Chola Political and Agrarian Structure (Simplified)

The Cholas were a powerful South Indian dynasty that rose to prominence in the 9th century CE.
Before their rise, the region was dominated by the Pandyas in Madurai, the Cheras in Kerala, and the
Pallavas in northern Tamil Nadu. The decline of the Pallavas in the 8th century, due to conflicts with
the Rashtrakutas and the Pandyas, created a power vacuum that allowed the Cholas to emerge.

Vijayalaya, the first Chola ruler, gained power by forming alliances with influential families like the
Irukkuvels and Paluvettaraiyars. His successors expanded Chola control, defeating the Pallavas and
Pandyas and maintaining dominance for nearly 400 years. Although they faced setbacks, such as a
defeat by the Rashtrakutas in 949 CE, the Cholas reached their peak under Rajaraja I. He extended
their rule over Tamil Nadu, south Karnataka, and parts of Sri Lanka. His son, Rajendra I, further
expanded their empire to include northern Sri Lanka, Bengal, and even parts of Southeast Asia.

Chola power began to decline under Kulottunga I (1170 CE), who faced revolts in key regions like
Gangavadi, Tondaimandalam, and the Pandya territories. By the reign of Kulottunga III, the Chola
kingdom had disintegrated due to attacks from the Hoysalas, Pandya resurgence, and local rebellions.
By the 13th century, the Chola realm was reduced to the Kaveri delta and eventually ceased to exist.

Historians debate the Chola state structure:

 Segmentary State Model (Burton Stein): Views the Chola state as loosely organized with
decentralized governance.

 Feudal State (Veluthat): Argues the Chola kingdom was feudal in nature, with power shared
among local lords.

 Early State Model (Subbarayalu & Heitzman): Considers the Chola kingdom an early
centralized state with evolving structures.

Early scholars saw the Chola state as a highly centralized empire, but modern interpretations suggest
it was more complex and adaptable.

A Centralized Empire (Simplified)

In early 20th-century historiography, scholars like K.A. Nilakanta Sastri and A. Appadorai described
the Chola state as a highly centralized empire. They compared it to the Mauryan state outlined in the
Arthashastra, with a strong bureaucracy and a large standing army under direct royal control.
Administration was seen as layered: central, provincial, and local, with chiefs acting as governors
overseeing districts. Taxes, such as kadamai and kudimai, were interpreted as centralized land
revenue.

However, modern scholars like Burton Stein and Kesavan Veluthat challenge this view. They argue
that there is no evidence of a centrally controlled military or centralized redistribution of taxes.
Instead, they suggest that taxes were retained by local entities like the nadu (local administrative
unit) or landed magnates, who acted as royal agents and controlled land revenue. Veluthat views
kadamai as land rent rather than a tax.

Despite his focus on centralization, Sastri also highlighted the importance of autonomous village
assemblies, such as the sabha in Brahmadeya villages, which managed irrigation, revenue, and
judicial affairs without much interference from the central government. Similarly, agricultural and
commercial communities (urar and nagarattar) played key roles in local administration.
Veluthat critiques Sastri’s arguments, pointing out a contradiction: while Sastri described village
bodies as autonomous, he also presented them as integral to the centralized administration. This
tension raises questions about whether the Chola state was truly centralized or if it relied more on
decentralized, locally governed units.

A Segmentary State Model (Simplified)

Burton Stein proposed the segmentary state model to describe the Chola polity, inspired by Aidan
Southall’s studies on African tribal societies. According to Stein, the Chola state was not a centralized
empire but a pyramid-like structure with multiple semi-autonomous political units (nadus), linked
through shared rituals and symbolic authority rather than direct political control.

The segmentary state rested on two key ideas:

1. Decentralized Political Authority: Power was shared across various levels, with each
segment having its own administrative and military apparatus. These local centers mirrored
the functions of the central authority but managed smaller populations. The Chola king acted
as a ritual figurehead rather than exerting overarching control over these units.

2. Ritual Sovereignty: While political units exercised localized control, they were ritually
subordinate to the Chola king, who served as the ultimate source of legitimacy. This dual
authority reflected the distinction between the king's political power (ksatra) and his role as
the upholder of moral and ritual order (rajadharma).

Each nadu was a self-contained political and social unit governed by local chiefs, who managed
internal disputes and represented dominant agricultural groups (vellangai). Within the nadu, there
were competing groups such as Brahmanas, right-hand (valangai) agricultural castes, left-hand
(idangai) artisan and trader castes, and lower castes. Chiefs played a crucial role in maintaining
harmony among these groups.

The Chola capital served as the ritual center, housing grand temples like the Rajarajesvara at
Thanjavur or Gangaikondacholapuram. These temples symbolized the king's ritual primacy and
connected the decentralized segments through shared religious practices.

