanced by special forces and finally there were the mercenary troops drawn from among the peasants and artisans.This graded hierarchy was maintained in society through the system of jati reaffirmed by the varnasrama dharma and the bhakti movement.

The final postulate of this model was that the commodity production must be only under the tutelage of agriculture and this was certainly the case with artisans and tradesman of the south-Indian region. At the end of his argument Veluthat insists that the feudal structure describe was not an archetypal analogy of European feudalism but rather something derived separately for the context of South India.

The feudal model is challenged by James Heitzman who argues against the religious grants alienating political power.

Moreover there appears to however be an aberration in feudal polity within the Cholas during the rule of Rajaraja I and the rule of Rajendra Chola. The polity tightens and becomes more centralized. James Heitzman attributes this change to a process of state formation that was taking place which he explains with his model of an “early sate”.

 

 

Early State

This model was proposed by Hietzman and subbarayalu and was drawn from a model created by Henry Claessen and Peter Skalnik which emphasises a centralized state organisations to deal with a complex stratified society which is divided into at least two strata- that of the ruler and the ruled. There are three varieties of “early state”

  1. Inchoate
  2. Typical
  3. Transitional

Both Heitzman and Subbaraylu according to Veluthat seem unsure of their arguments. Subbarayalu describes it only tentatively as an early state as he is aware its incongruity with the political processes within the Chola state. Hietzman to says that the Chola state was a segmentary state only in the capacity that its agrarian base and political power of its elites were in an early stage of expansion.

Veluthat describes this model as being ineffectual in describing the Chola state.

Asiatic mode

This Marxist variant of oriental despotism which was resurrected by Kathleen Gough talks about the Chola state being archaic but is itself based on outdated evidence and inconsequential.

Having grasped the most crucial points of the proposed models of state in medieval south India we can explore the state in detail in order to evoke a vivid understanding of society, polity, economy and culture within this region. We can start by discussing the essential political structures within this period.

POLITY WITHIN MEDIEVAL SOUTH INDIA

The king and his functionaries

Conventional histiography viewed the king as an absolute monarch, in complete control of his state. The king was in direct control of all functionaries of state as well as the local units.

Burton Stein rejecting this view describes the king as a ritual head of state, with absolute control only at the centre. As described earlier Stein associates two kinds of sovereignty with the king: ritual and political. Thus outside of the core-region which in the case of the Cholas was Colamandalam, focussed around the Kaveri delta, the kings authority appears to be merely symbolic. There is very little direct contact of the king outside the core –region.

Kesavan Veluthat however disputes this isolation of the king. Moreover as mentioned above she states that the dual sovereignty of the king is merely representative of the role the king establishes in order to legitimize his place. He uses the already established institution of the brahmadeyas to establish his role by maintaining a status as a ksatriya.

Veluthat describes the king as a feudal head. This feudal over lordship is reaffirmed with images created by the king through hero-warrior staus, origin myths linking the king to either the candravamsa or suryavanmsa line of the Ksatriya. However as we will see later Burton stein denies the presence of this Ksatriya linkage within the formulation of the south Indian macro region.

The chieftains

During the sangam age the chiefs were essentially pastoral lords. With the emergence of agriculture and trade however we have seen that a few chiefdoms grow to become kingdoms. By the time of the seventh century we see that the chiefs all emerge as rulers of agricultural land.

For most conventional historians the chief simply represents a governor to the monarch. The chief has no autonomy.

Burton stein however argues for the autonomy of chiefs and allocates a place for the chief similar to that of the king in his core area. The chief has a high degree of autonomy over his chiefdom. He ascribes the titles muvendavelar and araiyan chiefs ruling the nadus. However as revealed by Veluthat these titles refer to landed magnates within the nadu. Burton Stein fails to distinguish between the landed magnates and the chiefs.

Veluthat describes a closer relation between the chief and the king.

Veluthat describes the establishment of cheifdoms through the role played by the Brahmans in encouraging the deveopement of agriculture well before the establishment of the Pallavas.

