CORRESPONDENCES

TO THE EDITOR OF

“THE MADRAS TIMES”

BY

ATHIPPAKKAM

1. VENKATACHALA NAYAGAR

(POYAKKARI AGENT)

DURING 1863 – 1866

ON THE ISSUE OF

POYAKKARI versus MIRASSIDARS

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-On several petitions presented by “certain under tenants of the Madras District,” Government were pleased to pass an Order, under date the 24th November, 1862, to the effect that “the Mirassidars of Madras hold a proprietary” right in the land which they occupy and for which they pay Assessment, and the Government cannot interfere with that right ****.

Rules for the disposal of immemorial waste land are now under preparation and will soon be published for the information of all intending applicants.

In passing the above endorsement, Government must have, either willfully or ignorantly misconstrued and overlooked one or two important points, which by every rule of consistency and justice, demand their reconsideration.

In the first place the petitioners are stated to be “certain under tenants” and this in the face of 4,550 signatures, representatives of 99 percent of the population of the Madras District, the remainder (1 percent) consisting of the so called Mirassidars has Government would call them ‘Proprietors’.

In the Second place not all of these Poyakkaries and Sugavasis, are de-facto, sub-tenants of the so-called Mirassidars, as one fourth and more of them hold Puttahs or annual Leases direct from Government, and pay the cess on their lands direct to the ruling Authorities.

In the third place, Government might have known, that the great majority of the Poyakkaries and Sugavasis were formerly landholders, and that they were deprived of their Kyput landholdings through the intrigues of the so-called Mirassidars and their relatives, the subordinate officers at the Huzur in times not long ago,-all Mirassidars and the small fry of officials being Brahmins. Again, waiving for the present the question as to the proprietary rights to the lands, it may be enquired, what is the distinction between a Mirassidar and that of a cultivator under the Ryotwaree system. According to the letter of the endorsement of Government, there is none whatsoever. For, be it observed, that the Mirassidar is subject to pay the due assessment in the same manner as a Ryot who holds lands on lease in any other District; and in the event of his not meeting the Government demands, he becomes liable to the forfeiture of his holdings.

Mr. Editor, it is a well known and patent fact that the Mirassidars take up more lands than they intend to occupy or cultivate, that they never do cultivate the whole extent of the lands included in their Puttah (leases) and that they do not and have not paid at any time the full assessment due on their respective holdings.

Year after year, aye, ever since Chingleput was bestowed as a Jaghire on the late Honorable East India Company, gross partiality has been shown to the Mirassidars from their being Brahmins, whilst the actual cultivators, the Poyakkaries and Sugavasis have been trodden down, and unreservedly made over to the tender mercies of their hard hearted and cruel task-masters.

Granted, that Government cannot interfere with the proprietary right of the Mirassidars as long as they pay assessment. But when they fail, as they invariably do, why do not Government interpose their authority, and instead of experiencing serious losses and permitting valuable lands to lie waste, cause such waste lands to be given on lease to those who are ready and willing to bring them under cultivation and pay Government every iota of the assessment?

Why indeed!

Further, it is stated that Rules for the disposal of immemorial waste land are now under preparation and will be soon published for the information of all intending applicants.

It is to be remembered that this was given in reply to the petitions presented by the Poyakkaries and Sugavasis of the Chingleput District. What then? Why, in the rules lately published anent the sale of waste lands Chingleput with Tanjore is especially exempted? What is the meaning of this? What other inference can be made than that Government passed their endorsement with the view of quieting the petitioners for the time being; that it was intended as a mere sop. Surely, Government must have known, acknowledging as they do the proprietary right of the Mirassidars, that there were no waste lands to sell in Chingleput, and the endorsement passed by them was, what in vulgar parlance is emphatically styled a ‘dodge&.’

But the Petitioners to Government simply requested that the waste lands which the Mirassidars will not cultivate and have not cultivated for the last 20 and 30 years and for which they have not paid a fraction of the cess may be given to them on lease. What reasonable objection there is in their prayer being complied with, it is difficult to imagine. Can you Mr. Editor think of any. I presume not, and therefore, I request that as a public measure, you will be good enough to urge on Government that waste lands may be given on lease to the Poyakkari.

29th July 1863

– POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 04-08-1863)

