Mirasi System as Social Grammar
- State, Local Society, and Raiyat in the 18th -19th South India -
Tsukasa Mizushima
Records on late pre-colonial South India present us a texture of complicated but well-
pa仕emedrelationship. The tex印rewas woven企omvarious materials different in color and length
and was made into a distinctive pattern. After experiencing several sets of changes in the colonial
period, however, that tex旬rewas entangled and each dissolved material was woven into a di宜erent
pa恥 m. This paper is an 甜 emptto describe comparatively the conspicuous features of these two
textiles, one the late pre-colonial and the other the late nineteenth cen刷ry,by using several sets of
village-level records.
The studied area is Ponneri, located to the north of Madras or Chennai in Tamilnadu State,
India (see Fig. 1 ). Relevant information would be supplemented from the other parts of Chingleput,
South Arcot, and Tiruchirapalli.
The main sources utilized here are, chronologically, the village accounts compiled by
Barnard' (Barnard R句port:1760s-70s), the revenue accounts prepared by Place2 (Place R句port:
1790s), the Permanent Settlement Records on Zamindaris, Poligars,組dPagodas in仕ie1801, the
village-level census of Madras in the 1871, and the Settlement Registers3 of Ponneri in the 1870s (to
be abbreviated SR 1870s). 百iefirst three will be used for analyzing the late pre-colonial period and
the last two for the late nineteenth century.
I. Late Pre-colonial Period
In the transient period between the Mughal rule and the British rule south India was in the
political同rmoil. Local powers, such as the nawabs of Arcot, Gengee, nayak:s of Madurai, Taniavur,
small and big palaiyakarans etc., all struggled hard to have more gains by collaborating or opposing
each other. The late comers to this political stage, the British, the French, the Marathas, the
Mysoreans, and the Nizam,白rthercomplicated the political scene. Despite the political instability,
however, the late pre-colonial records indicate the strong consistency of the economic s住UC加re.
We will examine below the conspicuous features of the period.
1 Thomas Barnard was appointed to survey the area白encalled “the Jagir". Barnard commenced the work in February 1767 and completed it, after many interruptions, in November 1773. [Phillimore, R.H. 1945: Historical Records of the Survey of Ind似,vol.l18由 Cen旬ry,published by order of the Surveyor General oflndia, India. p.88.] 2 Place was appointed as the collector of the Jagir in the 1794 and resigned the post in the 1799. 3 Land registers showing the pa出cularsof every land lot with relevant information about the village.
83
凶
U
Z凶
“
凶h陶凶M両
同
EE-冒O
U
ME『富岡
宮E昼1agod、
昭
8l引司円引到引開凶到面
旦王当5
....:i ~ <ft・VI
E-i 0
’ーヨCi: ~ a 凶 "lz~ :z ~ 0 ;i; 白岡 '-'
...
Iρcation Map of Ponneri (企om1971 Census)
84
Fig. 1
I-A. Village Types: State vs. Non-state
The village accounts compiled by Barnard in the 1 770s indicate an extensive existence of
villages managed by those other than the state. The most important was the prevalence of villages
placed under poligars4 [pala卯 karan]. Out of the hundred白食yvillages in Ponneri seventeen were
classified as国盤盤星辿 orthe villages owned by poligar/s. Seven (or eight) more villages were
rented by them, and another was a血旦出迎(avillage rented on a privileged rate) granted to one of
them. To put together, twenty-five (or twenty-six) villages were under the poligars’control (see
Fig. 2).
Around the same number of villages were placed under the various categories of people or
institutions as well. First came the nattars5 or the representatives of the people in the nadu. They
held six Shrotriams. They were followed by Brahmins with five Shrotriams, Pagodas with three
Shrotriams, Vellalers with two Shrotriams, and another for Pillai (probably the title of village
accountant). Some o伍cialsalso had a few Shrotriams. A Deshmuk (a high official of the state)
residing in Vellumbacum village in Ponneri had three, and a Stala Majumdar (probably an official in
temple administration) had two. To sum up, as many as E食yvillages or one-third of the total were
not under the direct management of the state but independently managed by some
individuals/institutions.
(Total= 150 villages) State Village (101 or 102 villages) SH -Shrotriam village
• Non-State V出a~e( 48 or 49 villa~es) 25 or 26 villages 18 villages
Nattar
白白白。fodali)Mocassah Lease SH SH SH SH SH SH
|| SH SH
17 7-8 6 5 3 2 2 3 2
Fig. 2 Village Types in Ponneri (Barnard Report, Ponneri, 1760s・70s)
Source: Barnard Report, Ponneri, 1760s-70s.
4 Poligars were the military who were assigned the role to keep safe and order. 5 All the Nattars discussed here had the caste title ofMudali. No Brahrnins were included.
85
Irrespective of the different management types, however, almost every village in the
concerned area had a similar internal s加 C加re(see Fig. 3). The most conspicuous was the regular
existence of both poligar-ship and mirasidar-ship6. Not only Barnard but also Place noticed the
prevalence of poligar-and mirasidar-ship in eve可 villagethey surveyed, and the identities of
poligars/mirasidars with their shares were recorded accordingly. As these two classes played key
roles in the period, we will make an attempt to clari命theirposition in the society next.
State/Nawab
!Ka向。,D回 hm此
!Tern仇 M仇 M叫 ueI StalaCumam
Temple Priest
Fakir, Guru
Dancer
Mirasi Syste皿
Mirasidar
E豆ヨ~~
Inam/Maniyam
Shares
shared before Threshing
shared before Measurement
paid by the State
paid by the State &白eCultivators
Outside Mirasi Syste皿
Manufacture
Weaver, Salt-maker
Toddy匂pper,Oilmonger
Trade/Transport
Chetti, Komati, Shroff
Fig. 3 Village S甘ucturein Pre-colonial South India -A Model -
Shares I I !Functionaries
Priest Panchanga
Cum am Measurer
Tala1yan
Carpenter Barber
Potmaker Smiths
Leather worker Was heロnan
Cultivators
Mirasidar
Payakari/Non-Mirasidar
Labourer
Others
Cow keeper
6 As will be discussed below, every product in a village was linked to a role performed in the local society. These shares as well as roles linked with them were considered to be inheritable and transferable and were called m立asi.For instance a hereditary share allotted to a washerman was a mirasi right of the washerman and the washerman was a mirasidar [mirasi holder]. Village o血cers,service castes, or any others who held such inheritable right could be thus called as mirasidar. On the other hand there was a class of people who asserted a superior status in the village. These people held their entire village in share and claimed an overlord-ship over others. When the British records used the term ‘mirasidar’, it refers exclusively to the latter. To distinguish the latter from the former, I will use‘mirasidar-ship’to refer to the latter in this paper.
86
Table 1 Poligars & the Number of Villages under也吋Jurisdictionin Ponneri (Barnard Report, l 760s-70s)
竺一8111241116M22111113lM2133132112111113311214111111142115一m
ぱ姥=
a出
N
V
Poligars (Revised)
Advy Basavar勾ah
Advy Basav訂吋油ofMoocasanellaorepollam
Advy Basavar司jah,Adycavel Goorvappa Naick Moottrian, Adycavel Po仕yNaick
Advy Basavar吋ah,Adycavel Nayimdasna Naick Moo仕ian
Advy B鎚 avar司jah,Adycavel Teagapan白ckMootrian
Advy Vencataputyr司jah
Advy Vencataputyr句油ofTanaperapollam
Andiappa Landholder of Coodvanjary
Anoopurnba仕 Goorvarajahof Gummidipundi
Anoopurnbatt Goorvarajah ofLutchimeputy N創ckpollam
Anoopurnbutt GoorvarゆAnoopurnbutt Goorv紅司jahof Nallappa Naick Pollem
Anoopumbutt Kary Kistarnr匂油ofVellatoor
Auvoor Tuppelrajah
Basa var司j油
Busa var司jahof Alimadegechembeliera
Caleteappa Naick, l、~arsuppa Naick of Periapollam
Chingleroya Mudali, Reddy Mudali of Chinnacavenurn
Coloor Comaur Vencatr司jah
Coloor Comaur Vencatrajah, Tookery Agharurn Aukulr可ah
Coloor Venca甘司jah
Coloor Venca廿司jahofReddypollam
Coloor Venca甘ajahofReddypollam In Suttavade District
CovrayMoo出 looVengam Naick ofMalemoodalambade
Culi凹刷ofAuvoor
Davaroyen, Khilen Nelooran, Tooliva Vellaler of Y ares1ven
Goorvar句ぬofGummidipundi
Goorvar勾油ofN叫lapaNaic句ollam
Karykista Mudali & Gopa叫 Mudali&Ca.
Karykista Mudali & Gopaul Mudali, Paupa Mudali, Si悦apaMudali, & Ramalinga Mudali
Kistanurnr司jahof Muir司japollam
Kurian, Turnban, Tooliva Vellaler ofMutteravade
Letchimeputy Naick ofGurnmidipundi & Tookery Cauvely Or Watching of百1eVillagers
Letchimeputy Naick of Gurnmidipundipollem
Lutchimeputy Naick
Mengavel Advy Basavarajah, Adycavel Goorvappa Naick, & Potty Naick
Muddycoyel Tappelrajah
Muddycoyel Tappelr句油ofAuvoor
Nullamoo仕aMudali & Aroonachela Mudali of Periacavenam
Nynappa, Tooliva Vellaler ofDaveranjary
Nynappa, Tooliva Vellaler ofWoppalurn
Palley Lutchemyputy Naick
Reddy Mudali, Chingleraya Mudali, Mootappa Mudali, Coolappa Mudali, Arunachala Mudali of
Reddy Mudali, Tooliva Vellaler ofViarungavade
Sadiappa Mudali Landholder of Madras
Tapulr司jahof Auvoor
Teagappa Naick ofMotapollam
Vencat Raj油,VencatramRajぬ,&Veerasaurny Rajah ofColoor
Vencatachel Naick ofVellyvoil
Vencatachel Naick, Chinnatomby Naick, One Residing At [U町 eadable],At [Unreadable]
Vencatasa Mudali & Candappa Mudali: Tooliva Vellaler of Coommungalurn
Venca仕吋油
Venca仕組E司ah,Vencatasa Naick, Poligar of A Hamlet Called Coorkootapu[Unreadable]
Vengam Naick of Annama Naick Cooppum
N.A.
Total
87
Source: Barnard Report, Ponneri, 1760s-70s.
1-B. Poligar
First we will take up poligar-ship by examining Table 1. The table indicates the names of
the poligars with the number of villages under their jurisdiction. From it the following findings are
obtained. Poligars like Advy Basavar勾ah,Advy Vencat叩uty同 ah,Anoopumb叫 Goorv問 ah,
Coloor Vencatrajah, and Muddycoyel Tappelrajah took the poligar-ship in a good number of villages.
There were, on the other hand, a number of poligars with just a village or two under them (see Fig.
4).
These figures indicate the co-existence of poligars with distinctively di妊erentscales,
which was also仕uewith other poligars in Chingleput as indicated in Table 2. Whereas several
poligars had a large number of villages, we can find a considerable number of poligars with one or
two.
Those poligars with hundreds of villages under their jurisdiction must have exerted a state-
like control over the region with many military followers. Such poligars were truly the professional
militaries and were quite often titled as Raja or Naick. They were the successors of the Nayak-ship
in the post羽jayanagaraperiod. The tiny poligars, though numerically dominant, were on the other
hand kind of petty policemen who performed the duties in the small locality.
Another s出kingfea佃rewas the en句 ofagricultural castes into the poligar品 ip.