Prominent Cheiftains such as the Banas are seen to constantly change their alliances from the calukyas , to the Rashtrakutas, to the pallavas and finally to independence after the decline of the pallavas. Within the cera empire Veluthat describes an occasional three tier political structure with the local chiefs owing loyalty to the ceras and the ceras owing loyalty to the cholas, the dominant dynasty within the region.

The autonomy of the chiefs within the chola empire seems to vary. They seem relatively inconsequential till the 11th century after which there is a rise in the autonomy of the cheifdoms with the collapse of the cholas. The automony is greatly reduced during a period of relative centralization under Rajaraja I and Rajendra.

Most of these chiefs according to Veluthat claimed hereditary status. A few looked for legitimation through the ksatriya status. They also paid a tribute to the king. Moreover we see evidence for military pacts between the king and the chief. Moreover we also see that in some cases the chiefs are obliged to attend assemblies convened by the king. This structure as defined by Veluthat is a feudal structure of polity.

Nadu and the nattar

Conventional historiography views the nadu as a construct of Chola polity and as an artificial unit of administration.

Burton stein however argues that the Nadu was a grouping of the vellanvagai village and that the nadu was present before the establishment of the three ruling dynasties. The nadus are thus not artificial divisions according to him and only came to be used as units of administration. The nadus for him were the most fundamental unit of segmentary state and were thus according to him largely autonomous. He describes the nadu and its assembly the nattar as a body limited to the purview of the nadu and largely unconnected with the monarchy at the centre.The nattar is described by him as a self-contained based on endogamous linkages and kin based marriages. Subbarayalu supports this view.

He also suggests a lack of uniformity within the nadu with some villages being more important and alleges that the nadu may have been named after the first village which may also have been the dominant village. He supports the presence of chiefs ruling in certain nadus.

Stein classifies the nadus as being central, intermediary and peripheral. Veluthat states that there is no evidence to support this claim.

Stein disagrees with Subbarayalu who argues for the proliferation of the nadus within the kaveri delta in the period from the 9th-11th century on the basis of the mention of a large number of new nadus within this region. Stein argues that these “new” nadus were just a new recognition of chola over lordship.

Veluthat however argues for the proliferation of nadus saying that the nadus mentioned earlier in the texts appear in the most fertile lands whereas those mentioned later in the texts appear almost invariably in the less fertile lands.

Veluthat also argues for greater linkage between the nadu and the state and denies the presence of endogamous linkages that limit the purview of the nattar to the nadu. The nadu is dominated by the nattar and not by an individual chief. Moreover Veluthat emphasises the homogeneity of the nadus compostion.

Veluthat discloses evidence to prove that the local functionaries of the king were infact involved in the functions of the nadu and the nadu was far from dissociated.The nadu is in fact the basic revenue unit and is directly responsible to the king through the fictional person of the nattar. The nattar of course is an assembly consisting of the landed magnates within the nadu. The nadu according to Veluthat lacked a chief as a head and thus could never be a replica of the centre unlike what Stein argues in his segmentary model.

The nadu also consists of the Ur which was a fractional element of the Nadu consisting exclusively of landholders. It generally had a strength of less than ten and was involved with management of landed property.

Thus according to Veluthat the Nadu emerges as another body within the feudal control of state.

Nagaram

There is very little evidence for the presence of nagarams. Kenneth hall postulated a theory by which there is at least one nagaram in every nadu. This was challenged and disputed vehemently by Champakalakshmi. As described by Veluthat it was a separate trading community consisting of merchants, craftsmen and artisans. The nagarratar was a corporate body that consisted only of merchants and handled the affairs of the nagaram. Unlike the nadus the nagarams were far more autonomous and approporiated more state power.

The nagarams however are seen to be concerned with matters of land indicating that the trade industry had not dissociated itself from agriculture. Thus commodity production is still tied to agriculture and this as stated by Veluthat is a clear indication of the presence of a feudal influence.