*****

EDITORIAL

We publish this morning in another column a letter signed ‘Poyakkari’. Many of our readers will probably ask what the term means and what is the quarrel between the Mirassidars, and the class whose claims are advocated in the letter. To ascertain the origin and nature of the dispute we must begin at the beginning and that beginning was a very long time ago. At a very remote period the country lying between the two Penar (Pennar) rivers, north and south, was thinly inhabited by shepherds who were not perhaps indisposed to mingle occasionally a little marauding and robbery with the more legitimate occupation of tending their flocks and herds. Population at the same time had become dense beyond the river boundaries and the want of elbow room resulting there from suggested to the crowded philanthropists the impropriety if not the sin, of allowing a large and fertile territory to be so sparsely and even disreputably occupied. Occasionally men are found who in the language of our copy books regard virtue as its own reward and who practice it both actively and passively from the best and purest motives. But we shall not be accused of libeling human nature if we state that in all ages self-interest has had a remarkable effect in opening men”s eyes to the folly and wickedness of their neighbours and that vice or even mere frailty ignorance have not infrequently become simply intolerable to reformers who have a manifest interest in their suppression. We are not then guilty of insult to the manes of the old trans Pennar population, when we record that influenced no doubt by as high motives as impel many a colonist or “developer of resources” in these latter times,  they suggested to the Cholum Rajah, then regnant, that it would be highly desirable to cross the rivers and confer comfort, order and civilization on the unruly shepherd-race that occupied the barren territory. The shepherds objected3; they had their own ideas of life very wrong ones no doubt, but still agreeable to their nature. There upon the Cholum Rajah proceeded, like a monarch of modern times, to go to war for his idea and as the shepherds stoutly declined to be made comfortable in any fashion but their own in this world, the Rajah dispatched them in a series of bloody engagements to fresh fields and pastures now in another. After some attempts which failed to colonize the country thus gained, the Rajah sent his son to lead into the new territory a rich and intelligent tribe of husbandmen of the Moodelly caste named Vellalars. The Rajah”s son appears to have been an excellent administrator. He gave to the Vellalars a perpetual interest on the soil subjecting them to the payment of a certain share of the produce to the Circar. He instituted the various village offices that still exist with the payments attached to them and in short establişhed the system which survives with but little alteration to the present day though its originator is long since gone to join the unremembered dead. It is recorded that the young prince”s colonial success excited the surprise of his father who desired to know how the people, had been so speedily and quietly settled on the new lands. The Prince replied that he had forged a fetter (Cawney) for the colonists and secured it with a rivet (atchey) so strong that they could never get free. This was a figurative allusion to the hereditary tenure which he had granted to the inhabitants and which was thence called cawniatchey, a word which the subsequent Persian-speaking invaders of India translated Mirassi, hence Mirassidar. The Vellalars finding that they had more land in the province than they were able themselves to cultivate willingly let a portion of it to strangers or subsequent colonists but these were mere tenants of the Mirassidars, generally from year to year, and paid a stipulated rent for the land they occupied. They were called Poyakkaries or people who cultivate the lands of others and between them and the Mirassidars there has not been always a good understanding.

The rights of the Mirassidars have been long a subject of dispute. Not long since our Government stated that save in the hill districts there was not much waste land in the Presidency of Madras. Considering the small proportion of land in the Presidency under cultivation this statement appears at first sight surprising. The fact however is that almost the whole land in the plains is rather claimed or actually occupied by the Mirassidars or their representatives and if we ventured to discuss the relation in which these worthy people stand towards other classes of cultivators or towards the Government in its capacity of head landlord, we should probably succeed in a very short time in both perplexing and wearying our readers. There are the rights original, the rights prescriptive and the rights fictitious of the Mirassidars: there are the similar rights of the Poyakkaries and there is the supreme right of the Government towering high above all. But any attempt to settle them and to assign to each his exact due would probably eventuate in a despairing appeal to the great though arbitrary tribunal of “heads or tails.”

Notwithstanding however that “Mirassi” is a verv perplexing subject, it is we regret to say an equally important one to the interests of this Presidency. The great question to decide is, ‘Does Government or do the Mirassidars possess the proprietary right to the land and what rights has Government over the waste or uncultivated land. There is an enormous extent of cultivable land in the Presidency, but it is for the most part claimed by the Mirassidars who are accused of acting the part of dog in the manger. Presuming that the accusation is just, what legitimate power has Government to intervene to promote cultivation and increase the public revenue? Our correspondent alludes to the orders of Government passed in November last recognising in the Mirassidars of Madras a proprietary right in the land which they occupy and for which they pay assessment and declining to interfere with that right. It excites our correspondent”s indignation that the petitioners are denominated by Government ‘certain under – tenants’ whereas in effect they constitute 99 percent of the population of the Madras district, ‘the remaining one percent consisting of the so-called Mirassidars or as the Government would call them proprietors.’ When 99 percent of the population of a district present a complaint against the remaining one percent, there are certainly prima facie, strong grounds for supposing that a real grievance exists; but in this case our sympathy is unfortunately cooled by the knowledge that the object of the 99 percent is to obtain a portion of the possessions of the one percent. This does not of course prove their petition unreasonable or improper. The property may righteously be theirs. It may be for the good of the country that they should be put into possession of it, but until our correspondent furnishes us with better arguments in favour of the 99 percents claim than those we publish to-day, the hesitation we feel to advocate the transference will we fear continue. So far as we can make out the Poyakkaries prefer being the direct tenants of the Government to being the under-tenants of the Mirassidars and in order to obtain their wish they petition Government as supreme landlord to exercise its right over the uncultivated lands by giving them to the Poyakkaries who are both able and willing to cultivate them. If we are wrong we beg our correspondent to set us right. Now there can be no doubt that the Government possesses the power it is solicited to exercise. The best authorities on Mirassi hold that the tenure is so far limited that if the Mirassidars are either unwilling or unable to cultivate the land, the Government can put strangers into possession who however are bound to pay Mirassi fees to the Mirassidars besides a proportion of the producc or its equivalent to the Circar.