Poligar-ship of as many as twenty villages w出 inthe hands of Vellalers or the leading agricul旬凶
caste (see Table 1). This finding poses somewhat different problem, which was related with the
important forces working in the period. Those Vellaler poligars, who were either the residents of
the concerned villages or those企omthe neighbourhood, were recorded as the mirasidars in their
own villages. Their caste background as a伊culturistswas totally different from the milit町
background of other professional poligars, whose titles were either Naick or Rajah.
Number of Villages where Poligars collected Fees
in Chingleput
(Permanent Settlement Records, 180 I)
4
10%
388
Fig.4 Number of Villages where Poligars collected Fees in Chingleput
ロl
圃2
ロ3
固4
ロ5
ロ6-10
ロ11-20
固21-50
圃148
圃388
Source: Permanent Settlement Records, vols.26, 26a, 26b: Statement of the Privileges of
Poligar, in a Letter from Mr. Greenway, 30.10.180 I.
88
5539125431
’11
d
’l
89
d
=111424225124812714384607311172IOU-
731a42151011151l
hu
--勾,,
『,,
,
E
.,EA
’Ea4
J
&
句
、
d
弓F&
冒
E・
今
、
d
aι
,
o
=
T
=
(悶奇E1己一
凶
JEOド〈〉【tk
一2
同出
O目的〈
ι凶匡』」一日
Table 2 Number of Villages m由eParaganas in Ponneri where the Respective Poligars had Some Privileges
~~g~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ qn~~1~n~~ き1 ~[ii§j ~ ~~~2~
I I 31 23
Z〈O〈豆トコ〈且
出コ〈〉〈」〈目出
Poligar/Paragana
6
3
8
3
2
3
3
24
6
14
’lnuJ
’i
2
2
2
7
19
7
2
8
23
56
30
4
3
15
9
5
5
5
15
4
2
12
4
3
5
2
2
4
41
8
3
2
8
5
15
2
20
Adevy Vencataputty Rauze
Alingeepauk Vengama Rauze
Ambatoor Pitchal Naick
Ammyapa Moodely & Namasevoy Moodely
Ammyapanettoor Vencatachella Naick
Anapumbut Harekistnama Rauze
Annamale Naick
Arimbaloor Gooroovapa Naick
Amee Ninapa Naick
A悦eeputVenca町amNaick
Aul山U紅yLingama Naick
Autoor Condamanaicken & Seddama Naick
BodyNaick
Boopaty Naick
Boya Moorty Naick
Boya Ramassamy Naick
Bungar Rauze
Bungaroo Naick & Vencatapu世yNaick
Calacautoor Verdapa Naick
Calatoor Condama Naick
Canaca Rauze & Shashama R且uze
Cauloor Jatal Naick
Chinnasivendapauda Naick
Chinnoo Naick & Chingama Naick
Coanama Rauze
Codurnbauk Amadry Naick
Codurnbauk Aroonachella Naick & Reddyapa Naick
Colatoor Bungar Naick
Coloor Vencata Rauze
Com訂asamyNaick
Comarvady Trimul Naick
Comaur Bomma Rauze
Conaty Vengama Naick
Condama Naick
Conda war
Coodoovanjary Moomady Naick
Coolungacherry Condie Rauze
CoopaRauze
Coopoo Naick
Coopum Vencatachella Naick
Cootumba叫cl凶1abi包nts
Cootumbaukurn Body Rauze
Coratoor Rama Naick
Coyembaid Venca惚samyNaick
Cundapa Naick
Cundloor Verdapa Naick
C山1drapadooVencataaram Rauze
Cuttacole Peddy Naick Formerly, But Now
Potooreddy Condama Naick
Cutty Cauvil Trimagala Naick
Delavoy Moommody Naick
Delavoy Perrnal Naick
Doppawar Permall Naick
Eagawar Ramachendra Naick
Eroolunjary Sawmy Naick
Goodla Vencatg田amyNaick
Goommadypoody Lutchemeputty Naick
Gooroomoorty Naick
Gooroovaoa Naick
回;z; 〈ι ← ~ Total ... ι
凶出。↑〈〉-t』
凶出O目的〈
ι同出』』
Table 2 Number of Villages m出eParaganas in Ponneri where the Respective Poligars had Some Privileges
a~g29~~~~~ ~ 豆雪量当 6 丘冨~ 2 ~ 01 量要~ ~ ~言 Q ~ ~ ~ ~望 2~ ~ 員言 8~~~ @ ~2~
19
Z〈O〈-Aトコ〈且
出コ〈〉〈」〈且
Poligar/Paragana
-a
OY1A1A1A1d1A
バUPコ1a今ι1AA守兵
u
d匂
1A1且
nU7’-且
AM1λ守
内L
今ι
1且
1且
nuqJ。onv今L
1u内3
nU守,
勺’
q’-q’-。。
今ι1a1A今’-
1d1A1A守L
7’1A’A司
3
qL司
i
TA
勺ι
。。必斗
1A今’h
守,
ー
ι
ヲ-
1A
勾
3
1
A
1
A£U
’atA
a
U
1
a
v
A
A
斗
1
a
7
・
ゥ
,
1u
。
。
,
A
l
令、,
4
9
2
2
9
17
2
6
2
2
2
2 3
17
4
7
11
44
2
6
7
10
3
3
2
5
10
15
5
4
8
10
24
18
6
2
78
45
2
2
23 24
17 172
90
10
2
4
9
40
34
18
37
2 179
3
3
Hm岨ortyNaick & Tumboo Naick
Jemboo Naick
Kaul yo or T、foindamaNaick Kylasa Naick
Madoor Veer出釘nyRauze
Madypa叫cumRarnachendra Naick
Manarnadara Govinda Naick
Manelloor Groovapa Natは
Manirnungalurn Rarnasamy Naick
Maurnundoor Bungar Naick
Maurnundoor Chingle Naick
Mohapoor Body Naick
Mohundry Gungarna Naick
Moocrurnbauk Perrnal Naick
Mooddoo Moorty Naick
Moorapa Naick
Moo此yNaick
Mootial Moosely Naick
Motoopolarn Tiagapa Naick
Muddyco明lTeppal Rauze
Mui Rauze
Munnar Sidda Naick
MurtumNar剖rnmaNaick
N副coon旧mPeddy Naick
Naut Yavalapa Moodely
Nelvaly An唱~arapaNaick
Noindarna Naick
Nueka Vencatararna Naick
Nullarnoor Peddy Naick
Nundrurnbauk Gopall Kistnama Naick
N凹思unbaukSawrny Naick
Pariaturnby Naick
Paudy Nullarna Naick
Pa叫四mT、loindarnaNaick Paurevaukurn Pullees
Peddapoll細 ChellapaNaick & Rungapa Naick
Peddy N出ck
Peddy Naick & Bolee Naick
Peddy Naick & Sawrny Naick
Pedoogoo Perrnal Naick
Pennager Shashachella N創は
Podoovapilla Ninapillah
Poot a哩arumVencatasamy Naick
Porponda Chinny N aick
Potooreddy Condama Naick
Pottary Moornmady Naick
Praliacavary Trimulnaick
Pullum Vencatachella Naick
P山lje仕yMootial Naick
Put甘awarYellapa Naick
Rama Naick
Ram叩 aick
Reddyapa Naick
Reddyapa Naick & Groovapa Naick
Rettarnungalum Vencatachella Naick
Royal N血.ck
Rungapa Naick
Rungapa Naick & Moorty Naick
Sahil Naick
Salavaty R且masamyNaick
Ju
-nxu内,ゐ今
3
’I勾
3nυ
u-
2
0一
T一
{目
Z〈
ιト」〈的】
’ι’AE
且。。,aO01
且1ES勾
31a
バU
A崎町
QJ《J勾
3内
3
1A1A
qd
フ-Ti
--
TA
’iA
守A守ぺ&。。1d兵vtA1A
バu今ι
nU1ao
。1aqゐ
勺’h
7・ヲhA
守。。tata
,、J
。。QJ
。。-nu-
凶
2
2
1
8
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
一幻一
=4-
ヲOTl
凶
toト〈〉
EK
凶出
O目的〈
ι凶出」=
Table 2 Number of Villages m白eParaganas in Ponneri where the Respective Poligars had Som氾 Privileges
百 三 玉← 号室~ ~ ~ 司§~8~~~~~~~01~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ :i:: コ会う出凶事〈弓 出 ¥ 凶 υ ::; ;; λ 圭 z ;王
~~~as~~~~~~~
Z〈O〈
2↑コ〈且
出コ〈〉〈斗〈凪
5
2
Poligar/Paragana
3
20 1 46
21
7
57
11
9
4
2
18
4
2
10
17
3
11 5
4
’i’lro
l
3
18
2
3
nxu勾、
d
,、dl
7
2
18
12
40 16
13
38
2
3
6
5
2
2
6
5
6
8
4
18
15
Sau旬njaryChinnoo Naick
SawmyNaick
Sawmy Reddy
Seroovaloor Comboo Naick
Shadymcoopum Groovapa Naick
Shashadri Pillah Formerly But Now Potooreddy
Condama Naick
Siddama Naick
Sooria Naπ剖nRauze
Soorootel Sawmy Naick
S町・eeramaSengama Naick
Stumby Soobaroy Pillah
Tanaw町 CondamaNaick
Termagula Naick
Teroovarcaud Angarapa Naick
Tiagapa Naick
TimmaRauze
Timmoo Naick
Tremul Naick
Trimul Naick & Sawmy Naick
Tripanungaud Tumboomoorty Naick
Vadam釘1jiwarTaunapah Naick & Rungapa Naick
Vaipary Narsemma Naick
Valayooda Naick
Vaundravasee Annamala Naick
Veerabadra Naick & Vencatachella Nacik
Veer阻 arrainVencatachella Naick
Veer紅agavaNaick
Vellacondama N剖ck
Vellaputtoor Permal Naick
Yell戸embaukC山1dapaNaick
Vencata Rauz & Gooroova Rauze
Vencatachella Naick
Vencataram Naick
Vencatasamy Naick & Moodoo Naick
Vencatasen & Pariapyen
Vendoty Vencatachella Naick
Vendy Siddama Naick
Vendy Veer田町nyNaick
Vendy Vencata Naick
Vendy Vencatachella Naick
Venty Yellar Naick
Verdapa Naick & Shashapa Naick
Village Inhabitants Cavaly
Vora思1IDbaukMootial Naick
Vundavassee Permal Naick
Vypoor Vencatachella Naick
Woocul Groomoorty Naick
Woollawoor Conary Naick
Woollawoor Groovapa Naick
Woo町elTreple Naick
Wootoocaudoo Chinnama N aick
Woragadum Peddyapa Naick
Woratty Narnapa Naick
WotげvaukPaupa Rauze
Yechoor Veerapermal Naick
Yeπ回 aNaick
4 2
18 446
29
63
17
91
Source: Permanent Settlement Recor.ゐ Vols.26,26a, 26b: Statement of the Privileges of Poligar, in a Letter合omMr. Greenway, 30.10.1801.
72
18
31 153 204
5 13 22
89
17
64
18
79
7
59 209
4 24
3 382
1 19
70
14
Total
Frequency
These Vellaler poligars took the poligar-ship in the villages located in the middle of
Ponneri as shown in Fig. 5. Such spatial concentration in the center of the locality needs some
interpretation. One of the motives of their en仕yinto poligar-ship was definitely an economic one.
Some economic gain could be expected by acquiring polig距 ship. Though we cannot ve司令白lly,
the relative importance of the central part must have been higher than others not only economically
but also politically. These conditions propose us another possibility, that is, the emergence of
village leaders as military leaders. We will come back to this point later.