The model highlights that while political authority was fragmented, ritual practices provided
cohesion within the Chola state. This decentralized yet interconnected system ensured local
autonomy while maintaining the king’s ritual dominance.

Aspects of the Nadu

The concept of the nadu refers to both a geographic locality and a corporate entity composed of its
representatives, the nattar. Scholars like Burton Stein, Kesavan Veluthat, and Subbarayalu have
debated its structure, function, and evolution within the Chola state. Key aspects include its historical
continuity, social composition, and administrative roles.

Historical Continuity and Evolution

 The nadu was primarily a grouping of vellanvagai villages (agricultural settlements). Its
boundaries were not rigid, evolving spontaneously based on agricultural and social needs.
This organic development challenges earlier interpretations, like that of K.A. Nilakanta Sastri,
who viewed the nadu as an artificial administrative division.
  Evidence from Chola inscriptions indicates an increase in the number of nadus from the 9th
to the 11th centuries. Scholars differ on the implications:

o Subbarayalu attributes this to agricultural expansion and population growth,

particularly in less fertile regions.

o Stein argues that these nadus predated the Chola period and their increased
mention reflects the Chola state's recognition of their sovereignty.

o Veluthat suggests that some later nadus were artificially created (valanadus) under
rulers like Rajaraja I to facilitate governance in newly subjugated areas.

Social and Political Organization

 Structure of the Nadu:

o Stein views the nadu as a "segmentary" unit within a pyramidal political system. Each
nadu functioned autonomously, with localized authority, and was tied to others
primarily through ritual subordination to the Chola king.

o The nadu often took its name from a prominent village, though this did not imply
primacy. Stein’s idea of a “core village” attracting subordinate settlements has been
criticized as speculative.

 Role of the Nattar:

o The nattar represented the landowning elite of the nadu, typically from the
vellanvagai caste. Their authority was localized, grounded in their status as
landowners rather than kinship or caste identity.

o Veluthat disputes Stein’s emphasis on endogamy among the nattar, arguing instead
that their cohesion arose from shared economic and political interests as landed
magnates.

 Social Composition:

o Stein highlights the hierarchical organization within some nadus, especially in fertile
regions, with a clear stratification:

 Chiefs at the top.

 Brahmanas as ritual specialists.

 Dominant peasants (vellangai).

 Artisans and traders (idangai).

 Landless laborers and dependents.

o Peripheral nadus were less stratified, often resembling tribal societies with minimal
differentiation.

Typologies of Nadus
Stein classifies nadus into three types, based on geographic and social characteristics:

1. Central Nadus:

o Found in fertile plains, particularly the Kaveri delta.

o Highly stratified with strong Chola influence, numerous Brahmanas, and integration
into Chola ritual sovereignty.

o Politically and socially sophisticated.

2. Intermediate Nadus:

o Located in less fertile uplands or lowlands.

o Less hierarchical with fewer Brahmanas and more localized political authority.

o Often contested by rival dynasties, leading to fluctuating allegiances.

3. Peripheral Nadus:

o Inhospitable regions with weak agricultural potential.

o Displayed tribal characteristics and limited interaction with mainstream dharmic

society.

o Despite marginalization, they engaged in exchanges with more prosperous regions.

Veluthat challenges this typology, arguing that Stein’s classifications lack empirical support and are
speculative.

Conclusion

The nadu played a pivotal role in the social, economic, and political fabric of the Chola state. Its
spontaneous evolution, localized governance, and integration into a broader ritual framework
highlight the decentralized nature of the Chola polity. While Stein’s segmentary model provides an
interpretative framework, critics like Veluthat point to gaps in evidence, emphasizing the need for a
nuanced understanding of this critical institution.

Administration of the Nadu

The administrative framework of the nadu during the Chola period has been a topic of significant
scholarly debate, particularly between Burton Stein and Kesavan Veluthat. While conventional
interpretations treated the nadu as a localized administrative assembly executing royal orders, Stein
posits it as an autonomous political center. Veluthat, however, challenges this view, emphasizing the
nadu's integration into the broader Chola bureaucratic structure.

Autonomy of the Nadu

 Stein argues that each nadu functioned as an independent political and administrative entity
with its own assembly. The assembly, composed of nattar (local magnates), managed:
 o Land grants, including demarcation, resettlement, and enforcement of grant-related
injunctions.

o Tax assessment and collection, often paying taxes on lands designated as tax-free.

o Irrigation management and infrastructure.

o Temple grants, albeit in the king's name, reflecting their administrative initiative.

 Stein identifies titles like muvenda-velar, mummadi, and adigari as indicative of executive
officers within the nadu. He contends that these were locality chiefs rather than royal agents,
supported by the use of place references instead of personal names in inscriptions.

