Patronage and Irrigation in Tamil Nadu: A Long-term View

Indian Economic And Social History Review

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 1979, Pages 347-365

  Ludden, David ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972755334     PISSN: 00194646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001946467901600306     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Tirunelveli was part of a slightly larger district called Tinnevelly from 1801 to 1910.
2. Tirunelveli's irrigation is peculiar primarily in that tanks are part of river irrigation much more than elsewhere in Tamil Nadu.
3. See Burton Stein, “The Segmentary State in South Indian History”, in Richard G. Fox, ed. Region and Realm in Traditional India, Duke University, Durham, 1977, pp. 3-51; and my “Ecological Zones and the Cultural Economy of Irrigation in Southern Tamil Nadu”, South Asia, I NS, 1 (March 1978), pp. 1-13.
4. See Emanual Adiceam, La Geographie de l'irrigation dans le Tamilnadu, Ecole Fran×ais d'Extreme Orient, Paris, 1966, for a survey of Tamil Nadu irrigation.
5. Season and Crop Report, 1970/1.
6. For more description: Madras District Gazetteers: Tinnevelly District, H.R. Pate, Government Press, Madras, 1917.
7. The Tambraparni River valley has been subjected to relatively little plunder in its history, however.
8. “See N. Ceturakunatan, ed. Mukkutal Pallu, Saiva Siddhanta Publishing Works, Tirunelveli, 1973, p. 17.
9. Official Diary of the Superintendent of Tank Repairs, 1807, Board of Revenue, Miscellaneous Volumes; R.K. Puckle, “Report on Projects for Extending Irrigation in Tinnevelly”, Tinnevelly Collectorate Records, 6 March 1868; and Patinaintu Cata-naikal, No. 5: Tirunelveli, Directorate of Information and Publicity, Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras, 1966, p. 25.
10. For a general discussion: A.T. Arundel, Irrigation and Communal Labour in Madras Presidency, Asylum Press, Madras, 1879, pp. 10-14; and Planning Commission, Programme Evaluation Organization, Study of the Problems of Minor Irrigation, New Delhi 1961, pp. 39-40, 57-65ff.
11. Wells have often been dug via family partnerships. In the study sample in Study of the Problems of Minor Irrigation, all katcha wells were individually owned, while 46 per cent of pucca wells were jointly owned (p. 32). For the meagre aid to well builders under British rule, see S.Y. Krishnaswami, Rural Problems in Madras, Government Press, Madras, 1947, pp. 94-96.
12. Robert Hardgrave, The Nadars of Tamil Nad, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1969.
13. Tinnevelly District Gazetteer, T. Turnbull, Geographical and Statistical Memoir of Tirunelveli, Revenue Department Sundries, No. 38; and Census and Dehazada of the Province of Tirunelveli, Revenue Department Sundries, No. 39.
14. For well statistics, see my dissertation, “Agrarian Organization in Tinevelly District: 800-1900 A.D.” University of Pennsylvania, 1978, p. 354
15. L.S. Leshnik, South Indian ‘Megalithic’ Burials: The Pandukal Complex, Frans Steiner, Weisbaden, 1974, pp. 59-72. Also, C. Maloney, “Archaeology in South India: Accomplishments and Prospects”, in Burton Stein, ed. Essays on South India, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1975, pp. 1-40; and Joseph E. Schwartz-berg, ed. A Historical Atlas of South Asia, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 24.
16. S. Singaravelu, The Social Life of the Tamils: The Classical Period, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 1966, pp. 40-44.
17. Burton Stein, “Integration of the Agrarian System of South India”, in R.E. Frykenberg, ed. Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1969; and his forthcoming book, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, for extended treatment of Tamil nadus.
18. For a map of Tirunelveli nadus: Ludden, “Agrarian Organization in Tinnevelly”, p. 50.
19. Tinnevelly Gazetteer, pp. 170-1.
20. This judgement is based on the frequency and content of inscriptions during the period. See for instance the collection in South Indian Inscriptions, XIV, Archaelo-gical Survey of India, Madras, 1962.
21. Tinnevelly Gazetteer, pp. 171-72; S. Kurukuhudasa Pillai, Tirunelveli Cimai Carittiram, Sadhu Press, Madras, 1931, p. 16; T.A. Gopinatha Rao, “Krishnapuram Plates of Sadasivaraya, Saka Samvat 1489”, Epigraphica Indica, 1907-8, pp. 328-41.
22. Srivaikuntam Anicut was built to supplement the failing irrigation capacity of Marudur in 1868-74.
23. For a critique of centralized bureaucratic models of medieval Tamil kingdoms, see Burton Stein, ‘'The State and Agrarian Order in Medieval South India: A Historiographic Critique”, in Stein, ed. Essays on South India, pp. 64-91. For details of Pandyan state organization in Tirunelveli, see D. Ludden, “Agrarian Organization”, Chapter III.
24. South Indian Inscriptions, XVI: Nos. 44, 231; Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphy, Archaeological Survey of India, Madras, 1929/30: No. 340; 1932/3: No. 217; 1965/6: No. 285.’
25. South Indian Inscriptions, XIV, Nos. 56, 61; Annual Report on Epigraphy, 1916/17: Nos. 482, 524.
26. K.A. ff: For more on these villages: Stein, Peasant State; Ludden, ’ Agrarian Organization”, Chapters III and V; K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Cholas, Madras University, Madras, 1955, pp. 492-93ff: and A. Appadorai, Economic Conditions in South India from 1000 to 1500 A.D. Madras University, Madras, 1936, pp. 113-15, 133-45ff.