50 0 500
V.shp N.A
• Naick • Naick (Covray) o Naick (Palli) • Rajah ・Rajah,Naick (Mutt1r • Vellaler [Madras]
Vellaler [Neighboring Village] • Vellaler [Same Village] 亡コBound川 .shp
1000 mi wキE
s
Fig.5 Distribution of Poligar-ship held by Different Castes in Ponneri
92
I・C.Mirasidar as Village Leader
Early colonial records widely acknowledged the overlordship of mirasidars. Mirasidars
were considered to be the owners of village. They were the con仕ollersof the village production
activities as well. The Tamil equivalent of mirasidar is kaniyatchi-karan or the person of
inheritance. As they owned their village in shares, they were called as karai・karanor the person of
share. Mirasi right was known to be salable, mortgageable, and inheritable. According to
Karashima’s study on the sale documents examined by Ellis and Sancarya, many transactions of
mirasi right were observed in the late pre-colonial period. The transactions were not only between
the people of different villages but also between the different castes. Karashima concluded that it
was common for mirasi rights to be held by outsiders, which gave threat to the solidarity of the
village communities and accelerated their disintegration as well. 7 Sources in our hands give us
information about the results of such transactions.
Table 3 indicates the residing places of mirasidars in the 144 villages recorded in the
Barnard Report in the 1770s. Out of the 119 villages where the mirasidars’residing place were
known 107 villages were held either by the resident mirasidars (80) or by those in the neighborhood
(27). Those living in relatively remote villages, but not very far, held eight more villages. In a
word mirasidar-ship in most cases was held by the mirasidars living in the proximity.
Further investigation is possible by the Place Report in the 1797, which listed the
mirasidars’personal names with their respective sh紅白. Totally 534 mirasidar names in Ponneri
were recorded. Assuming the same personal name signifies the same person, 382 mirasidars can be
counted. Out of them 361 mirasidars or 91 % held the mirasidar-ship in just a village or two8 (see
Fig. 6). These evidences lead us to the conclusion that the mirasidars were of the village-level.
Table 3. Mirasidars’Places of Residence in Ponneri (Barnard Report, 17 60s-70s)
Place of Residence Cases
Same Village 80
Neighboring Village 27
Other Village 8
Madras 3
Arcot? (N awab)
Unknown
Total
Source: Barnard R句port, 17 60s-70s.
25
144
7 Karashima Noboru, Mirasidars in the Chingleput Area, South Indian Histo1ァandSociety Studies from Inscriptions AD 850-1800, p.178. 8 We can find some cases of some mirasidars having mirasidar-ship in several villages. They were probably the same
93
1-D. Mirasidar vs. State
There were a few important exceptional cases that need to be analyzed. The first was the
case of absentee mirasidars. We can白ida few villages the mirasidar晶 shipof which were held by
those living in Madras. The second was the case where the mirasidar-ship was purchased by
Nawab Mahfuz Khan.9 These cases indicate first of all that the mirasidar-ship, to which some
privileges were attached, had become an object for investment. The Nawab’s case, on the other
hand, has by far more important implication. It is significant that the Nawab did not usu中 mirasidar-
ship by force but had to purchase. The加 tonomyof mirasidar-ship企omthe state will become a
point to be discussed later.
Number of Villages where Mirasidars had Shares in Ponneri
(Place Report, 1797 /8)
N = 382 Mirasidars (in 136 villages)
4
2% 3
4%
6 7
10 0%
77%
Fig. 6 Number of Villages where Mirasidars had Shares in Ponneri (Place Report, 1797/8)
Source: Abstract State of the Number ofMeerassee Shares and ofMeerassee Holders in the Several Districts of the Jagheer in Fusly 1207 shewing also the Quantity of Meerassee unclaimed & occupied by Pyacarries, Board's Collections, 2115 & 2116, Vol.112, F/4/112, OIOC.
individuals whose names were co-incidentally same. 9 Mahfuz Khan was the son of Dost Ali Khan. He held nawab-ship in the years 1740-42. According to the Barnard Report, it was purchased 企omCondighetty Vellalars.
94
1-E. Mirasidar vs. Poligar, Shrotriamdar
As stated above, poligars and various shro住iamdarstook the management of many
villages independently企omthe state. To clari骨 theposition of mirasidar it is necessary to
investigate the differences among the mirasidars, poligars and shro出amdars. The related evidences
were:
I. none of the shrotriamdars except two10 held mirasidar-ship,
2. whereas many villages were held by the poligars either as Mookasah, Rent, or Shro肘am,no
mirasidar-ship was owned by any poligars,
3. the caste composition was distinctively different between the poligars on one hand and the
shrotiamdars and the mirasidars on the other. Most of the poligars had the titles of either
Naick or R勾ah. The shrotiamdars and the mirasidars were, on the other hand, dominantly
Mudalis (Vellalers) or Brahmins11 (see Table 4 & Fig. 7).
The first evidence implies that shro出amdar-shipwas of secondary or supra-village level
whereas the mirasidar-ship was of the prima可 orvillage level. Though no information about the
grants of privileged shrotriam tenure is available, it is certain that those shrotriamdars like Nattars,
Pagodas, Deshmuks, or Stala Kamams [temple accountants] performed some roles to assist state
control in the local socie勿・
The second and the third evidences, along with the evidence that most of the poligars in
the area had just one or two villages under their jurisdiction, indicates that the difference between
most of the poligars and the mirasidars lay not in the social level but in the social role each played in
the local society. While the former took charge in keeping peace and order, the latter con仕olledthe
social relation in the village.
10 In the first case出eNattar, Arsoor Vencatachel Modely [sic.], was the shrotriamdar of the concerned village [Tirooparoo]. According to the Barnard Report, the Nattar bought a part of血evillage mirasidar-ship and mortgaged 也erest企omthe mirasidars [Gentoo Bramins of Tirooparoo]. In the second case the Deshmuk, Ram Row, was the shrotriamdar of Vellumbacum and bought the village mirasidar-ship 企omJainy [sic.] Vellalers. Both of the回 nsfersoccurred recently. 11 Many of the cases under the category of 'Unidentified (Aggraharam)' most probably belonged to the Brahmin castes.
95
Table 4 Number of Mirasidar Castes in the Different Magans in Ponneri (Place Report, 1797 /8)
曲目凶嗣占有〉』OHロ且一
国目的
202
E50Ha
hh帽固HMG&
EoEZ
自己ω旨-。且ハ単
〉
82E盟国ヨハ出
』ロロヨ司ハ】
自己目
ωghi一2
Total
』白〉、国
z.
』
8-on単一I
Caste Code
3
21
3
3
197
25
I
2
12
10
38
6
4
3
4
4
4
3
1
6
32
4
今
3司
4
1d内
L
a斗
63
12
・1・11d内,ゐ
18
2
19
3
19
7
11
3
2
4
5
3 3
2
31
7
5
11
2
2
Achari
Aiyangar
Chetti
Gurukkal
Moot釦
Mudali
Naick
Ninar
Pagoda
P組 daram
Pillai
Rauze
Red di
Row
Shastri
6 147
19
36
12 26 28 8 19 27 22
6 5
Unidentified (Agg.&Nu出 m)
Unidentified (Aggrah紅um)
Unide岨tified(Dutch Village)
U由化担tified(Nu伽 m)
Unide岨tified(N.A.)
Total
19
8 2 2 4 7 12
534
Source: Abstract State of the Number of Meerassee Shares and of Meerassee Holders in the Several Districts of the Jagheer in Fusty
1207 shewing also the Quantity ofMeerassee unclaimed & occupied by Pyacanies, Board's Collections, 2115 & 2116, vol.112,
F/4/112, OIOC.
30 22 82 101 49 25 61 47 10 90 17
DACHARI
固CHET百
ロGURUKKAL
ロMOOTAN
ロMUDALI
固NAICK
固N町 AR
ロPAGODA
固PANDARAM
固PILLAI
ロRAUZE
RED DI
固ROW
固SHASTRJ
固Unidenti自ed(Agg.&Nuttum)
固Unidenti自ed(Aggraharum)
固Unidenti五ed(DutchVillage)
ロUnidentified(Nuttum)
Percentage ofMirasidar Castes in Ponneri (Place Report, 1797/8)
N = 382 Mirasidars (in 136 villages)
Unidentified(Nuttum)
8%
Unidentified(Dutch
Village)
5%
Unidentified
(Aggraharum)
29%
SHASTRJ
1%
Fig.7 Percentage ofMirasidar Castes in Ponneri (Place Report, 1799)
Sour田: Abs町actState of the Number ofMeerass田 Sharesand ofMeerassee Holders in the Several Dis凶ctsof the Jagheer in Fusty 1207
shewing also出eQuantity ofMeerassee unclaimed & occupied by Pyacarries, Board’s Collections, 2115 & 2116, Vol.112, F/4/112, OIOC.
96
1-F. Mirasidars and their Power Base
How, then, was the mirasidars’con仕olover the agrarian relation in the village sustained?
A few answers could be hinted. First was the dominance of their fellow caste members in the
respective villages. This was, however, not necessarily the case so far as the numerical dominance
was concerned. The percentage of mirasidars’fellow caste men in the respective villages12
indicated in Table 5 shows白atnot a small number of villages (i.e. 32 villages out of 150 villages)
were without any fellow men of the mirasidars.
百thenumerical s仕engthdid not necessarily count at the village level, how was it in an
area larger than a village? It was neither Parru nor Simai but Magan that was commonly used in
the eighteenth century Chingleput as a unit larger than a village. Early colonial records used it
regularly in referring to the concerned area. Magan, which generally consisted of several or tens of
villages13, was supposed to be a social entity with some distinctive features. As our task here is,
however, not to clari今thefeatures but to examine the mirasidars’power base in a wider area than a
village, we will adopt Magan as the unit for analysis. 14
Table 4 indicated above shows the distribution of Mirasidar castes in the respective
Magans. Unfortunately the caste identification of a considerable number of mirasidars cannot be
ascertained, so that the situation in the period is not easy to reconstruct. Even after excluding the
unidentified cases, however, it can be observed that all the Magans had at least a few mirasidar
castes. Only Ponnary (Ponneri) Magan showed an exceptional dominance of Mudalis (Vellalers)
among the mirasidars. This dominance could be, however, probably denied if the unidentified
cases were clarified. 15 The first possible answer, i.e. the numerical dominance of fellow castemen,
was thus found to be negative.
12 The difference within the m司jorcategory of castes, such as Vishunu Brahmin and Siva Brahmin, are here neglected to emphasize numerical strength. 13 According to the Place Report, there were 223 magans of various extents. They totally comprehended 2241 villages. Place 1799, para. 320. 14 An attempt to assess血eentity of Magan unit was done by the author elsewhere by using the Barnard Report. [T. Mizushima, Nattar and the Socio-Economic Change in South India in the J8'h-J9凶 Centuries,ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 1986; Idem., 18-20 seiki minami indo zaichi syakai no ken紗uu,ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 1990.] The unit proved to be rather in a decomposite shape so far as白eSalavakam region in Chingleput was concerned. 15 Many of those unidentified cases in the Agraharum must have belonged to Brahmin.