The question then is do the Mirassidars intentionally and of malice prepense or from poverty, omit or neglect to cultivate their land, either directly or through under- tenants, to the best of their ability? Our correspondent says they do and assert that they habitually and willfully take up lands which they are unable to cultivate and for which they do not pay assessment, thus causing detriment to the public revenues and distress to the industrious and enterprising Poyakkaries. This is a matter of fact capable we should think of easy proof. The Ryots are bound under ordinary circumstances to pay the whole assessment on the land included in their Puttahs, but exceptional remissions were made in Fusli 1271 on 3,67,294 acres. Is it a portion of this land which our correspondent claims for the Poyakkaries? If so the claim involves a reflection on the Government officials for over leniency to the Mirassidars. Considering what human nature is, we can scarcely believe that the Mirassidars are so oblivious of their own interests as to decline letting super-abundant portions of their holdings to any Poyakkaries who are willing to cultivate them. Perhaps they may be too exacting in the terms they require, but it is not the business of Government to settle the rent of land, or to interfere between the buyer and the seller of it or of anything else. Unfortunately it sometimes happens that landlords are greedy and tenants oppressed, but we have little doubt that the Madras Poyakkaries are far better off than the tenants of a Bengal Zamindar. If our correspondent wishes to ventilate their real condition let him furnish us with a statement of the rent which they pay and the relations in which they stand to the Mirassidars. We are always ready to take the part of the oppressed, but we must have a good case.

(‘THE MADRAS TIMES’, 4-8-1863)

*****

LETTER FROM MR. NABOTH ON THE

MIRASSI QUESTION

The Mirassi Question

Sir,-The letter of ‘Poyakkari’ which appeared in your issue of the 4th instant, and your impartial review of it on the same date, have not a little roused the hope of many a man in the Madras Presidency interested in the settlement of the Mirassi question-a subject that has been for a considerable period left in abeyance to the disadvantage greatly of the State as of the people. You take a practical view of the case which many a conservative would consider as untenable. You allude to the origin of the Mirassi in the late Chingleput District as having arisen from a desire of the then Raja for colonisation from the neighbouring country. This idea, you will find, is condemned by that staunch advocate of the Ryotwarry system, Sir T. Manro and his friends, as a fiction unworthy of credit, as they desired to introduce Poyakkaries on an equal footing with the Mirassidars. On the other hand Mr. F. Ellis the great admirer of the Mirassi, is of opinion that every reverential deference should be shown to the rights and privileges of the Mirassidars, as being unquestionable and incontrovertible. Thus an enquiry into the records will elicit strong reasonings both for and against the Mirassi system, though with this difference that in the latter case, the strength of the argument will be found to rest mainly on inferences and deductions, and in the former on self-evident facts and on what daily obtains. Some conservatives of the present duly do admit the validity of the Mirassi rights as ancient and undoubted, yet question the expediency of perpetuating a system which to them appears to be a clog to the easy management of the District affairs. Certainly it would be so as anything else would be, if the necessary restrictions or limits are not prescribed or delineated. The best and most perfect system in the world would get into disorder if the requisite restraducts are neglected. Don”t we find ever in Ryotwarry Districts, where there is no such distinction as Mirassi and Poyakkari that the people enter into a combination to oppose Government measures. Instances are not a few.

Another reasoning which is frequently advanced against the Mirassi, is that it is a stumbling block to the augmen- tation of Public Revenue. If the Mirassi system in the Chingleput District was the sole cause for a deficiency of revenue why should it not equally exercise its mal-influence in the Tanjore District, where also it exists? Why should one district be in a flourishing condition and the other in poverty stricken circumstances? Over assessment, it must be remembered has something to do with the non-extension of cultivation. But I do not entirely acquit the Mirassi system of the share of the blame that partially attaches to it under its present trammels. But this defect can be remedied by the Government itself. It needs only to declare openly the uncontroverted rights of the Mirassidars when matters will adjust themselves between them and the Poyakkaries, powerfully tending to the extension of cultivation, and increase of public revenue. The ‘waste will be divided among the Mirassidars, and self interest will in its height be at work in bringing it under the plough. At present the Mirassidars fearing the detrimental interference of officials, never dream of disposing of their proper share of the uncultivated area, and the Poyakkaries being actuated by cutcherry influence and subtlety, are unwilling to come to terms with the Mirassidars. Under these circumstances, lands are for years laid ‘waste’ to the prejudice of Government interest causing about 50 percent of waste in wet land and above 80 percent in the dry lands.

The best mode for the Government to pursue in this respect, would be to invite suggestions from the Covenanted and Uncovenanted servants of Government who may have revenue experience in Mirassi districts, and then to strike out a plan most efficient in preserving the interest of Government without exciting the murmurs of the people such that would give a large scope for the advantage of the Poyakkaries also.