Brahmadeya

There is an abundance of epigraphical data regarding the brahmadeyas as they were centres for recording information. In fact a large part of information on other units that existed within this region have been drowned by a deluge of information on the brahmadeyas.

Burton Stein suggests that brahmadeyas were created by the Cholas to provide them with ritual legitimacy. Moreover he talks about an alliance between the peasant and the Brahman which facilitates the brahmadeyas. The Brahmans required support from the peasants, according to Burton stein , in order to support their lifestyle. Moreover the emergence of the Bhakti movement further accentuated the necessity to have some sponsorship. The peasant society on the other hand was expanding and required the legitimacy of the Brahmans to incorporate newly captured peoples into their system of hierarchy to ensure a place in society. Thus the brahmadeyas have a major legitimizing function. Moreover the brahmadeyas also serve according to Stein as educational centres with their gathas.

Veluthat, on the basis of inscriptional evidence counters Stein stating that the brahmadeyas in fact existed before the Cholas. He suggest that they would have developed in the seventh century and would have encouraged the proliferation of agriculture with the help of experience and knowledge brought in by the migrating Brahmans from south India. By the 9th century the cera kingdom as described by Veluthat had been studded with brahmadeyas the last one being recorded towards the end of the ninth century in Tiruvalla.

In fact according to Veluthat by the time the Cholas established themselves in the 9th century there was a large population of Brahman settlers.

Like Stein Veluthat agrees that the brahmadeyas would have been used by the kings to legitimise their authority. Moreover they also agree that such legitimacy may have been provided by the bhakti movement. However Stein emphasises that the proliferation of the Siva cult in the Chola empire would have helped in legitimization. We see the gradual predominance of Linga worship. Localised cults gradually come to be replaced. However some elements linger, among these the cults to the female diety which were deeply rooted in south Indian culture. These local deities were gradually compressed into the vedic fold by the Chola rulers so that soon the worship of the local deities was possible within the sanskritized canonical system.

Gradually we also see the growth of temples dedicated to Siva under Rajaraja I and Rajendra I including the Brimhadesvara temple.

the Brahmans to identify themselves as ksatriyas. However Stein denies the presence of ksatriyas in the south Indian macro region and uses the presence of Ksatriyas within the region as a premise to eliminate Kerala from his analysis. His argument is that the presence of the Ksatriya would not be possible due to the presence of the secular power of the Brahman.

The Brahman assemblies Sabha, according to Veluthat are responsible for matters relating to land, and reallocation of funds. The sabha appears to be a powerful institutions as any abegnator is condemned with ostracism and the confiscation of his land.

The efforts at legitimization according to James Heitzman result in the notion of god-king emerging. Moreover he argues that the presence of a number of sprouting temples allows a wide ritual hegemony for the king . The temples were also funerary shrines for the Chola rulers and further helped in emphasising the royal identity.

By the eleventh century the brahmadeyas bow out in favour of the temples.

Administration

General

The system of administration linking these systems together has been variedly discussed by the different schools of thought on South Indian polity. Each system of administration defines to a great extent the model of state.

Nilkanta Shastri and Appadorai argue for a great deal of reach of a highly centralized bureaucracy and a vigorous system of administration supported by a massive standing army. A system of administration to rival the Mauryan .

Burton stein on the other hand denies the presence of any such link and states categorically that the individual segments are dissociated from the centre and that there are very few examples of royal functionaries within the nadus.

Veluthat on the other hand does argue for the presence of state functionaries at the local level. He describes the varying levels of centralization within the bureaucracy of the chola state. During the reign of the Chola state the administration under Rajaraja I, is highly centralized. (though it still can’t be described as a bureaucracy)There were two or three tiers of bureaucracy within the administration during the reigns of Rajaraja I and Rajendra I. However following the reign of Kullotunga the tiers are rare as the localities pierce through them. We often observe the direct interference of a royal functionary within the affairs of the sabha. Veludat describes the functionaries involved in the passage of an order within the Chola state. These include the tirumandilalai( committed kings order to writing), Olai-nayagams( compare and check before sending to the adhikari),Naduvirukkai-(occasionally documents were sent to them), Adhikaris- (endorse order to be registered in revenue accounts) and the Puravu vari (department- enter into registers and issue a copy to the recipient).