97
Table 5 Percentage of Landholders’Fellow Castemen但arnardReport, 1760s-70s)
pa
l
u
e
守
Fn3nU
9
N
0
1』
ELPU
pu
{言。出回〈Z)
Z凶苫凶’H凶〈U〉〉
OJ」凶
回一記凶
QJozcZ〈」
三回り村山氏。」
JL一肌
(凸凶LF〈」コU」〈U)
凹凸」OZ凶悶コ
OZ
」〈ト0ト
Landholder's Caste
(Narrow)
Landholder's Caste
(Wide)
Names of Landholders And Their
Shares
。%
%
%
%
のυAUAU
。%
。%
%
%
%
nununU
。%
0% 。%0% 。%
0% 3%
10
38
%%%%%
nυnUAUnUAU
0% 。%
0% 。%
。%。%。%
%%%%
nυAUnυAU
。%
%
%
%
マ,AU
句,
6
3
30
6
0
5
吋
4
’a
。%
5%
0%
36% 。%
。%
4%
。%0% 。%
%%%%%
nu
。。nU《
Unυ
叩0%。%
0% 。%
。%。%。%ん
A
A
A
t
t
e
t
0030 。%
Tuliva V.
Va血maBr
Vadama Br.
Niyogee Br.
14
22
必-y
’EB
,
句,‘,l
’t
28
25
6
62858
1t吋
4
・』
10
19
7
17
8
10
Tuhva V.
Niyogee Br. Purco回hv
Ve伊ryBr.
Purcotah V
V1stnoo Br
Condighetty V
Gentoo Br
Solia V.
Condighetty V
Condighetty V
Purcotah V.
Gentoo Br Nattar
Nawab
1
・・l,、,,o
l13l
Gent凹 Br.Niyogee Br.
Vepary Br
Vistnoo Br.
Vistnoo Br. Condighetty
v.
Condighetty V
Vistnoo Br
Condighetty V
Condighetty V.
Vistnoo Br
Condi位旦"'i_V.
Purco回hv Gemoo V.
P町co回hv Purco阻hv
Palli
Tuhva V.
Ka叩kis回 Moodely& Gopaul
Moodely, Paupa Moodely, Sittapa
Moodely, & Ramalinga Moodely
Vadama Brami田
Vadama Bramins
Niyogee Bramir】SResiding at
Suttavad。。Anncient Landholdm Are Palleys
From Whom The Chettys Pu悶 based
The L•ndholdership & From Whom Vellaler
Bought Tuliva Vellalers Who Are
Landholders Now
Niyogee Bramins ofTuttamu吋ey30 1 ’Brahmin Vellaler
P町 co回hVellalers of Vallar 2
Vepary Bramins ofC凹 mmungalum Brahmin
Purco111h Vellalers Vellaler
Vistnoo Bramin Landholders. Their Brahmm
Residency Unknown
CondigheロyVellala ofNuthvoil Who
Mortgaged Their Village To N凹血 Vella I er
Gopauler.
Gentoo Bramins Their Residence
Unknown 12
Solia Vellala of Unknown Place
Condighetty Vellalers of Unknown
Place
C冶ndighettyVellalers of Mu町oor
Ancient Landholder. Palley, Their
R四 dencyUnkno附 nPurco阻hVellaler
Vellalers Or Arsoor They Cultivate
This Village On 24 Shares
P山℃0回hVellalers of Pood田 hary Vellaler
Gentoo Vellale四 Vellaler
Purcoah Vellalers of Unknown Place Vellaler
Purcotah Vellalers of Unknown Place Vellaler
Palleys of Wopesamoodnurn Palli
Tuliva Vellale目 ofW町nmepade Vella I er
Gentoo Bramms ofCunasumpacum
Arsoor Vencatachel Mo由ly
Purchased Part of Land & H剖 TakenBrahmm Nattar
For MoロgageThe Other Part of Land
From Gentoo Braminy Landholde日
ofTirooparoo
Nabab Mahafoose Cawn
Gentoo Bramin Landholders of
Unknown Place, Another Gentoo
Bramin Residing at Garacan…And
Rungaputy Pundit Stil M句umdar
Residing at Promary, Vengamrajah
Niyogee Residing at Aroomunda
Who Purchased
Landholdership [Vepary Bramm
(Who Purchased Landholdership)
[From Ancient Landholder. Gentoo
Bramin), Gentoo B悶 minWho Held
Daunum Or Gift of Land)]
Vistnoo Bramins of Anoopumbut Brahmm
Vistnoo Bramins of Unknown Place. ’Brahmin Vellaler
Condighetty Vella I er of Choleporam
Condighetty Vellalers ofCholeveram Vellaler
Vis回nooB悶 mmsof Unknown Place Brahmin
c。ndighettyVellalers Vellaler
Condighetty Vellale目。fCholepo悶 m Vella I er
Gopaliah Vis回nooBramin Brahmin
Landholder. of Girdaporam
Condiohenv Vellaler of Aunoaud Vellaler
Village Name
Vellaler
Bra hmm
Brahmin
B問 hmm
Tirvapady
Vilpacum
Tudyperumbauk
Codavoor
P0116A
P0081E
P0112D
P0184A
Kistna凹rum
Cudapacum
Colatoor
Ariapillaycopum
Maranoor
POllSA
P0098A
P0108A
P0106A
P0089A
Bra hmm
Vellaler
Vellaler
Vellaler
Tottacaud
Autriamungalum
Dave由num
Areyempoil
Unidendi日ed Collapudey
P0182B
P0052A
P0083D
P0049A
P0079B
Nawab
Chi出 回oor
PO I 75A Poorvame
PO I 67B Praliumbacum
P0248A Mangode
P0249A Kearapacum
UNIDENTIFI Cooleynauvel
ED
P0222A Cungaunmade
POl43K
P0035A Mahafoose Cawn Petta
P0037C/P02
13A
Tiroopar凹
Brah mm
98
Parymulla、!Oil
S1maporam
Simeyem
P0028A/P02 Voraycaud
OOA
P0025A Auttoor
Unidendified Tindagariumbutt
P0026A Comwoday
POOl9A Marumbull
Coombanoor
P0041A
P0006B
P0020A
Table 5 Percentage of Landholders' Fellow Castemen (Barnard Report, 1760s-70s)
1971 Names of Landholders And Their Landholder's Caste Lan品olde内 Caste
CENSUS Village Name S加r田 (Wide) (Narrow)
CODE ~o E」討~
P0143A/P02 P Vistnoo Bramin Brahmin Vistnoo Br.
74 3% 1% lZA unapacu町1
P0022A Choleporam Condogheny Vellalers Vellaler Condighe町 V 98 5% 3%
P0223C Woome戸de Tuliva Vellaler Vellaler Tuhva V. 31 6% 3%
POlllA Landholder Bramins Residing In The 25 4% 4%
Au laud Following Villages, Vepary Bramin Brahmin Brahmin Ve凹ryBr. Vedma Br at Coommungalam, Vedma Bramin Brahmin
Vistnoo Br. Gentoo Br at Vembauk, Vistnoo, Gentoo
Bramins at Cattaroor
P0044A L担llUltUtUCI.l¥.t:SIUt:昌 aLruuu u担V祖OUll』
57 7% 5% & Aunypade, Condigheny Vellaler
Landholder. & Cowkeeper Who
Purchased Landholdership: Condigheny V.
Ennoor Condigheny Vellalers 6, Condigheny Vellaler Cowkeeper Cowkeeper
Vellaler Purchased From Above
Landholders 5, Cowkeeper
Purchased From Above 『~- .fl..’‘ ’ ..lw- ’
P0016A Codypullum
Covrays Who Purchased Covrai Covrai
36 6% 6%
Landholdership
P0213B Coloor Purco回hVellalers Vellaler P山 ℃O回hv 154 8% 6%
P0127A Chelembade Purco回hVellalers Vellaler Purcotah V 83 11% 6%
P0211A Elpacum
Gentoo日間minsof Unknown Place B h i Gentoo Br.
33 9% 6% 32 Fixed. ra町' n
P0090A Tanapacum Purcotah Vellalers Vellaler P山・co阻hv. 14 14% 7%
P0143D Moodalambade Gentoo Bramins Brahmin Gentoo Br 129 9% 8%
P0218A Coorivep。ram Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler Tuliva V. 38 11% 8%
POOSOC M,町oor Condighetty Vellalers Vellaler Condigheny V. 112 13% 8%
P0164A Viarungavade
Reddy Mu由h,Tooliva Vellaler of Yell 1 Tuliva V
24 13% 8%
Viarungavade a er
P0056E/P005 Vu Gentoo Bramins Brahmin Gentoo Br.
69 9% 9% 6C nnypacum
P0053A Vellumbacurn Desmook Ram Row Deshmuk Deshmuk 11 9% 9%
P0065A Alunje凹cum Vadamals [Vadama Brami吋 日間hmin Vadama Br 21 38% 10%
P0091C Gent《>OBramin ofVoiloor 1, 48 I{跳 問%
Tu回vajeeBramin at Valloor 1, Brahmin Brahmin Gent。oBr. Niyogee Br.
Voil。orNiyogee Bramin at Madras 1,
Brahmin Brahmin Vistnoo Br. Nurnby & Vis回nooBramin at Men。,or I. ’ Kanak illai
Siva Br Conicoply Numby & Siva Bramin at Madras 1, ap
Conicoply 1
P0034B Nauyer
Condighetty Vellalers, Conicoply Vellaler Kanakapillai Condigheny V. Conicoply
133 11% 11%
Ponny Narain Pillay
P0107A M叫ooporam Gentoo Bramin Brahm in Gentoo Br. 11% 11%
POOSOB Luchimiporam
'<l"''J uoauuu uo」vuuuu山>5a>UW『 BrahminBrahmin
~/2, Vadama Bramini 4 1/2, Vellaler Vellaler Vepary Br. Vadama Br. 13% 13%
円)021A Aungaud Cond1gheny Vellalers Vella I er Condighe伏yv 23 17% 13%
P0040B Ma door Gentoo Bramins Brahm in Gentoo Br 97 18% 13%
P0080A Elevunbun
Tuliva Vellale四[AngooreddyVellaler Tuliva V
22 23% 14%
Moodely)
P0085A Cauneyembacum Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler Tuliva V 48 15% 15%
P0183A 凡 111..IClll.L.411凶 IVIUCII OllC)', 111'1::11
91 46% 15%
Arsoor Residency Unknown Pure訓ah
Vellaler Purcotah V Vellalers Changeable Shares 24
P0149A Nullamoo出 Mudali& Aroonachela 60 22% 17%
Periacaven山明 Mu由Iiof Per咽cavenam[Tuliva Vella I er Tuhva V
Vellaler)
P0051A Condigheny Vellalers, Nunda 83 23% 17%
Naithvoil Gopauler Who Bought Vellaler Condigheny V.
Landholdership
P0092日 Cautp叫ley Purco回hVellalers 3, Nulvellaler 1 Vellaler Purco回hV NulV. 40 23% 18%
P0115C Tuhva Vellaler, Head Landholders. 81 23% 19%
Cusba Of Ponary KaryklS回 Moodely& Gopaul
Vellaler Tuhva V Moodely, Pau凹 Moodely,Sittapa
Moodely, & Ramalinga Moodely
P0105B Tirvellavoil Tuhva Vellalers Vellaler Tuliva V 24 29% 21%
P0186A Covelgar of The Village. [Gentoo 19 26% 21%
Coll oar Bramin,羽田町yBramin, V1Stnoo Brahmin Gent伺 Br.Vaipary Br.