I do not see that Government would derive any benefit in prolonging any more the postponement of the question. Even our fearless Governor Sir Charles Trevelyan saw the necessity and expediency of partially yielding to the irresistible importunities of the Mirassidars. Time has besides, established their rights by prescription. Since the period of Mr. Place’s management of the District, the Mirassidars have and are invariably consulted and preference given to them, in disposing of the ‘waste’. Any violation of their rights now must be discomfited in a court of Justice. It would by no means be just to say that if the Mirassidars do not cultivate, the ‘waste’ will be distributed to the Poyakkaries. It would equally be unjust on the part of the Secretary of State if he were to issue a mandate dictating that the Covenanted members of the Service should continue to work on an equal salary with the Uncovenanted and that should they not consent to it, they would be supplanted by the latter, without showing any consideration whatever for the trouble and hardships that their forefathers had undergone in establishing their Mirassi in India with life and property at stake. Our days are the days of peace and enjoyment-thanks to God. We would be ungrateful if we forget the eminent names of the members of the late East India Company who have dearly purchased tranquility for us. So is the case with the Mirassidars of the Chingleput District. Their forefathers immigrated at the risk of life and fortune at the instance of the reigning Rajas. What amount of capital and labor must have been expended by them in forming a flourishing country as Thondamandalam. Neither would it be tact or talent in a Pucka Revenue officer to force upon the Mirassidars in a dilemma lands to the extent that they are unable to manage. Some officers being annoyed at the opposition evinced by the Mirassidars, and not understanding that the opposition had proceeded purely from the best intentions and attachment to the State, as if the eldest son would quarrel with his father, if the latter were disposed to apportion the greater part of his estate to his bastard brothers, not infrequently carried out measures against them at a moment”s impulse of the mind from a desire to raise the status of the Poyakkari. They considered that the latter would stand a safe check against the arrogant and stubborn Mirassidars. Several instances may be adduced on this head in depreciation of the Mirassi tenure in the Chingleput District as one not preserved in its integrity. Nevertheless on the whole, the evidence for the unviolated Mirassi rights and privileges in the Chingleput District stands uncontradicted.

Anyhow, if this important question be not settled now at a time when the Head Quarters are blessed with officers most able to deal with it, there will be no knowing when the matter will be brought to a satisfactory close.

Hoping that this will lead to a thorough ventilation of the subject.

I remain,

Yours obediently,

NABOTH

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 26.08.1863)

****

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-Thanks for the insertion of my letter in your issue of the 4th instant, and the observations it elicited from your Editorial pen. The subject is indeed an important one, affecting, as it does, the welfare of thousands, of the unfortunate cultivators in the Madras District, and well deserves the advocacy of all philanthropists. In treading the origin of the term Mirassi, you state that the son of the Chola Rajah, in colonizing the barren territory subjugated by his father, gave to the rich and intelligent tribe of husbandmen of the Mudelli caste named Vellalars who accompanied him, a perpetual interest in the soil subjecting them to the payment of a certain share of the produce to the Sirkar. But this language, permit me to say, is indefinite. What extent of the soil was thus bestowed on the Vellalars on perpetual tenure? Certainly, not the whole tract of country conquered from the Shepherds, as is evidenced by the fact that there are other classes than that of the Vellalars, who claim to have an equally exclusive right to the lands in their respective villages and all the village officers are designated Kawniatchies or Mirassidars. In addition to the Nathum villages in which Vellalars resided there are the Agrahara villages which Brahmins inhabit and Munnavedu villages occupied by Vanneers or Pullis. If the whole extent of the country had been conferred on the Vellalars, whence the origin of the terms ‘Agraharum’ and Munnavedu? Strict and impartial investigation will show that according to the number of the colonists who established themselves in any particular locality, the lands were apportioned out, at the rate of from 100 to 5000 cawnies to a village; and the villages themselves designated after the different castes inhabiting them. This is conclusive proof that the Vellalars alone did not constitute the original emigrants. There were Pullis, there were Brahmins-though comparatively ‘few’-and there were Pariahs, who served in the capacity of serfs of the higher classes. The simple truth is that a certain number of cawnies, ranging from 2 to 50, were conferred on Kawniatche or hereditary tenure to the principal individuals-whether Vellalars, Pullis or Brahmins in consideration of their performing the duties of what are now called ‘Gramattar’ or ‘village munsiff’. The reward of their exertions in collecting cultivators and in building up villages, was that they should enjoy a certain quantum of the land at a moderate rate of cess. Nothing more than this was conceded to them. No more peculiar right was conferred on them. On all the other village officers-the Kalendar Brahmin, the Notakaren or Shroff, Carpenter, Blacksmith, Barber, Dhoby, Talliary and Toty, the same Kawniatche right was bestowed for the services discharged by them, conditionally; and they are subject to the forfeiture of their hereditary offices and Mirassi lands, in the event of their neglecting their duties.

The Gramattars, who so pre-ounnently call themselves Mirassidars stand on the same footing and what right have they to retain their lands when they fail to meet their engagements or abide by the conditions on which they hold their lands?