The conditions of administration were similar within the other states as well. The Pandyas had similar titles such as: olai, nagayam and adhikaris. Ther is also scanty evidence that the Pandya officials were responsible to the Cholas.

Military

Nilkanta Shastri describes a massive military force accompanied by a large navy. The evidence for the navy seems to based on the accounts of the Chola’s conquests in Sri Lanka and the North East.

Burton Stein says that the military was drawn largely from the peasants and the artisans and was a mercenary force. This once again complies with his segmentary model.

Kesavan Veluthat complying with his feudal model, describes a tiered army consisting of the kings body guards, their counterparts in the cheifdoms, specialist troops to assist them, mercenary forces and Brahmans as the educated and highly trained generals at the helm.

Revenue

There is mention of a land revenue department within Chola records, however this functions only as a revenue board at the central level and is not found in the localities

Veluthat quoting Karashima on the empirical evidence regarding revenue terms states that of the hundreds of revenue terms according we observe that only 27 terms are repeated over ten times .

The terms the most frequently repeated in reference to the chola dynasty are antarayam, Eccoru, Kadamai, Kudimai, Muttaiy-a, Tattar-pattam and vetti

There is a relative increase in numbers of Antarayam, adamai and Muttaiy-al as chola rule progresses while there is a relative decline in eccoru and vetti, the former being land tax and the latter being labour tax

.Most of these taxes however are either labour rent or taxes in kind thus the more appropriate nomenclature for this form of revenue according to veluthat would be feudal rent.The most important term for land-revenue has been described as kadami. However the frequency of kadami had gone up in the second half of the chola reign, possibly indicating more frequent collection of land revenue as the rule of the cholas progressed.

We do find extraction of land rent in the form of paddy even in the records of the early chola rulers. The decrease in labour rent and an increase in land rent clearly indicating that in Marxist terms the civilization had progressed but the ground rent remained the same. The revenue system is clearly decentralized and the extractions are made locally.

Thus Veluthat describes the revenue that exists within the region as a feudal rent.

Judicial

Nilkanta shastri seems to have appreciated the local and communal value of justice administration whereas burton stein ignores the question all together. Conventional historians assume the presence of a central court of justice but that instead that the juridical functions were usually carried out locally.State authority was only invoked in as a last resort. Thus judicial admin comes across as being localised.

SOCIETY WITHIN MEDIEVAL SOUTH INDIA

The social stratifications described by both Burton Stein and Kesavan Veluthat have been defined to a great extent by the emphasis of each of their models.

Burton stein talks about stratification existing within each individual segment. It is this stratification that within his model seems to provide character to each segment. He describes social tensions existing within each respective segment. The relative segmentation of the society in each segment would compose a hierarchy with the Brahman at the helm followed by the King or the chief and then the landed peasantry below, followed by the artisan and finally the labourer. Burton stein also neglects the presence of Ksatriyas within the south Indian macro-region.

He also talks about two factors provided a supra-local connect across the localities of the southern peninsular:

  1. The brahmadeyas- these allowed for the spread of an aryanized CULTURE right across the whole of south india and thus provided a cultural connection
  2. Dual division of caste- these emerged around the eleventh century and overcame the isolated localities of the nadu providing a broad SOCIAL connect among a variety of people

Burton Stein explores this dual division of caste in great detail. The two castes being Idangai and valangai . The word valangai emerges in the Coromandel plain meaning right hand. Later the word elangai emerges meaning left hand. The two castes have violent clashes. The case divisions ad their violent forms spread right across the tamil country. These castes are known by equivalent terms in Karnataka balagey(right) and edagey(left). They are also known as kampulu meaning ‘agriculturist’ pertaining to right hand castes and panchanulu meaning ‘artisans’ and ‘trading classes’ were the same as the left hand division.Also according to some telugu speakers right hand was symbollic visnu worship and the left hand-of siva worship.