Bramin’]
P0227A Oulidilumbade Tuhva Vellalers Vellaler Tuliva V 23 22% 22%
P0215A Annamulacherry Kahans Kalian Kalian 9 22% 22%
P0177A Vembade Pure。回hVellalers Vellaler P町田恒hv 31 23% 23%
99
Table 5 Percentage of Landholders’Fellow Castemen (Barnard Report, l 760s-70s)
pa
l
U恒
マ’nsnU
9
N
O
---EL
F-w
C
{〉
PO出回〈Z)
Z凶豆凶ド回〈U注OJ」凶
Ft凶白」
ozoZ〈」
{凶白-量)
Z凶豆凶ト的〈U量O」」凶
Ft凶凸」OZ白Z〈」
(凸凶ト〈」コU」〈U)
明白JOZ凶的コ
OZ
」〈LFOLF
Landholder’s Caste
(N町 ow)
Landholder’s Caste
(Wide)
Names of Landholders And Their
Shares Village Name
Vadama Bramins Brahmin
Condighetty Vellalars 3, Cowkeepers _ Vellaler Cowkeeoer
Bought Share I
Gentoo Bramins 30. Vistnoo Bramins ’ Brahmin
10, Vadma Bramins 20
Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler
Gentoo Bramins 62, Purco回hBrahmin Vellaler
Vellalers 2
Purcotah Vellaler Vellaler
Vistanoo Bramin Sreenevasah. ’ Brahm in
Moodookistniah, Ayyaniah
Vistnoo Bramins, Ancient Shares 60 Brahm in
Now Fixed 7 1/2
Gentoo Bramins Brahmin
Pally Palli
Purcotah Vellalers Vellaler
Ancient Landholders Palleys From
Whome Chittys Are Purchased The
Landholdersh1p & From The Chi ttys Vellaler
Tuliva Vellalers Purchased Thus
Changeable Shares 5 Fixed
Gentoo Bramin Appaviar &
Poorooshcllenaier, Vistnoo Bramins, Brahmin Vellaler
Purco回hVellalers
Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler
Pallys Palli
Gentoo Bramins 40, Tuliva Vellaler Brahmin Vellaler
Pally Palli
Gemoo Bramins 15, Purcotah Brahmin Vellaler
Vellalers I
Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler
Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler
Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler
Nelloran, Andiappan, Cunanσuliva Vella I er
Vellalersl
Gentoo日間minsAncient Share 24
Now I, Purcotah Vellalers Ancient
Share 8 Now I
Gentoo Bramins
Gentc回 Bramin
[Niyogee] Bramins 120, Purco回h
Vella le四8
Palleys
Gent,《回目同『nin,Vistnoo Brami田,
Share 30, Rak回 paModely Purchased Brahmm Vellaler
The Landholdership, Share 2
Ancient Landholders Pallys Who
Made This Village Agraharum To
The Bramms Their Residency
Unknown. Now Purcotah Vellalers
Changeable Share 24 Fixed
Gentoo Bramins Brahmin
Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler
Palleys Palli
[Va由ma]Bramms 15, P町四国hBrahmm Vellaler
Vellale四 l
Solia Vellalers Vellaler
Gentoo Bramins Brahmin
No Da回 NA
R句ahs R町aLandh。ldersShare 4 Fixed And They
Are Residing In Other 4 Different
Villages:Seavacolenda of
Coommungalum I, Ambelanurn of
Periacavenum I, Rakeappen of
Oudavoor I, Puvlumula Modely of
Chentadrypetta I
Tuliva Vellalers ofChinnacavenum Vellaler
Tuliva Vellale目。fChinnacavenum Vellaler
Nareconnum
Poohdarvacum
Unidendified Nalevaley
Coodvanjary
Sakenium
PO 184A Cattavoor
Uni de『1difiedSoalpacum
23%
23%
23%
23%
23%
28%
22
57
47
Vadama Br.
Condighetty V.
Cowkeeper
Gent。。Br.Vis回ooBr.
Vadma Br.
Tuliva V.
Gentoo Br. Purcotah V
P町cotahV
Vistnoo Br.
P0031A
P0045B
25%
25%
25%
35%
8
20
P0151A
P0224日
26%
27%
35%
35%
42%
42%
45%
49%
5~も
5~も
50%
28%
29%
31%
31%
33%
35%
33%
27%
40%
35%
42%
42%
31%
也
4
6
4
0VOF
5558
28%
29%
31%
34%
34%
37%
92 26
40
ω228
1
・l’O
句、d
・1
吋,ゐ
句
‘
JEany
104
nUAU司
4
Aツ
ta
25117
ー
Vistn。。Br.
Gentoo Br.
Palli
Purco回hv
Gentoo Br Vistnoo Br
Purco回hv
Tuliva V.
Pa Iii
Gent凹 BrTuliva V
Palli
Gentoo Br Pure。回hv
Tuliva V
Tuliva V.
Tuliva V
Tuliva V
Tuliva V.
Aynellore
Attamunachary
Somuna町ary
Cattoor
Coommungalum
Perembade
Comeranjary
Chunambcolum
Serpacum
Culpacum
Aumoor
Chinnacavenum
Seva凹ram
Daveranjary
Yaresiven
P0208A
P0104A
P0102A
P0099A
POI 15B
P0210A
P0242C
P0059C
P0051A
P0078A
POl57A
POllOA
P0155A
P0160A
P0162C
50%
%
%
%
《
υnu
’E
5
5
5
52%
25%
%
%
%
m∞mA
52%
12
a“守
AMマ
nw,zo
61
Gentc回 Br.Purcotah V.
Gentoo Br.
Gentoo Br.
Niyogee Br Purcotah V.
Palh
Brahmin Vellaler
Brah min
Brahm in
Brahmin Vellaler
Pa Iii
Punapacum
PO 122A Paulvoil
Unidendified Agharum
POIOOA Tuttamun1ey
P0243B/P02 Wope岨 moodram
43C
POI45A
P0212A
57% 43%
Gentoo Br. Vistnoo Br. V Cunacumbacum
6脚色
%
%%
%
3
30
0
67E
O
%%AA担
∞∞N
N防
。N
No Data
No Data
60%
100%
100%
N.A.
N.A.
No Da国
NoDa回
No Da回
63%
73%
80%
ゆ0%
neqdEコ『J
os’h
今
F
a斗《
υ
’l吋,‘
。。
Purco回hv
Gentoo Br.
Tuliva V
Pa Iii
Vadama Br. Pu問。回hv
Soha V.
Gem。。Br.
N.A
R司a
Tuliva V.
Tuliva V
Unidentified+ Mudah
Vellaler
Unknown
100
Ta也市oor
Moorchambull
Andavoil
Periavepattoor
Vadu回 putt
Coommersirlpacum
Ennakeracher明y
Sayenaporam
Anoopumbutt
Agharum
臼立出血~
Trevengadap。ram
P0071A/P02
080
P0084A
POIOIA
P0076A
P0081A
P0113C
P0156A
P0154A
P0055A
P0207A
P0217A
P0077A
Table 5 Percentage of Landholders’Fellow Castemen (Barnard Report, l 760s-70s)
ca
llH
U
Z』
7
S
D
9
N
O
田
c
(〉
PO出国〈Z)
Z凶苫凶ト凶〈U言。」」凶
Ft凶凸」020Z〈」
(凶凸-注)
Z凶苫凶↑凹〈U言。」」凶
同-出凶白」OZOZ〈J
(凸凶ト〈」コUJ〈U)
凶凸」OZ凶的コ02
斗〈ト
0ト
Landholder’s Caste
(Narrow)
Landholder’s Caste
(Wide)
Names of Landholders And Their
Shares Village Name
No Da回
No Da也
NoDa阻
No Data
No Data
No Da阻
No Da阻
No Data
No Data
No Data
NoDa回
N。Da回
NoDa回
No Data
。
。
。。
Tuhva V.
Br.
Unknown
Vellaler
Tuliva V
P町・co回hv.
Vistnoo Br Vepary Br.
P山 co阻hv. No Data
No Data
NoDa阻
NoDa阻
Purco阻hV.Br. Brahmin Vellaler
No Data
No Da回
No Data
No Da回
。。P山・co阻hv
Unknown
No Da回
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
。。
Tuliva Vellaler [Poligar & Head
Inhabitant N戸ieppa,Tuliva Vellaler Vellaler
R悶 dingat Woppalom]
Ancient Landholder Tooliva Vellaler
Who Granted Their Landholdership Brahm in
As Gift To Hury Pundit Who
Residing at Coom『nungalum
Landholders Residing at Cattavoor U地nown
Sadiappa Mudali Landholder of Vellaler
Madras
Tuliva Vellalers Residing at Ma世田 Vella I er
Purcotah Vellalers at Tattamunjey Vellaler
Vistnoo Bramin of Lingurpatah Brahm in
Yelembade, Vepary Bram1国
Pur℃O回hVellaler ofNagachary & Vellaler
Pure沿回hVellaler ofNagachary,
Their Share I Fixed, Landholder
Bramans, Their Shares Unknown
Purco阻hVellaler ofNagachary
Landholder.Their Residency &
Shares Unknown
Landholder.Their Residency &
Shares Unknown
Kalian Landholders of Kahan
Annamulacherry
Condighetty Vellaler ofNauyer Vellaler
Covray Landholders. of Codepullom,
Covray Cooppe Chitty Who Covrai
Purchased Landholdership
Purkaputt
Arevakum
Pullembacum
Cuncavullyporam
PerinJary
Stlladpanjary
Lingasam回世am
Servelocr
P01678
POl48A
P0075A
POI03A
P0109A
P0153A
P0161A
P0086A
P0151A
Cudamunjary
Vellaler
N.A
Sattamungalchary
Pa岡田cum
P0104A
P0212A
No Data
No Data 。Unknown
Kalian
Cond1ghetty V.
N.A. Mudiyoor
Chinnavapatoor
Mudiyoor
P0040B
P0216A
P00408
P0037A
No Data
No Da回
No Data
No Data
NoDa回
NoDa阻
No Data
Pago也
Pagoda
Pago由
14 Pago血 Pago也
7 Unidentified Unidentified
II
Unknown
Unknown
No Da阻
No Data
No Da回
No Da回
No Data
No Data
No Da回
Pagoda
Pagoda
Pago由
Unknown
Unknown
《
υAυ《
unv《
UnυAU
守’1d
吟
4
4晶マ
Covrai
N.A
N.A
Gentoc Br
Vadama Br.
Vistnoo Br.
N.A
NA.
Pagoda
Pago由
Pago由
Pagoda
Unidentified
Unknown
Unidentified
Unknown Unknown 21
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unreadable
0 Unknown
0 U町田dable
Unreadable 0 Unreadable
Niyogee Br. Gentoo Br.
Purco回hv
Unreadable
U町曲dable
Unreadable
101
Unknown
Unknown
Un『白血ble
Unreadable
Unreadable
Unreadable
Unreadable
0 U町 帥血ble
0 Unreadable
25
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Gentoc Br.
《
vnυ《
U
Purcotah V
Purco祖hv
Vistnoo Br.
Tuliva V
N.A.
N.A.
N.A
Gen to。Braminsof Comovoday Brahm in
Va由ma日間mi田 ofNayconnum Brahmm
V1stnoo Bram ins of Unknown Place 日目hmin
N.A.
N.A
Margasahasuwara Pagoda Pagoda
Palaswara Swamy Pago由 Pago血
Pago由 ofBoo也ryEswaraswamy of Pago由
Nauver
Teagar司aswamyofT1rvettur Pago由
Head Landholders: Tumban. Kurian. ” Unknown
Nynan of Madras
I. Kanamaula Vencaten’s Share
Purch踊 edBy Andeappean Who
R国 idengat Coodvary, I. Raghaviah Unknown
Have One …R田idingat
Chennacavanum, 2. Sooriya Sola &
C. Residing at Coomm山 galum
Landholder Their Name & Resiilencv ’N A
Unknown
Landholder. Their Residency &
Shares Unknown
Landholder. Name And Place
Unknown
Landholders Residing at
Chinnacavanum.