Further, when the Prince of the Chola Dynasty granted Kawniatche on his followers, he did not renounce or surrender his right as proprietor-in-chief of the lands which his father had subdued. By his reservation of the Sirkar Revenue, he not only demanded from the (now so called Mirassi) Vellalars and others a portion of the produce as an act of fealty, but asserted his rights as the supreme proprietor of the lands which he bestowed on his immediate subjects. Such also has been the principle entertained by the succeeding Mahomedan and British Governments. The paramount authority, for the time being, is the chief proprietor of the lands over which it holds control, and no sophistical reasoning can do away with that right. The demand of tax is in itself sufficient clear evidence that the right cannot be gain-sayed.

You, Sir, enquire does Government or do the Mirassidars possess the proprietary right to the land and what right has Government over the waste or uncultivated land? In reply, it may be stated, that in addition to the reason above given, the present Government has that of the right of a conqueror. Not that might makes right, or that any conquering power can in justice prevent or over throw the pre-existing claims of a conquered people. But that in all equity each and all of the conquered subjects should be dealt with fairly and impartially. Now, does not the Madras Government claim the proprietary right to all the lands within the Presidency, or in other words within the 24 Districts of which it consists? Do they not grant the same protection, peace and tranquility to the Mirassidars of Chingleput as they do to the inhabitants of the other Districts? Are not the Mirassi Village officers in all other Districts, as well as that of Chingleput deprived of their Mirassi lands and their hereditary offices? Why then should favor be shown so singularly to a small class, and why should disfavor be shown to a large and important portion of the community?

Further, that Government have the legitimate power to intervene to promote cultivation and increase the public revenue there can be question. They do acknowledge that they have the proprietary right to the land. Thus:-they have declared that they cannot interfere with the proprietary rights of the Mirassidars so long as they pay the assessment.

But it is an undoubted, indisputable fact, full well known to the successive Collectors, the Boards of Revenue and Governments that, they do not pay the cess on their holdings; that they do not cultivate the full extent of their holdings or Dittum lands; and that they prevent, on the selfish and execrable motive of the dog in the manger, the Poyakkaries and Sugavassies, from undertaking any waste lands on their own account.

You are right in your conjecture that the Poyakkaries and Sugavassies are anxiously desirous of being the direct tenants of the Government to being the under – tenants of the so called Mirassidars, for the obvious reason, that they fairly and righteously seek to be relieved of the oppressions of the Mirassidars, and the illegal exactions made by them.

This may be seen from the following statements of the various taxes exacted and collected from the Poyakkaries:- viz.

1st. The Government Revenue.

2nd Thoondu-warum-or the fees of the so called Mirassidars.

3rd. The Marahs or perquisites of the whole village officers.

4th Coopatual or fees for village expenditure.

After meeting all these demands there is but one fourth of the produce to feed the ploughing oxen, to pay for the necessary implements and to support the wives and children, with themselves, of the Poyakkaries.

You demand proof that the Mirassidars habitually, and willfully and of native prepense or from poverty omit or neglect to cultivate their land. The best proof, Sir, are the records of the Collector’s Kutcherry, the Board of Revenue and Government: they will show that the Gramattars the so called Mirassidars not only invariably neglect to cultivate the lands in their holding, but that they also do prevent others from occupying lands which they will not and cannot undertake to cultivate.

The lands which the Poyakkaries wish to have are of two descriptions, that in their own holding, an immcmorial waste, which they are desirous of cultivating. It is not their wish to usurp the actual holdings of the Mirassidars, but simply to be rid of their oppressions, in view of benefitting themselves and enhancing the Sirkar Revenue. –

-POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 26-8-1863)

*****

EDITORIAL

We publish today two more letters on the Mirassi tenure. The importance of the subject will fully justify the space which we assign to it. It rarely happens that any great question in which the native population is peculiarly interested finds its way into the Anglo-Indian Press and obtains a full discussion on its merits. The contrast between the amount of attention which measures affecting the interests of Englishmen official and non-official in India can always command, and the little trouble or consideration given to purely native grievances is not flattering to our disinterestedness and impartiality; though it can scarcely be otherwise so long as Englishmen possess the power and the energy to assert thei rights vigorously, and natives through want of education or difference of race find few champions outside of the official pale. The Mirassi dispute is simply a question of lenant-right with which we are all painfully familiar as the cxciting cause of agrarian outrage in Ireland. Fortunately the mild Hindoo is more easily managed than the vindictive Celt and we are under no apprehension lest a surreptitiously discharged blunderbuss may deprive the Government any day of the able services of Mr. Ellis or any of his confreres. Nor do we over hear that a comfortable Mirassidar has received a threatening notice in broken Tamil surmounted by an illustrative funeral pyre doing duty for the Hibernian coffin, and informing him that he is destined to untimely evaporation if he dares to interfere with the land of the Poyakkari Veerasawmy, or makes the slightest attempt to compel that injured individual to pay his just debts. We should not however on this account put off the day of investigation and settlement. Evils gradually culminate and it is possible that by the time agent-shooting has disappeared from the sporting chronicles of the Emerald Isle, Mirassidar-murder, or more horrible still, Collector- stalking may have become a favorite amusement in certain districts of this Presidency.

