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