Landholders of Unknown Place
Gent《四日raminsof
Munymoghurneandika
Niyogee Bramms Residing at
Tu出 munja,Gentoo Brami田刊eir Brahmin Brahmm
Residence Unknown, Puroo回h Vella I er
Vellaler Residing at Madras
P町 co回hVellalers Vellaler
P山 co阻hVellalers Vellaler
Vis回nooBmmins of Unknown Place Brahmin
Share 4
Tuliva Vellalers Vellaler
No Data N.A
Chinnamullavoil
Gird!官巾oram
Boodoor
Sodyperembade
Sackenjary
Punnepacurn
Au山n回ngel
Vilianellore
Lin且ap問中etta
Tirpalvenam
Coodrayputtumcand1ca
Padianellore
Mutteravade
Wop凹!urn
Pocleycolum
Unidendified llvuntangel
P0032A
P0033A
P0027A
P0030A
POl43A
P0002A
P0003A
P0158A
P0174A
P0195D
P0008A
POl59A
P0152C
P0082A
N.A
N.A.
Unknown
Unknown
B日hmin
N.A. Pacum
Coryevoil
Serlpacum
M叩戸nogh町niandika
P0172A
P0218A
P0214A
P0163A
Asanpoodocr
P0165A
Veloor
Nagachary
Naulocr
Auvoor
Vttatandelum
P0087B
P0087A
P0054D
P0209A
P0208E
Table 5 Percentage of Landholders’Fellow Castemen (Barnard Report, 1760s-70s)
ー
凶
E
75
D
9
N
O
回
C
Village Name Names of Landholders And Their Landholder's Caste Landholder's Caste
Shares (Wide) (Naπow) ~11 iii 111 己コ王 コ2二ο、F, ~」b」」U主J ~b 」..J U主l
Unreadable Unreadable
Unreadable Unreadable
0 Unreadable U町 田 dable
P0115E Vonebacum Palleys of Unknown Place Palli Palh
P0250A/P02 Purco回hVellalers Vellaler Purcotah V SOB Wooppoonelvoil
P0029A Condighetty Vellaler Landholders
Soorapade From Whom Purchased The
日rahmin Br. Landholdership By Luch山官勾ee
Pundit of Pona
Source: Barnard Report, 1760s-70s. Note: [Wide] neglects the differences of smaller caste categories, whereas [Naηow] distinguishes the differences.
1-G. Mirasi System as Social Grammar
If the mirasidars’power was not based upon the numerical caste/communal dominance,
what mattered instead? How could the individual mirasidars sustain their mirasidar-ship in the
village where they often did not have any fellow caste members? What the available evidences
imply to us is the established notion of mirasidar-ship itself.
As noted earlier, even the Nawab could not usu叩 themirasidar-ship by force but to
purchase it. Such established notion about mirasi right as observed here was not the isolated one.
Actually the eighteenth cen旬ryvillage accounts were none other than the accounts of various mirasi
rights that covered the entire sphere of local society. Village product was elaborately distributed in
shares among the different categories of people and institutions in the local society. Not only the
mirasidar-ship but also every share in the product was acknowledged as mirasi right. Though each
village had different proportional rates in these shares, the notion of share or mirasi system itself was
intact and uniform. The mirasi system, under which each share was linked with some role in the
local society, was the system that provided every one in the period with the way of living, wealth,
esteem, status, and power. It operated in this sense部 asocial grammar to express oneself in the
society.16
If the mirasi system operated in an autonomous way in the period, our next task is to
clari命thepositions of the state and the local society in relation to the system.
1-H. State and the Mirasi System
In what way was the relation between the state and the local society expressed in the
16 In the mirasi system was expressed the competitive powers operating in the period. As this point was already discussed elsewhere, suffice it here to say that the two m勾orcompetitive powers were the state and the local society and that the power balance between the two was expressed in the proportional share itself in the rnirasi system.
102
mirasi system? First point to be noted is that the state was never a by-stander of the system.
According to the Barnard Report, the state and the cultivators divided the major share (two-thirds to
three-fourth) of the village product at the白1alstage after several categories of fees (i.e. proportional
shares) were dis出buted. This process, which was observed in every village, indicates that the state
and the cultivator were the m勾orcompetitors in the mirasi system. As the cultivator was the main
representative of the local society, the relation between the two can be deemed to be the one between
the state and the local socie勿. The categories used by Barnard in classi今ingdifferent fees, such as
“dues paid by Circar [state] alone”or “dues paid half by the cultivator and half by the circar”,
indicates clearly the fundamental feature of the mirasi system, too. 17
The power balance between the state and the local society was basically expressed in the
di宜erentproportional shares. Ever-fluctuating balance between the two in the different
ecological/social/political se抗ingswas thus expressed in the elaborately established proportions.
A few points should be considered in this regard. First is the effect of political instability
of the period upon the mirasi system. It was often observed in the period that the aπears of revenue
were recovered only when it was demanded by the recipient by force.18 Even so, it seems the
notion of the mirasi system was so strong that the proportional shares, including those for the state,
never failed to be acknowledged by any. The survival of the elaborately de日nedshares till the time
of the Barnard’s survey in the 1770s is the clear evidence for this. Second is the position of those
influential religious institutions or big poligars vs. state in the mirasi system. As mentioned before,
some big poligars controlled hundreds of villages independent of the state. The same could be
observed in the case of those big temples. The shrotriamdars studied above managed their villages
independently, too. Though not 白llyclarified here, south Indian states might be visualized not as a
pyramidal s仕UC加rebut as one of the pillars in the multi-pillar social architecture. This social
structure took the form of the mirasi system.
If the mirasi system could be defined as such, what type of changes could be observed
other th組 thechanges in proportions? What would occur to the system once the power balance
between the state and the local society started fatally changed? Our next task is to おHowthis
process.
1-1. Mirasidar in the Iρcal Society
The structural change in the concerned period was occurring in two spheres, one within
the mirasi system and the other outside it, and the two were interrelated. In this paper we will take
up the changes occurring within, namely the process of decons仕uctionof mirasi system by the
17 T. Mizushima, The Mirasi System and Local Society in Pre-Colonial South India, Local Agrarian Societies in Colonial India Japanese Perspectives, P. Robb et. al. (edふCurzonPress, 1996, pp.77-145. 18 The Private Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai has many references about these cases.
103
mirasidars themselves.19
Assuming that the mirasi system was the social grammar to express oneself in the period,
in what way could the mirasidars extend their power in their relations first with the state, second
with other mirasidars, and third with others in the local society? There could be three possible
choices in pursuing it. First was to acquire mirasidar-ship企omother mirasidars. The evidence that
m句orityof mirasidars had shares in just a village or two indicates that most of the仕 組sactions,if it
occuηed, were confmed within his village or its proximity. Second was to acquire other mirasi-
句'Peshares like that of poligar. Their en位yinto the poligar-ship in twenty villages as studied above
can be counted as such. Third and seemingly most significant was the deconstruction of the mirasi-
system by the mirasidars themselves. We will examine the last point next.
As stated above, each recipient of the shares was assigned some speci白crole in the local
society. Under the system it was, for instance, possible for a village accountant (karnam) to acquire
other accountants’posts with the attached shares. On the other hand it was not possible for the
accountant to acquire the post and the share of, for instance, the washerman, which was totally
unrealistic under the caste system. 20 What the mirasidars a悦 mptedinstead was to place under their
control various shares originally assigned to other people in his village and to dis仕ibutethe acquired
shares through their hands. This was exactly what was observed among the village headmen in
South Arcot in the late pre・colonialperiod. Table 6 is one of the lists detailing the ‘unauthorized
collection and disbursements by the monigar or village headman' submitted by a collector of South
Arcot to the Board of Revenue at the initial stage of colonial administration. It discloses that the
village headman collected a certain amount and paid仕omit various types of allowances directly to
the functionaries on di宜erentoccasions.21 As this type of usu甲ationand disbursement by village
headmen was not the established custom, the collector must have defmed it as‘unauthorized'.
Some mirasidars in Chingleput headed towards the same direction. They deconstructed the long-
established mirasi system to their advantage, which made it possible for them to emerge as village
leaders in the period.
19 As to the changes occurring outside the mirasi system was partly discussed in T. Mizushima, 18-20 seiki minami indo zaichi syakai no kenkyuu, op. cit. 20 In this sense the mirasi system was closely related with the caste system. See H. Kotani, Inda no chuusei syakai Mura, kaasuto, ryoushu, lwanami Systen, 1989. 21 The accounts were studied in detail elsewhere by the author. [Mizushima 1986, op. cit.]
104
Table 6 List of“Unauthorized”Collection and Disbursements by a Village Headman in C町angoolyvillage、Bhov加岳he町 Di町 ict,1804・05
P.F.C
Amount of Unauthorized Collections made by山eGramattan [village headman] or Puttah Monigar [superin同ndent,headman] 110.35.12
Disbursements therefrom by Putta Monigar or his order
By Cash
[Revenue admin同町ation]
Paid conicopillah [village writer] Mootien on account ofbatta [e附 aallo明ance] 4.42.15
Paid on account ofolahs [palm-feat] for writing village accounts 0.10.44
Paid 岡山eMahatidee p田 nwho came to collect money 3 18.22
Paid bribe to Narrain Row Tahsildar [high official] for withholding the collection of false shavie [blighted corn] 29. 00.00
Paid Colundavalapilla Zareebdar [surveyor?] for making on回 falseaccount of shavie 30.00.00
Paid Notagar [money-chan明 r]仕副司 thiscollection his allowance fixed by the circ訂[sta胞Jhaving been embezzled by the 1.14. 05
Taken by Veer ah Reddy Monigar on account of batta 11.22.40
Taken bヅVeerahReddy Mo叩garin ready money 5.14.05
Paid batta for exchanging pagodas deficient in weight 4.24.49
[S田町ity]
Paid Coollun Taliar [village watchman] his allowance paid by the circar having been embezzled by the m。nigar 1.09.67
Paid Totty [village watchman] his allowance fixed by the circ町 havingbeen embezzled by the monigar 2.36.45
[Religious Activities]
Paid the church [Hindu pagoda] on account of daily expenses
Paid Appajiyah on going to Rameswaram [pilgrimage]
[Others, unidentified]
Paid batta to cirkar people and charitable pu中oses
Paid alms to Ramalingyah
Paid sundry charges in the village
Paid Teeroovengadyah on account of his maπiage
Total
5.16.70
1.00.00
6.05.50
1.00.00
2.00.00
1.00.00
110.35.12
P-Pagoda, F-Fanam, C-Cash
Source: Letter仕omthe Principal Collector in the Southern Division of Arcot, 15.12.1805, Board of Revenue Proceedings, 2.1.1806
[]ー Notesby Mi四 shima
The emergence of mirasidars as village leaders made the power balance between them and
the state changed to the former’s advantage. The process definitely gave grave impact upon the
relations between the state and the local society, between the mirasidar and the local society, and
upon the mirasi system itself. Political instability in the eighteenth cen旬ryIndia was the combined
result of several factors, the most important being the change in the mirasi system.
II. South India in the Late Nineteenth Century
In the year 1802 the Permanent Settlement was introduced in the Jagir (Chingleput).百ie
area was divided into sixty zamindari estates22 and was o妊eredfor sale. Many of the zamindari
estates, however, soon bankrupted, and the ryotwari system w出 introducedinto such bankrupted
areas in the 1810s.
The basic principle of the Raiyatwari System was to assume the state as the sole
landowner, to acknowledge a cultivator as a raiyat, and to grant a pa枕a[討tiedeed] to the raiyat.
The raiyat who obtained a pa仕awas designated as a pattadar and could retain the land lot so far as he
paid the land assessment加 thestate. If this principle operated as it meant to do, there could be just
22 Different sources give different figures.
105
two claimants on the respective land lots, that is, the state and the pattadar. It was, however, not the
case in many parts of south India, especially in Chingleput.