It is not necessary for us to carry on an argument with our correspondent “Poyakkari” as to the origin of the Mirassi right or the extent to which it was conferred on the colonists by the Cholan Rajah. We think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the supposition that the whole conquered country was divided amongst a certain number of Vellalar villages. But this is an inquiry of little practical value. Many a Saxon peasant now lives on the land which was torn from his ancestors by the ruthless Norman and many an Irish laborer tills the soil, which a few hundred years ago he owned jointly with the rest of his sect. We have to look at things as they are and to endeavour to ascertain what has been the custom with regard to Mirassi through several generations past. At present we believe that Mirassi exists only in the district of Madras and in parts of the district of Tanjore, though it appears to have prevailed over a much wider area at no very remote period. There can be no doubt that the Government has both de facto and de jure the right to prevent these Mirassidars from willfully omitting to cultivate their lands. Our correspondent “Poyakkari” reiterates his assertion that the Mirassidars have neglected cultivation and exposed themselves to the just interference of Government. He accordingly calls upon Government to grant the neglected lands to the Poyakkaries without, we presume, subjecting them to the Mirassi fees. Another correspondent, whose position also entitles him to speak with authority on this subject and who favors the Mirassidars. admits also that they allow their lands to lie waste. At present writes, our correspondent, the Mirassidars fearing the detrimental interference of officials, never dream of disposing of their proper share of the uncultivated area and the Poyakkaries being actuated by Cutcherry influence and subtlety are unwilling to come to terms with the Mirassidars. Under these circumstances lands are for years laid waste to the prejudice of Government interests, causing about 50 percent of waste in wet lands and about 80 percent in the dry lands. Both sides then admit that the Mirassi question seriously obstructs cultivation, injuriously effects the public revenue, and promotes ill-feeling and discontent between two important classes of the population. Now though we have never heard of a precedent for Government granting Mirassi lands to outsiders without subjecting the latter to the payment of Mirassi fees, there can be no doubt that subject to this limitation and that of total abandonment for, we believe, three generations, Government possesses the right to insist that the Mirassidars should cultivate their land, provided no material obstacles exist to their doing so. If the Mirassidar and the Poyakkaries cannot agree between themselves it is within the province of Government to step in and determine the terms on which the Mirassidars shall let and the Poyakkaries shall occupy the waste lands. As there seems to be but one opinion, then as to the evil of leaving the question longer unsettled, we can only hope with our correspondent ‘Naboth’ that Government will shortly intervene and establish the relative position of the two parties in the dispute on a certain and equitable basis for the future. It is probable that a commission similar to the Inam Commission will have to be appointed for the purpose for a very little consideration will discover the grave difficulties that surround the subject and the complications and discontent to which any injudicious decisions regarding it might give rise. We cannot flatter ‘Poyakkari’ with the hope that the verdict of such a Commission would be in favor of his clients or rather that it would be what he and they wish it to be, but the final settlement of the question would be beneficial to all the parties concerned. When each class knew with certainty its own rights, self-interest would soon produce reconciliation and the large proportion of land now retained waste would begin to smile with rich crops and luxuriant vegetation.

The condition of the Poyakkaries as described by their advocate is certainly not an enviable one and if it be truly represented deserves our sympathy. It appears that they have to pay 1st., the Government revenue. 2nd, the fees of the Mirassidars, 3rd the perquisites of the village officers, 4th the fees for the village expenditure. ‘After meeting all these demands, there is but one-fourth of the produce to feed the ploughing oxen, to pay for the necessary implements and to support the wives and children with themselves of the Poyakkaries’. Hapless oxen, wives, children and Poyakkaries! It would however have been more satisfactory if our correspondent had been more minute in his statement. The public and ourselves would be glad to know how this result of one-fourth is arrived at, and in what proportions the remaining three-fourths of the produce are distributed If a carte blanche were given to our correspondent to settle his clients according to his own notions of justice, he would, we presume only propose to acquit them of the payment of the Mirassi fees. The Government share, the share of the village officers and for the village expenditure would all have to be paid as before. The Mirassi fees then alone constitute the burthen which the Poyakkaries are so anxious to get rid of. We believe these fees generally amount to about ten or twelve percent of the produce, but unless they form a much larger proportion than this they plainly cannot be the onerous exaction which our correspondent represents them to be. The Government share cannot be equivalent now-a- days to even one-fourth of the produce, and if we take the Mirassi fess at one-eighth and the fees of the village officers and the village expenditure at another one-eighth the remaining one half of the produce should be available for the Poyakkaries. We shall be glad to have any error in the above calculation pointed out, for it appears to us a much nearer approximation to the true state of the case than the statement put forward by our correspondent. It is most desirable to ascertain accurately the true condition of these Poycarri under-tenants.

On that condition it altogether depends whether their present complaint is just or whether it is a mere impudent attempt to get possession of the property of the Mirassidars.