Veluthat’s Counterarguments

 Veluthat refutes the claim that the nadu was an autonomous administrative unit:

o He identifies officials such as nadu-vagai-ceyva, nadu-kuru-ceyvar, and nadu-

kankani-nayagam as royal agents operating within the nadu.

o Records indicate these officials worked under a hierarchical structure, carrying out
royal directives, often in conjunction with higher-level officers like senapati
(generals).

o Evidence from inscriptions, including references to tirumugam (royal orders) and tax-
related officers, demonstrates state penetration into the nadu through its agents.

 Veluthat challenges Stein’s interpretation of muvenda-velar and similar titles as evidence of

nadu chieftainship:

o He asserts these were designations for influential landowners rather than chiefs,
given the large number of individuals with such titles in a single nadu.

o The absence of a singular leader undermines Stein’s portrayal of the nadu as a

localized replication of the Chola political hierarchy.

Centralization and Decentralization

 The nadu’s administrative role evolved under Chola rule:

o Peripheral Areas: James Heitzman notes more frequent references to nattar in

inscriptions from peripheral regions. This suggests greater administrative reliance on
local groups in these areas, contrasting with the core regions.

o Post-Rajaraja I: After Rajaraja I's reign, inscriptions increasingly reference royal

functionaries, supporting Veluthat’s assertion of an attempt at centralization.
However, this effort faced challenges, indicating a decentralized administrative
structure persisted.

Stein’s Segmentary Model vs. Veluthat’s Centralization Thesis

  Stein incorporates nadu administration into his segmentary state model, arguing for a
pyramidal structure with localized autonomy. He sees the nadu as a microcosm of Chola
governance, led by chiefs and dominated by nattar assemblies.

 Veluthat counters that:

o The nadu was embedded within the Chola bureaucratic framework, with officials
acting as royal agents rather than autonomous leaders.

o The Chola state was monarchical, with centralized elements, contradicting Stein’s
portrayal of the Chola kings as "first among equals" in a network of local chiefs.

Conclusion

The administration of the nadu reflects a dynamic interplay between local autonomy and central
authority in the Chola state. WTrade and Traders During the Chola Period

The Chola period witnessed significant advancements in maritime trade and commerce, facilitated by
prominent ports, merchant guilds, and the active involvement of the state. This era of economic
prosperity was marked by extensive domestic and international trade, thriving ports, and the active
participation of merchant organizations.

Prominent Ports and Coastal Towns

 Key Ports:

o Nagapattinam: A major hub for trade from the 11th century onward.

o Kaveripattinam: Another significant port.

o Tiruppalaivanam and Mayilarppil: Important coastal towns supporting maritime

activities.

 Role of Merchant Organizations:

o Merchant guilds established warehouses and managed customs duties.

o They provided protection for traders and their merchandise, ensuring safe trade
practices.

Goods Traded

 Staple and Luxury Goods:

o Staple goods: Rice, pulses, sesame, salt, pepper, oil, and food grains.

o Luxury goods: Precious and semi-precious gems (e.g., rubies, diamonds, pearls),
metals, silk, rose water, camphor, and perfumes.

 Imported Goods:

o Horses from Arabia.

 o Silk from China.

o Elephants from Myanmar.

o Rose water from West Asia.

Chola Support for Trade

 Protected Mercantile Towns: The Cholas established erivirapattanas, or fortified trade

centers, to safeguard trade.

 Maritime Expeditions:

o Military campaigns in Sri Lanka, the Malaysian peninsula, and the Indonesian islands
(e.g., the 1025 expedition against Srivijaya) were aimed at securing key trade routes
and ports.

o Inscriptional and archaeological evidence indicates increasing ties with Southeast

Asia, particularly regions like Tambralinga, near the Kra isthmus.

 Cultural Exchange:

o Artifacts, such as Hindu sculptures and Chola-period images, have been found in
Southeast Asia, underscoring the cultural and commercial influence of the Cholas.

Merchant Guilds and Autonomy

 Guild Activities:

o Merchant guilds like Chittirameli and Pandinen Vishaya coordinated trade, set tolls,
and managed agricultural exchange.

o They also made joint donations to temples, fostering socio-religious ties.

 Transition in Power:

o As Chola authority declined in the 12th century, merchant guilds gained

independence, organizing armed caravans for protection and operating
autonomously.

Conclusion

The Chola period was marked by vibrant trade networks, both domestic and international. The state’s
initiatives, combined with the entrepreneurial spirit of merchant guilds, facilitated the growth of a
robust economy. Despite the eventual decline of Chola power, these trade networks and guilds
ensured the continuity of commerce and cultural exchange in the region.

hile Stein highlights its independence as a decentralized unit, Veluthat provides compelling evidence
of its integration into a hierarchical bureaucratic system. The debate underscores the complexity of
Chola governance, balancing localized power structures with overarching state control.