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 7 th
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.

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.

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”

A. Inchoate
B. Typical
C. 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.

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 9 th 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 9 th 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.