27. The Kannadiyan, Ariyanayakipuram (named perhaps after Aryanatha Mudaliar -Tinnevelly Gazetteer, p. 172), and the Marudur anicuts are the largest works with apparent personal sponsors. For more, see T.S. Sundaram Ayyar, “Place Names in the Tinnevelly District”, Journal of the Madras Geographical Association, XV, 2 (April-June 1940), pp. 330-45.
28. Since there is little direct evidence of Nayaka revenue structure, this account derives mostly from eighteenth century sources. See Ludden, “Agrarian Organization”, Chapter IV.
29. R. Satyanatha Aiyer, History of the Nayaks of Madurai, Oxford University Press, 1924 and K. Rajayyan, Rise and Fall of the Poligars of Tamilnadu, Madras University, Madras, 1974 are the best available studies.
30. Tenkasy developed as a Pandyan territory rather late, c. 1330-1550. Sec T.A. Gopinatha Rao, “Inscriptions of the later Pandyas,” Travancore Archaeological Series, I, 1910, 43-152, 251-82.
31. Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, 13 June 1793, pp. 3196-205 (IOL).
32. For accounts of official investment logic, sec N.D. Gulhati, Administration and Financing of Irrigation Works in India, Publication No. 77, Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, 1965, and Symposium on the Economics and Financing of Irrigation, Drainage, and Flood Control Works, Publication No. 85, Central Board of Irrigation and Power, especially the papers by P.R. Ahuja, K.S. Misra and Kanwar Sain.
33. There is still no adequate study of the full causation and ramifications of structural changes in the Empire after mid-century. For details on the administrative set-up, see Manual of Administration of Madras Presidency, Government Press, Madras, 1885, and Annual Reports on the Administration of Madras Presidency.
34. S.Y. Krishnaswami, Rural Problems, pp. 78-103 has an overview.
35. See my “Who Really Ruled Madras Presidency? (A brief note based on data from nineteenth century Tinnevelly District)”, I.E.S.H.R. October-Decemher 1978.
36. Tanjavur District, for instance, received habitual favouritism. A sweeping exception to the Ryotwari system was introduced to placate Mirasidars in Tanjavur and Tirunelveli. Their best wet lands were relatively under-assessed; their river irrigated lands received the lion's share of benefits from government irrigation outlays; and their political importance was continually recognized by British officials.
37. Dharma Kumar, Land and Caste in South India, Cambridge University Press, 1965 and Benedicte Hjejle, “Slavery and Agricultural Bondage in South India in the Nineteenth Century”, Scandinavian Economic History Review, XV, 1967, pp. 71-126.
38. Cultivated acreage under wells was not recorded serially until late in the century.
39. G.O. Revenue, No. 304, 31 January 1980: Resettlement Report of Tinnevelly, Ambasamudram, and Tenkasy Taluks, and V. Krishnan, “Tambraparni Ryot”, Gokhale Prize Award Thesis, Madras University, 1931.
40. Tinnevelly District Gazetteer, p. 170
41. Committee on Plan Projects (Irrigation and Power Team), Report on Minor Irrigation in Madras State, New Delhi, 1959, p. 2.
42. Report of the Committee on Agricultural Production, Government Press, Madras, 1966, p. 21
43. Ministry of Irrigation and Power, Report of the Irrigation Commission, New Delhi, 1972, II, 372ff. “Irrigation potential” is a planning concept that assumes here an efficiency of irrigation utilization far above contemporary norms. Potential water supplies from diversion and storage works using west flowing rivers not under Tamil Nadu jurisdiction, whose use is complicated by inter-state water disputes, are presumably not figured into these calculations. See also G. Venkataramani, Minor Irrigation in Tamil Nadu, Sangam Publishers, Madras, 1974, p. 32; State Planning Commission, The Perspective Plan for Tamil Nadu, Madras, 1974, where it is calculated that 74 per cent of annual groundwater recharge is in use. 44S.Y. Krishnaswami, Rural Problems, pp. 438-52 has excellent critique of the Scheme, whose operational standards are still used today.
44. Report on Minor Irrigation in Madras, p. 11 and Appendices XI-XII.
45. G. Venkataramani, Minor Irrigation, pp. 33-40. Today, since the reintroduction of the Circle System in 1957, Tamil Nadu is the most organized Indian state in its care of tanks: see Report of the National Commission on Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, New Delhi, 1976, p. 35.
46. Season and Crops Reports.
47. Minor Irrigation in Tamil Nadu. The World Agricultural Census, Director of the Agricultural Census, Madras, 1974, pt. II, p. 448 calculates that 42 per cent of all irrigated holdings in Tirunelveli are irrigated by wells.
48. G.R. Rao, ed. Progressive Madras State, Madras Chamber of Commerce, Madras, 1967, p. 148; and Season and Crops Reports, 1968/9 to 1971/2 (the last years for which figures are available).
49. Francis Moore Lappe, Food First. Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1977, pp. 120-25, 171-73 has a good discussion of both the boons and potential problems of HYV's.
50. For estimates of waste and returns from modernization, see The Perspective Plan for Tamil Nadu, pp. 274-75; Study of the Problems of Minor Irrigation, p. 98; R. Shankara Iyer, “Efficient Use of Irrigation Water”, New Irrigation Era, X, 1, 1966, pp. 16-18; Report of the Committee on Agricultural Production; and the World Bank's Report on the Periyar-Vaigai Irrigation Modernization Project (mimeo).
51. For details of the politics and pseudo-science of revenue settlement and resettlement in Tirunelveli, see Ludden “Agrarian Organization”, Chapter VI.
52. Tamil Nadu: An Economic Appraisal, 1975, Finance Dept. Madras, 1975 pp. 90, 94.
53. Perspective Plan for Tamil Nadu, p. 271 ff.