Doubtless it was not a free state; it was any rate a state" (KAN Sastri). Reflect upon the nature of local self government institutions in the Chola country.

The Structure of Local Self-Government

The Chola local self-government system was primarily based on three types of assemblies: Ur, Sabha, and Nattar. These institutions were not uniform across the Chola empire and varied based on the nature of the settlement.

1. Ur – Rural Local Bodies

• Ur represented the local village assemblies, primarily found in settlements inhabited by landholders.
• These assemblies were responsible for managing local affairs, including land records, dispute resolution, and the maintenance of village infrastructure.
• Membership was generally hereditary and based on land ownership.
• The Ur functioned as a unit for revenue collection and the implementation of royal decrees.

2. Sabha – Brahmanical Assemblies

• Sabha were assemblies of learned Brahmins, primarily found in Brahmanical villages (agrahara).
• These were arguably the most sophisticated and well-documented local bodies.
• Membership was based on qualification, not birth, and involved a rigorous selection process. Members were expected to be well-versed in the Vedas and administrative matters.
• The Sabha had extensive powers, including the administration of justice, the management of land, irrigation, and the collection of taxes.
• They also oversaw the functioning of temples and educational institutions.
• The functioning of the Sabha was highly organized, with a committee system and a rotating presidency.

3. Nattar – Assemblies of Landed Interests

• Nattar were assemblies representing a larger territorial division called a nadu, encompassing multiple villages.
• They were composed of representatives from the various Urs within the nadu.
• The Nattar primarily dealt with inter-village disputes, coordinated irrigation projects, and maintained law and order.
• They also served as a link between the local villages and the central administration.

Functions of Local Self-Government Institutions

The functions of these local bodies were diverse and crucial for the smooth functioning of the Chola administration:

• Judicial Functions: Both Ur and Sabha had the authority to try minor offenses and resolve disputes within their jurisdiction.
• Administrative Functions: They managed local resources, maintained public infrastructure (tanks, canals, roads), and oversaw the implementation of royal orders.
• Revenue Administration: They assisted in the assessment and collection of land revenue.
• Temple Management: The Sabha played a significant role in the management of temples, including the appointment of priests and the organization of festivals.
• Irrigation Management: A crucial function, especially in the agrarian economy of the Cholas, involving the construction and maintenance of irrigation systems.

Limitations and the Role of the Central Authority

Despite their autonomy, these local bodies were not entirely independent. The Chola state exercised significant control over them:

• Royal Supervision: The king appointed officials to oversee the functioning of local bodies and ensure compliance with royal decrees.
• Centralized Revenue System: While local bodies collected revenue, a significant portion was remitted to the central treasury.
• Interference in Judicial Matters: The king retained the right to intervene in judicial matters and overrule the decisions of local courts.
• Military Obligations: Local bodies were responsible for providing soldiers and resources to the Chola army.

Furthermore, the composition of these assemblies was often skewed in favor of the dominant landholding classes, limiting the participation of lower castes and marginalized communities. The inscriptions reveal that the Sabha, in particular, was dominated by Brahmins, reflecting the social hierarchy of the time.

Evolution and Significance

The Chola local self-government system evolved over time. Initially, these institutions were largely autonomous, but as the Chola empire expanded, the central authority exerted greater control. Nevertheless, the system remained remarkably resilient and continued to function effectively for centuries. The inscriptions provide ample evidence of the active participation of local communities in administrative matters, demonstrating a degree of self-governance that was rare in ancient India.