One of the most conspicuous features of the colonial land system in the first half of the
nineteenth Chingleput was the acknowledgement of mirasidars’overlordship besides the state’s.
This unique treatment, which was formed in the course of early revenue administration in the J agir,
especially by Place23, took the form of dittam system. Under the dittam system mirasidars
registered annually the land lots under cultivation upon their pattas. They let other lands to be
cultivated by non-mirasidar cultivators called payikari. The lands cultivated by the payikaris were
registered in one common pa抗a(samudayam patta) in the chief mirasidar name/s. 24 The payikaris
had to pay the landlord rent called swatantram to the rnirasidars, acknowledging the latter’s
overlordship upon these lands (called pangu land). The pangu land sometimes covered the entire
village area.
The dittam system was, however, abolished in the 1856, and a new system was introduced
in an attempt to resume the mirasidars’overlordship. Village lands were now categorized into
pangu, durkhast, and waste. The pangu lands, which had been jointly held by all the mirasidars in
shares, were now re-divided among the mirasidars and registered separately in the respective
rnirasidars’pa抗as. Each mirasidar, now designated as pattadar like any other pa伽 darsof non-
mirasidar origin, was to pay the白Hassessment upon all his holdings as well whether he cultivated
or not.25
The second categoηF or durkhast was the land for which new landholders had not
previously paid any fee to the mirasidars. The lands under this category were not liable to pay
any. 26 It was only the waste lands on which any applicant was liable to pay the fee to the
mirasidars.
Thus, mirasidars did continue to have pre-emptive claims over others to a certain extent
under the new system. The separate registering system, however, gave serious blow to the unity of
the mirasidar body. The compulsory pa戸nentof all the assessment upon his holding, even upon
those not under cultivation, gave similar blow tO the rnirasidars. It became now an economically
not wise choice for a rnirasidar to register entire holdings under his name in his attempt to exclude
23 Place argued a kind of double land ownership of the state and mirasidar. Faced with the mirasidars’ strong property position in Chingleput, Place could not assert an exclusive land ownership of the state. His stand was to assure the mirasidars’ownership so far as they were obliged to perform their "duty”, i.e. to engage in cultivation and to pay the land tax. See Place’s Final Report to the Board of Revenue, 1st July 1799, Board's Miscellaneous Records,防'I.45 (Tamilnadu Archives), see for instance paras. 16, 18. 24 The Chingleput, Late Madras District, A Manual compiled under the orders of the Madras Government, by Charles Stewart Crole, Madras, 1879, p.287. 25 In case the pangu lands became waste by relinquishment and were taken up again either by a mirasidar or by an outsider, they would be chargeable with the fee to白emirasidar plus the taram assessment. The fee collected, fixed at the rate of 2 annas per rupee (16 annas) of assessment, was to be payable to the mirasi body. 26 In case the durkhast lands were relinquished and later taken up again on durkhast, the fee was charged at the rate of
106
,l 27 non-miras10ars.
The mid-nineteenth cen知ryChingleput, thus, witnessed a new policy to break up the
privileged status of mirasidars and to make the landholding struc同reas simple as the raiyatwari
system originally aimed at. Along with such changes many relevant steps had been undertaken.
Various types of fees and inams, upon which many people were dependent, had been selectively
resumed, so that many had to switch to other courses of dependency like Jajmani system28. The old
mirasi system was being replaced by the emerging agr紅 ianorder based upon a land lot. Our task
next is to assess the significance of these changes through the analysis of the land records in the
1870s.
The main source to be utilized is the settlement registers of Ponneri villages in the 1870s.
Settlement register is the record showing the pattadar name/s and other details of every lot.
According to the 1871 Census, 153 out of 254 villages in Ponneri were under the
raiyatwari tenure, whereas shrotriam and zamindari tenures had 47佃 d54 villages respectively (see
Fig. 8). Those villages under shro仕iamand zamindari tenures, which were not directly managed by
the government, will be mostly excluded企omthe following study, as detailed land records are no
available. 29
II-A. Mirasidar
Three classes could be identified under the raiyatwari system in the late nineteenth cen同ry
Ponneri. They were mirasidars, pattadars, and the rest. First we will have a look at the features of
mirasidars.
Several salient features could be observed in the 1870s. First was the complex caste
composition of the mirasidar in the respective villages in contrast to the simpler composition in the
1770s. The Barnard Report in the 1770s, for instance, shows that 115 out of 141 villages had
within each village just one mirasidar caste only (see Table 7). In the Place Report in the 1790s the
number of villages with one Mirasidar caste numbered 88 out of 130 (see Table 8). On the other
2 annas per Rupee of assessment as was也ecase with the pangu lands. 27 The colonial government consistently made an effort to persuade the mirasidars to extend cultivation for increasing revenue. The pre-empted privilege of the mirasidars over the village area, however, never allowed the non-mirasidars (i.e. payikaris) to occupy any uncultivated lands against their will. Till白eyear of 1869 when the Durkhast rules specially designed for Chingleput were enforced, the government made several attempts to subsume their privileges while facing consistent resist組問金omthe mirasidars. [The Chingleput, Late Madras District, A Manual, op. cit. pp.288・291.)28 Jajmani system was an institution newly constituted to fill the vacuum occurring in the service relationship under the colonial rule. It was new in the sense the service relation ends between the two households concerned. Under the mirasi system, on the other hand, it was the local society as a whole that supported basically all the service relationship m白elocality. 29 The Settlement Registers for也eraiyatwari villages are either kept at the Tamilnadu State Archives or in the Taluk o節目.The registers utilized here企om白eArchives. It is to be noted that digitizing process of the registers and other related records is not completed yet. It is due partly to the damage of the original volumes and partly due to the cons位aintof time and budget available to me. Even so those already processed will sufficiently o釘erthe empirical base for the following arguments.
107
State
199,865 16,496 103,423 254 acreage houses population villages
State Villa~es I I Shrotriam Villa皇es I I Zamindari Villa皇esacreage houses population villages acreage houses population villages acreage houses population villages 140,752 10,715 68,127 153 39,244 3,502 20,491 47 19 ,869 2,269 14,805 54
Mirasid紅 S || Shrotri田nd釘5 || Zamindars
Pattadars I Inamdars I I Mir酪idars jinamd Mir踊id訂 S ~n細darsCultivators || Cultivators || Cultivators
Labourers || Labourers || Labourers
Eお~~由Fig. 8 Village Structures in Ponneri in the 1870s
Source: Madms Census 1871 Supp/ementQly Tables. VI h. -A Detailed List of Sub-Divisions of each Hindu Caste as shown in the Schedules received合omthe several Districts of the Madr出 Presidency,No.16 Caste.
hand the same fi忠ire企omthe settlement registers of Ponneri in the 1870s was as low as 23 villages
out of 137 (see Table 9). The number of villages with more than two Mirasidar castes increased
gradually. It increased from 18 in the Barnard’Report, to 42 in the Place Report, and finally to 75
in the 1870s. We can find even a village with twelve di百erentmirasidar castes in the 1870s.30
The second noticeable feature was the limited scale of mirasidars not only in the number
of villages they had shares but in the aggregated mirasi shares. As to the number of villages it was
observed in the Place Report that most of the mirasidars had shares in just a village or two. 31 The
same feature could be observed in the 1870s as well. As indicated in Fig 9, 1229 mirasidars or
88% out of the 1398 mirasidars had their shares in a single village. Adding those having shares in
two villages, the白gurebecomes 1341 or 96%.
The reduced scale of mirasidar-ship in the 1870s was more obvious if we see the
aggregated shares of the respective mirasidars (see Fig.10 & Fig. 11). According to the Place
Report there was only one Mirasidar (out of 382 Mirasidars) who had less than one-hundredth per
cent of a village share (one village = 1 share). The白gurefor those having more than one-tenth of a
village was 74 percent. On the contrary as many as 382 mirasidars or 30 percent out of the total of
1,398 mirasidars had less than one-hundredth of a village share in the 1870s. The figure becomes
76 percent if we include those mirasidars with less than one-tenth. Even the maximum share is one,
indicating that no mirasidar had an aggregated share of more than a village. In short the size of
30 As there are a considerable number of unidentified cases, these figures just indicate the main trend only. 31 The Barnard Report does not have the personal names of the mirasidars, so that the same type of figures cannot be produced.
108
mirasidar-ship had been greatly diminished by 1870s. It may be added that as many as 24 villages
were recorded as non-mirasidar villages in the 1870s.
What, then, was the meaning for a mirasidar to have a share in the late l 91h cen知ry?
Economically it seemed no value. Assuming all the pangu lands were occupied by non-mirasidars
and the swatan仕組fees[2 annas per rupee (16 annas) of the assessment] upon them were paid to the
mirasidars, the total would amount to Rs.5,083 in the region. Divided by all the mirasidars equally,
the average becomes as little as Rs.3.6.
It is known the status of mirasidar was not necessarily confined in land control. Very
often assumed to be the original settlers of the village, mirasidars had a privileged position in the
village life. They were, for instance, given the privilege of being presented the first offerings to the
god/dess at the village festival. Such eminence as found in the ritual was, however, the last
remnant of the old mirasi system. Their status gradually eroded in the later historical
development戸 Thegrammar became too out-dated to be practiced any more.
11-B. Pattadar
Finally we will briefly have a look at the pattadar who had become the chief actor in the
agrari姐柑UC印reby the late nineteenth cen加ry. Three noticeable features were discernable in the
period. First was the inclusion of many mirasidars in the category of p甜 adar. Most of the
mirasidars were found among the pa口adarsin the respective villages. The stadadization of raiyats
had thus been brought into force.
Table 7 Number of Mirasidar Castes in a Village in Ponneri
No. ofMirasidar Castes
2
N.A.
Total
03
=
e=弓d
》
3
1A
凶=
1MM35一4
,‘=t
i
t
A
c=
p’Unknown”
Source: Barnard Rξport, Ponneri, 1760s-70s.
32 See my village study in a Tiruchirapalli village where the dominant caste as well as its mirasidars gradually lost land ownership since 1860s. T. Mizushima, Changes, Chances and Choices -The Perspective of Indian Villagers -, Socio -Cultural Change in Villages in Tiruchirapalli District, Tamil Nadu, India, Part 2, Modern Period・I,ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 1983, pp.27-221.
109
Numbぽ ofVillages where Each Mirasidar had Shares in Ponneri
σlace Report, 1797 /8)
N = 382 Mirasidars (in 136 villages) 10
??”Vo
Fig. 9 Number of Villages where Each Mirasidar had Shares in Ponneri (Place Report, 1797/8)
Source: Abstract State of the Number ofMeerassee Shares and ofMeerassee Holders in the Several
Districts of the Jagheer in Fusly 1207 shewing also the Quantity ofMeerassee unclaimed & occupied by
Pvacarries、Board包Collections‘2115& 2116. Vol.112司 F/4/112.OIOC.
