চোলদের স্থানীয় স্বশাসন
প্রতিটি গ্রামের প্রাপ্ত বয়স্ক পুরুষেরা সাধারণত গ্রামসভা গঠন করত। গ্রামসভাগুলি পরিচালনার জন্য অনেকগুলি সমিতি তৈরি হত। এই সমিতির সদস্য হতে গেলে নির্দিষ্ট পরিমাণ জমির মালিকানা ও কর প্রদানের যোগ্যতা থাকতে হত, তাকে সেই গ্রামের বাসিন্দা হতে হত, বয়স হতে হবে ৩৫-৭০ মধ্যে, জ্ঞানী ও চরিত্রবান হতে হত। যিনি গত ৩ বছরের মধ্যে সদস্য ছিলেন এবং হিসেব দিতে পারেননি, তিনি সমিতির সদস্য হতে পারবেন না। অসৎ, ব্যাভিচারী, চুরির অভিযোগে শাস্তি প্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তি সমিতির সদস্য হতে পারবেন না। পাড়া বা কুটুম্ব থেকে ৩০ জনকে মনোনীত করা হত। এর থেকে একাধিক বরিয়ম বা কমিটি তৈরি হত। প্রশাসনিক কাজকর্ম দেখার জন্য ১২ জনের সমিতি তৈরি হত। এ ছাড়াও ছিল তোট্ট বরিয়ম বা উদ্যান সমিতি, এরি বরিয়ম বা পুষ্করিণী সমিতি, স্বর্ণ সমিতি প্রভৃতি। ঢোল পিটিয়ে কোনো জলাশয়ের ধারে, মন্ডপে বা মন্দির চত্বরে সমিতির অধিবেশন বসত। আলোচনার মাধ্যমে সর্বসম্মতিক্রমে সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া হত। কোনো বিশেষ শ্রেণীর স্বার্থ জড়িত থাকলে সেই শ্রেনীর প্রতিনিধিদের বক্তব্য শোনা হত। Local Self-Governance under the Cholas
The Chola rulers governed South India from the 10th to the 13th century. The Chola Empire was highly structured and extended beyond the seas to the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Java, and the Malay Peninsula. One of the distinctive features of Chola rule was its grandiose lifestyle that reflected their wealth, power, and imperial expanse. But beyond the establishment of an empire, the Cholas also developed a highly efficient administrative system. The most significant aspect of the Chola empire was its decentralized rural self-governance, in which the village functioned as the fundamental unit. While inscriptions from the Pandya and Pallava periods also reference local autonomy, the Chola system was far more elaborate and mature.
At the center, the Chola kings established a centralized, bureaucratic autocracy. The central administration handled defense, internal law and order, and economic and cultural development. All other responsibilities were handled by village assemblies. Significantly, the centralized Chola administration did not interfere with local self-rule. Although officials from the center monitored the local authorities, they did not obstruct their autonomy. These officials mostly acted as advisors and provided guidance on various matters.
The foundation of self-governance was the village. A cluster of villages formed a kurram, nadu, or kottam. A large village could itself constitute a kurram or kottam. Several kurrams formed a valanadu, and above that was the mandalam or province. Responsibilities like revenue collection and local justice were entrusted to these village assemblies.
In the Chola empire, adult males in each village generally formed the grama sabha (village assembly). Several committees were formed to manage the village affairs. To become a member of these committees, one needed to own a certain amount of land, be a taxpayer, a resident of the village, aged between 35 and 70, knowledgeable, and of good character. Anyone who had served as a committee member in the last three years but had failed to submit accounts was disqualified. Likewise, individuals convicted of theft, immorality, or corruption were barred. From local neighborhoods or kinship groups (kudumbu), 30 persons were nominated. From them, various Variams or committees were formed. One such was a 12-member committee for administrative functions. Other committees included the tottavariam (garden committee), erivariam (tank/water body committee), gold committee, etc. These committees held meetings by beating drums near water bodies, in pavilions, or temple premises. Decisions were made through discussion and general consensus. If a particular social group’s interests were concerned, their representatives were consulted.
Committee members engaged in welfare-related work—collecting revenue and depositing it in the royal treasury, supervising irrigation, reclaiming fallow land, etc. They assisted central officials in land surveys and revenue assessments. They also took initiatives in road construction, pond excavation, temple maintenance, and improving health and education facilities.
The Chola empire had four types of villages. The self-governing body in an ordinary village was called ur. In agrahara (Brahmin) villages, there was a Sabha or Mahasabha. In mixed villages with both Brahmins and non-Brahmins, Ur and Sabha coexisted. A notable feature of Chola self-governance was the Nagaram—merchants’ guilds with administrative functions similar to those of ur or sabha. Sometimes ur and Nagaram cooperated in governance. The nagaram managed trade and also administered internal affairs.
Inscriptions from the Chola period do not elaborate much on the operational procedures of these autonomous institutions. Scholars speculate that there existed an additional layer of governance above the village-level institutions, centered around the nadu, known as nattar. This council was composed of representatives from the ur, sabha, and nagaram, and assisted both the local and royal officials in various tasks. Inscriptions also mention two types of rural officials: madhyastha (mediators) who resolved local disputes, and karanattar (auditors), who were present in meetings but did not take part in discussions.
Researchers have pointed out that a full description of the functioning of autonomous institutions is not available in Chola inscriptions. There was no requirement for a minimum quorum, nor any practice of voting. Generally, members were nominated, discussions were held informally, and influential individuals participated based on their social status. The brahmadeya and devadana land grant systems required precise coordination among various councils—something that was evidently present during the Chola era.
Romila Thapar and Champakalakshmi, while evaluating Chola administration, have argued that this system primarily benefited the upper castes, while the lower castes were largely neglected. The centralized royal autocracy ensured social balance, which may explain the absence of large-scale rebellions during this period. It should also be noted that wealthy individuals made significant charitable donations to the poor. According to Nilakanta Sastri, the Chola state was founded on remarkable social cohesion and mutual give-and-take between the rich and the poor. However, Champakalakshmi believes that there was latent social tension between classes, which may not have been properly reflected in available sources.
The Chola system of local self-governance also influenced the nature of the state. Historian Nilakanta Sastri presents the Chola administration as a centralized bureaucratic system. In contrast, Burton Stein argues that the Chola state did not emerge as a centralized and bureaucratic monarchy. He introduced the theory of the Segmentary State. According to Stein, the Chola polity was divided into three zones—Central, Intermediate, and Peripheral. The peripheral zones were mostly small agrarian regions beyond the direct control of the central state. Meanwhile, the king and his allies in the central zone governed the empire through the intermediate zones. In this structure, the king’s authority remained sovereign, while the intermediate region served as a bridge between the central and peripheral zones.
However, the concept of a segmentary state, as proposed by Stein and his followers, has not been widely accepted by Indian historians. If the Chola state was truly segmentary, the existence of such a powerful central military would be inexplicable. Applying the model of African segmentary societies to South India is problematic. Some historians have also tried to explain the Chola polity as feudal, but the European model of feudalism is not entirely applicable in the Indian context. Hence, the Chola state had its own distinctive characteristics, combining certain elements from the Pallavas and developing its unique system.
চোলদের লিপি ছিল তালপাতায় লেখা যার নাম ছিল ওলাই
উত্তরমুছুনবলনাড়ু শব্দের অর্থ কি?
উত্তরমুছুন