These caste divisions are seen to cooperate on supra-local matters such as trade and also co-operation in order to resist another group. Till the 13th century they represented the sole means by which groups other than Brahmans could transcend the borders of the nadu.

The velangai are clearly shown as agriculturists and are seen to have emerged as mercenary forces of the king. The idangai on the other hand are clearly associated with artisans and traders. They were associated with the five occupational groups of goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, carpenters and the stone cutters. Oil processors and weavers were occasionally included.

The idangai probably shifted their alliance from heterodoxy to Saivism. This is seen through the association of certain craftsmen with the title of rathakara, a title of high status. The craftsmen were attempting to take this title in order to raise their status and these craftsmen included four of the occupational groups of the idangai. Whatever the use of the title ranthakar the artists had come to be of a low status by the 11th century. However by the 12th century there is alleviation in their status. We see the term idangai velaikarrar indicating that the artisans had acquired armies of their own which were to become dominant in the next two centuries. Dr.Arokiaswami interprets this saying that the idangai would have been suppressed by the members of the velangai including the Vellalas and an intervention by the Chola ruler Kollutunga iii would have turned this around. This upliftment of the position of the mercantile and craft groups came with the urbanisation of temples.

Veluthat on the other hand argues for a social stratification with the Brahman on top, followed by the king and the chieftan who are legitimised by the Brahmans as ksatriyas, below them are the landed magnates who occasionally seem to enjoy the status of Brahmans, who are followed by the artisans and the agricultural labourers. Society appears to be influenced to a large extent by the presence of the Brahmans and their legitimizing powers.

CULTURE AND ECONOMY WITHIN MEDIEVAL SOUTH INDIA

The evolution as we see clearly from accounts of both Veluthat ans Stein is influenced greatly by the changes in religion and economy. Culture within the south Indian macro regions evolves from its Sangam age tribal antecedents to an agrarian culture which is more settled and comfortable. We also see the emergence of trade along with agriculture which results in an expansion of the cultural horizons of the region with cross cultural influences from south eat asia and sri lanka.

In fact this trasition from peasant to non-peasant society witnessed a number of clashes between the peasants and the non-peasants from the hill regions. Moreover the period immediately after the sangam age witnesses a growing situation of communal tension. By the time of the 9th century Brahmanism comes to establish itself and the Jainas and Buddhists come to beceom the minority.

The peasants follow the tenants of Brahmanism and thus Brahmanism gets established as the dominant religion. Soon we see the advent of the bhakti movement and a re-emphasis of the agamic religion. The bhakti movement has been emphasised by veludat as being a social representation of the feudal reality that existed.

These movements were brought into the macro region from north india by migrating Brahmans prior to the 7th century AD. These Brahmans helped to legitimize the rulers of the land with the help of norms from sastric literature. Such legitimation and spreading of norms began the process of sanskritization of the culture.

Some historians talk about this as a process of meeting of the great traditions of the Brahmans and the folk traditions of the indigenous peasant population. However Burton Stein emphasises the lack of validity in calling the Sanmgam traditions “folk” traditions. The process of sanskritization is in fact a process of fusion, where both cultures blend into one as in seen in the example quoted earlier dealing with incorporation of local deities into the the vedic pantheon that had migrated to South India.

Brahmans emerge as the arbiters and propagators of these two traditions through centres like the gathas in the brahmadeyas.

Towards the end of the twelfth century with the weakening of polity, we witness the urbanisation of the region. Urban centres according to burton stein come to replace the brahmadeyas as the hubs of civilisation. The nadus are incorporated into large supra-localities. It during this period that we witness the proliferation of temples that also encourages the increasing numbers of the artisans.

Moreover a larger number of non-Brahman learners of Sanskrit as well as a deepened link of the peasants with the high culture of the age.

Thus the culture of the south-Indian macro culture has always been closely linked to the major economic and religious changes of the age and the constant changes in both have lent this culture a rich and varied tradition.