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 26-8-1863)

****

LETTER FROM MR. NABOTH ON THE

MIRASSI QUESTION

The Mirassi Question

Sir, With no little surprise I have perused another of ‘Poyakkaries’ letters, which appeared in your issue of the 26th ultimo, inasmuch as it contains statements calculated to mislead the reading public, and to place the Mirassidars before them in an unfavorable light. My advocacy on their behalf I trust will not be misunderstood: for I am not personally interested in the Mirassi question, as neither I nor my relations as far as I am aware are in possession of an atom of Mirassi land in this or any other district of the Madras Presidency. It is only the justice of the cause that induces me to meddle with the subject, for my silence might be construed into consent, as I have once appeared in the field of discussion. There are however, many abler hands than myself to meet ‘Poyakkari,’ but his reasoning are so weak, and his statements are so palpably incorrect, that any person with a tolerable knowledge of the nature and working of the Mirassi system, may have the courage to refute, and ability to expose the fallacies of his arguments.

2. “Poyakkaries” letter in question embodies mainly two points; one is in reference to the origin of the Mirassi tenure which the writer depicts in his own light, endeavouring to prove that the constitution of the class of Mirassidars is no better formed than that of the village officers who are daily turned out of their lands and offices for neglect of duty or other causes, and suggesting that the Mirassidars may be consequently ousted alike from their villages if they neglect to cultivate all the lands of the village. And the other point refers to the manner in which Poyakkari appeals to the occupation of the public towards his clients, entering into statement of several items of expenses though in general terms, which he believes they incur as under tenants of the Mirassidars.
3. As regard the first point, “Poyacarri” must remember that the Vellalars are a race that once formed the most influential community in the South. These were powerful landholders possessing large bodies of serfs under them as laborers. These serfs consisted principally of Pullis, Paraiyahs and other lower classes of Soodras, and they were never allowed to reside in the village in which the Vellalars their masters lived. From these facts, it is self evident that when Vellalars immigrated into Thondamandalum, they took with them their serfs and laborers who must have occupied separate village. Hence ‘Munnavedu’ villages which belong to the Pullis, & C., and “Nuthum” village to the Vellalars. Agraharams of course, as the term implies, were intended for the sole residence of the Brahmins who formed the necessary retinue of the Vellalars for sacerdotal functions. So it will be proved with un-contradicted evidence that the Mirassidars were introduced into the country on a better and more permanent footing than “Poyakkari” imagines, and therefore it is not as easy to turn them out of their villages as he may fancy. I shall not proceed on the subject further than quote the following from an unquestionable authority on the Mirassi:-

“And the assertion of the Hindu that they are far more ancient than the Moorish conquest seems to receive corroborative proof from their undisturbed enjoyment of them under that Government, and from the won Mirassi having been adapted by the conquerors, to convey their idea of the tenure of the property or hereditary rights and privileges held under the before mentioned designations Swastyam! Cawny autchi, Maniem and Mera”.

4. The idea of “Poyakkari” that these Mirassidars received lands on favorable Assessment for services rendered to the State viz: in collecting cultivators and in erecting villages, & c is beyond the pale of credibility; for tenure of the kind did and does exist but with different denominations exactly expressing its conditions, such as Nemabadi, Vasabadi, Kuttoobadi; Ryot & c. These have no approach whatever to the Mirassi in question. Let not therefore our friends confound the Mirassi lands of the village officers with the Mirassi lands of the Mirassidars. One has reference to the tenure of the offices in the family and the other the proprietary right in the soil.
5. Now to the second point, to make the subject more clear, I shall at first proceed to give an account of the mode in which the division of produce was made, prior to the conversion of the grain payment into the present money assessment.
6. Supposing the gross produce of a cawny of land amounted to 11¼ Kalums of grain or 1080 Madras measures it was usual that a portion of it was, before the respective shares of Government and Ryot were measured out, distributed to several parties under the head of
7. General Sotunbrum
8. Kallam Sotunbrum.
9. Podu Mera Sotunbrum.

The proportions of distributions against each item are different in different villages, but those here given below are according to an ordinary scale.

1. GENERAL SOTUNBRUM
2. Zeymah Cooppathum… 8
3. Gramma Cooppathum… 8
4. Kudichoodoo…           16
5. Punnachoodoo… 8
6. Curnum Cooppathum… 8
7. Tukin Cooppathum…           8
8. Vettian Cooppathum…           8
9. Notagar Cooppathum… 8
10. . … 8
11. Black Smith… 8
12. . … 2
13. Pidari… … 2
14. .. 4
15. . … … 4
16. . … 4
17. Kemakka Selavoo… 12
18. Vetty Kala Mera… 4

120

2. KALLAM SOTUNBRUM

Measures

1. Kallam Labourers… ….      60

3. PODU MERA SOTUNBRUM

Measures

1. Perumal… …. 9
2. Iswara… …. 9
3. Khayar … …. 4½
4. Pillayar … …. 4½

These three classes of Sotunbrums make a total of 207 measures being 19 percent of the gross produce. This is the highest percentage of deduction, for the several items were all seldom found in any one village, but I have in justice to “Poyakkari” omitted none.