Aggregated Shares held by Each Mirasidar in Ponneri (Place Report, 1797 /8)’
2
!=X<2
3%
0.9=X<l
4%
0.9
0.8=X<0.9
1%
0.8
0.7
0.6=X<0.7
2% 0.6
0.5=X<0.6
2%
382 Mirasidars in 154 villages [Total=l42 Shares]
3
2=X<3
0.5
4 0.01
O<X<0.01
0% 0.02
O.O!=X<0.02
1%
0.05
0.02=X<0.05
8%
0.1
0.05=X<O.l
16%
0.2
O.l=X<0.2
23%
0.4=X<0.5J 0.3=X<0.4
10% 8%
Fig.10 Aggregated Shares ofMirasidars in Ponneriσlace Report, 1797 /8)
因。X=O
固0.01。<X<0.01
ロ0.02O.Ol=X<0.02
iii 0.05 0.02=X<0.05
固0.10.05=X<O.l
回0.2O.t=X<0.2
固0.30.2=X<0.3
ロ0.40.3=X<0.4
固0.5
0.4=X<0.5 固0.60.5=X<0.6
ロ0.70.6=X<0.7
回0.80.7=X<0.8
回0.90.8=X<0.9
固 1
0.9=X<l ロ2
l=X<2 固32=X<3
固43=X<4
ロN.A.N.A.
Source: Abstract State of the Number ofMeerassee Shares and ofMeerassee Holders in the Several
D凶rictsof the Jagheer in Fusly 1207 shewing also the Quantity ofMeerassee unclaimed & occupied by
Pyacarries, Board’S Collections, 2115 & 2116, Vol.112, F/4/112, OIOC.
110
Table 8 Number ofMirasidar Castes in a Village in Ponneri (Place Report, 1797 /8)
8A. Excluding unidentified cases
Number ofMirasidar Castes in a Village in Ponneri些邑盟主gUnidentified No. of Villages (Total=130)
Cases (Place Report, 1797 /8) 。 刈
『
『d
Qノ
今
,L
qd司
ftA2
3
8B. Including Unidentified Cases
Number ofMirasidar Castes in a Village in Ponneri睦担昼盟gUnidentified No. of Villages (Total=130)
Cases (Place Report, 1797 /8)
内
L1JA『
。。,ioO今
3
nE
今コ
Source: Abstract State of the Number ofMeerassee Shares and ofMeerassee Holders in the Several Districts of the
Jagheer in Fusly 1207 shewing also the Quantity ofMeerassee unclaimed & occupied by Pyacarries, Board's
Collections, 2115 & 2116, Vol.112, F/4/112, OIOC.
111
Table 9 Number ofMirasidar Castes in a Village in Ponneri (Se凶ementRegisters, Ponneri, 1877)
No. of Vil包丘一39
23
21
18
11
7
7
4
3 2
c=
pb
=
.u=
Au
=、y.m
=m-
u=・u
些m
u=τb
.n=ω
岨=.
wn=
日比
問一伽
123456789mu一州
盟
友
T
v=q
m=.mH
ω豆↓叫
J叫一釘=
m
品川
一副=
W
E旦一
o
M
一MM
=
uzi=
凶一帥一一
日一尚一一
E
-
B
一 No. of Villages ==========
39
24
23
16
14
9 4
4
2
0
137
Source: Survey and Settlement Registers of the Villages in Ponneri Taluq of the Chingleput District, 1877.
112
As indicated in Fig. Second was the en紅yof wider (lower) classes of people into landholding.
12 & 13, the caste composition of the pattadars was more complicated and included many lower
They owned totally The total number of pattah held by the Pariahs, for instance, was 58. castes.
Such acquisition of landed interests 207.08 acres in 32 villages out of 54 villages under study.33
among the lower castes must have given a great impact upon the agrarian struc同rein the region.
Third was the variance in landholding s仕UC制reamong the villages in the area. Fig.14
indicates the percentages of landholding by top five landholders in the respective villages in Ponneri.
The top five occupied more than 80 percent of the total patta lands in the 14 out of 54 villages. 34 If
we count those villages with more than a half of patta land being occupied by the top five, it comes
There were, on the other hand, several villages that had many small. We could thus co
戸しwp
b
免一日ー唱・・・・・1V
内‘J内、dO
Avt
conclude that a considerable number of villages were monopolized by a small number of big
Some investigation pa悦adars,whereas some villages were held by a number of small pa仕adars.
would be taken m白加reto clari今thevillage conditions that had produced such differences.
Aggregated Share of Mirasidars in Ponneri (Place Report in 1797 /8) N = 382 Mirasidars in 154 villages
|・Numberof Mira叫 rsI 凸
unu --EA
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
寸
VKHm
mvu
門”N刊
vvハHVMHEC
ECVKH
∞。
∞OVMHト
C
ト
ovv〈H
唱。
唱。vKHm
.0
m
.0vMH
寸.。
寸
OVKH同.0
m.0vM内UN--
NCvku
-o
。VV門川町
CC
mccvM門HNCC
NO
.-vku
--.0
一CCVV内vc
OHM内
10 。
Source: Abstract State of the Number ofMeerassee Shares and ofMeerassee Holders in the Several Dis仕ictsof也eJagheer in Fusly 1207 shewing also the Quantity ofMeerassee unclaimed &
occupied by Pyacarries, Board’s Collections, 2115 & 2116, Vol.112, F/4/112, OIOC.
Fig.11 Aggregated Share ofMirasidars in Ponneri (Place Report, 1797/8)
33 A considerable number of those pattadars whose caste identities are not clear could be either Brahmins or也eUntouchables. 34 Patta land signifies the land held by a pattadar.
113
Percentage of Landholding by Castes in Ponneri
(Settlement Registers, 1877)
N = 21,455.61 acres (血54villages)
RED DI
7%
1%
NAYAKKAN
14%
ADIDRAVIDA
0%
AIYANGAR
MUSLIM
2%
AIYAR
6% EUROPEAN
10%
FEMALE
3%
24%
口ADIDRAVIDA 圃ACHARI
口AIYANGAR ロAIYAR
回ASARI ロBARBER
圃DASARI ロDEVAR
圃EUROPEAN 副FEMALE
ロGODDESS 同GOUNDAN
圃GOVERNMENT 回GRAMANI
圃GURUKKAL 圃JOSI
固MAISTRY ロMARAIKKAN
ロMIXED ロMUDALI
ロMUSLIM ロNAIDU
ロNATTAN ロNAVIDA
固NAYAKKAN 国NAY亦~AR
ロOCHAN ロPAGODA
ロPALL! ロPANDARAM
図PARAIYA ロPILLAI
圃PUJARI 回RAJA
回REDDI 圃ROW
圃SAMDAYAM 困SETT!
圃TALAIYARI • UDAIYAR
圃VALLUVAN ロVEηTYAN
回Unidentified
Fig.12 Percentage of Landholding by Castes in Ponneri (Settlement Registers of Ponneri, 1870s)
Source: Survey and Settlement Registers of the Villages in Ponneri Taluq of the Chingleput
District, 1877.
114
Landholding by Castes in Ponneri ViLiages (Settlement Registers, 1877)
目tl
. 目 3
; . . F’ ーa
E一一一 ー’一 ー
mt~tltn ,、
目i II
160000
110000
50000
10000
40000
30000
20000
100000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
のッ
。。
(
ωEωOE)
MEEM凶
70000
60000
150000
140000
130000
120000
唱N
-O島出回
寸N
-oι出国
-N-O色出凶
唱。-oht悶
円。-OLJ民的
-o-oι出回
岳山口O色出回
トAMDO仏出国
せ品。。色出回
NAMDOι出国
何回目。。弘出国
国唱。。色出回
NmDO色出回
ト寸
OO色出国
すま}
O色出国
-寸DOL出回
車問。。
ι出国
ト問。。
ι出凶
問問。。
ι出回
NNDOι出回
DNDO弘出回
200L出回
200L出回
。-DOL出回
唱。。。島区凶
円
000島区凶
-000ι出回
Aυ
白E正証面雇証固GOUNOAN
ロMARAIKKAN
ロNAVIDA
固rANOARAM
llROW
ロVETTIYAN
回ASA削
ロGODDESS
由MAISTRY
ロNATTAN
固PALU
ロREDD!・VALLUVAN
• BRAHMAN (AIYA町ロFEMALE
白JOSI
ロNAIDU
PAGODA
固RAJA
•UDA『VAR
r.IBRAHMAN (AIYANGAR)
ロEUROPEAN
固GURUKKAL
凶MUSLIM
ロOCHAN
固PUJARI
回TALAIYARI
・BRAHMAN(ACHARI)
ロOEVAR
• GRAMANJ ・MUDALI• NAY除/AR・PILLAI回SETTI
ロADIDRAVIDA
固DA.SARI
園GOVERNMENT
ロM出ED
• NAYAKKAN
ロPARAIYA
jSAMDAYAM ・u'"'"';r,,
Fig. 13 Landholding by Castes in Ponneri Villages (Settlement Registers, 1870s)
Source: Settlement Registers of Ponneri, 1870s.
115
Percentage of Landholding in Ponneri (Settlement Registers, 1877)
ーTop5 Landholders -
mN
-O島出∞
-N-O向凶∞
寸〔}-OAM間的
-o-。向凶∞
∞瓜{)O向凶∞
寸九山。。向M
同∞
寸∞。。向肖ω
∞市WCO角以∞
【問。。向Mm
寸寸。。向M
窃
。守。。向M間的
ト円。。向肖∞
円円。。向肖∞
。NOO向M間的
。-oO向MHω
。-{)OAMH∞
問。。OAM同∞
【。。。向M阿川町
’inyoO
『
I
ζ
u
,、ぜ必斗勾3
q
4
’in
u
huhυAUAUAUAUAUnunυ
(訳。。
τ-)
Fig.14 Percentage of Landholding in Ponneri (Settlement Registers, 1877)ー Top5 Landholders -
Source: Survey and Settlement Registers of the Villages in Ponneri Taluq of the Chingleput District, 1877.
Conclusion: South Indian State and the Mirasi System
It was the The late pre-colonial south India had the mirasi system as social grammar.
Anyone,企omvillage grammar through which one’s wealth, status, and power was expressed.
functionaries to the state, was expected to perform one’s role for which some share in the product
was attached.
As to the relationship of the state with the mirasi system, the state was not in the position
The state. was deeply involved in to continue or stop the system while standing outside the system.
So far as the system continued, the state could expect stable sources
Sustaining the mirasi system was best suited to its own interest.
the system as its essential part、
expressed as a share in the system.
Influential temples with great extents of The same could be applicable to others, too.
donated shares or big poligars controlling hundreds of villages were also the components cum
These, along with the state, composed the main pillars of the system beneficiaries within it.
The mirasi system was the grammar in the social architecture built upon these pillars. Fig. 15).
The main pillar situated in the center was, however, the local society, that is, the sphere where the
production activities were carried on.
Due to the change caused by the emergence of mirasidars as village leaders, the system
Some mirasidars had fatally lost its balance and started to collapse in the concerned period.
usurped the functions previously played by the mirasi system and deconstructed it to their advantage.
This was what was occurring in the late pre-colonial south India.
116
The late nineteenth South India witnessed a completely different situation. Though
mirasidars’status as village overlord was still acknowledged and institutionalized to a certain extent
in the colonial land administration, their economic prospects became too little to have any economic
value. Pattadars were now given the cen仕alrole in the village as the holders of land lots. Though
a considerable number of villages were still monopolized by a few hands at this stage, a wider
section of the people had already entered into this category.
It is to be noted that the social entity, which had had a local society as a basic sphere, did
not stop at the village level. Before the shi食wascompleted, it passed over a village to a land lot by
the colonial administration. Pattadars, the crea加reof the colonial rule, did not have anything to do
with neither the local society nor the village. They were simply the holders of lots (see Fig. 16).
No local society, no village society -that was the setting where an Indian villager had to stand in the
colonial society.
Mirasi System
ミ;O'
Fig. 15 Pre-Colonial South Indian Society -A Model -
I Mirasidar/s I
Functionaries
Pagodas
Tank, Choultry etc.
117
、
Fig.16 A Village Map showing the Demarcations of Land Lots in 1982
118