7. The remaining portion which amounts to 873 Measures or 81 percent of the gross produce, was equally divided thus.

Melwarum 40½  percent

Kudiwarum 40½  percent

From the former about 7 percent was deducted on account of village Officers, and only 33½ percent went to the share of Government. The present Government money assessment is therefore mainly made up of this percentage and of the 3rd Class Sotunbrum the Peon, Podu Mera above alluded to. Hence it will be found that Government pays the several Devastanums and Pagodas.

8. From the 40 ½ percent of Kudiwarum or Ryots share, a deduction of 24 measures or 2 percent of the gross produce was made in favor of the Mirassidar, if the cultivator was a Poyakkari. The remainder 38 ½ percent was left for the latter. Thus the whole gross produce was distributed as follows:
9. General Sotunbrum 11
10. Kallam Sotunbrum 5 ½
11. Podu Mera Sotunbrum 22 ½ 19
12. Fees of Village Officers 7
13. Government Share 33 ½          40 ½
14. Poyakkari 38 ½
15. Mirassi 2 40 ½

100

9. But the present state of things is quite different. The general Sotunbrum which amounts to 11 percent has almost disappeared. If it was paid at all in any village, it was at the option of the cultivator whether he was Mirassidar or Poyakkari. If he required any of the services, in question, it is but just that he should pay for them. He is not bound to incur such an expenditure. What a Poyakkari really and invariably now pays to a Mirassidar is as follows:-

1st Assessment of land.

2nd Mirassidar’s Fees or what is termed Toondoo (Thundu Warum), which is generally at one Rupee a Cawny.

3rd Fee for village officers which is generally at 1 ½  measure per Mercal.

Thus the produce of a cawny of land

= 10 Kalums.

= 120 Mercals.

= 24 Rupees in value at 5 Mercals per Rupee according  to

the district standard commutation price.

Deduct 1 Rupee for Mirassi fee, 8% Rupees for assessment, and 4 Rupees for village officers, making a total of Rupees 14½.

The remainder Rs. (9) which goes to the Poyakkari, approximates to one third of the gross produce. The high prices moreover vastly tend to his advantage.

10. It is however necessary to remark that the fees of the Mirassidar and of the village officers greatly depend upon the productive power of the soil and the facilities it affords for cultivation, as was the case formerly when a division of produce was made for Melwarum and Kudiwarum. Hence it will be apparent that the Poyakkari does not pay practically anything more than the Thundu which seldom exceeds 6 percent of the gross produce. It is to be observed that this small percentage is the only item that goes to the personal benefit of the Mirassidar for the trouble and capital that he has laid on his lands, and that it is so insignificant that it by no means bears heavily upon the Poyakkari.

11.”Poyakkari” seems further to be confused in regard to the proprietary right of lands in a Ryotwary, and that in a Mirassi district; perhaps he might have an object in pretending to ignore the difference between them. To remove all doubts in the matter, I beg to say a few words about it. The variety of lien that attaches to the land may be reduced to three classes.

1. Seigniorial right of Government.
2. Proprietary right of the Possessor.
3. Usufructory right of the Holder.

The first exists in every clime and country and appertains in every tenure of land even in Surva Maniems and Shotriums, it lies latent in the reversionary right of Government. Under the 2nd, come all tenures of a special nature such as Mirassi, Jenmam, permanently settled, & c; and the 3rd, refers to the lands in Ryotwary Districts. Any other species of lien or tenure will be found to fall practically under one or other of the three heads. Then a question may arise, have not the cultivators in a Ryotwary District proprietary right in land? The reply to it is in the negative. The Ryots hold, their lands at the option of Government, any day they can be ousted from their possessions. This is the main principle of the Ryotwary system. But our wise Government perceiving that above all, attachment to land tends to improve the conditions of their subjects, and there by strengthen the Government revenue, have been pleased to confer in those districts a sort of right qualified thus. No possession will be disturbed as long as the assessment is continued to be regularly paid. This is very necessary for a good administration; for there will be no security of property or encouragement for cultivation and improvement. But the Proprietary right of a Mirassidar, the Jennmakar of Malabar. or a holder of an estate or Mootah, is of a different character. and therefore the possessors of it cannot be treated like the one in a Ryotwary district. A visit to Malabar will insure a clear knowledge of the various land tenures as therein, we may say, they have attained a perfection. It will be found there that on one piece of land, there are the seigniorial right of Government represented in the Assessment (Nigoothee) levied upon it; the proprietary right (Jenmam) that authorizes the mortgage and sale of the land; and the usufructory right which brings in a pattom or rental to the proprietor and the mortgagee. The holders of these rights are often different individuals; but each knows his own right perfectly well. In escheated estates in Malabar, Government enjoy three taxes, one for the Seigniorial right, another as the Jenmakar or Proprietor, and third in the shape of rent for the usufructory rights. Let there be therefore no confusion respecting the proprietary right in a Mirassi district and that in a Ryotwary.

12. I cannot conclude this letter, imperfect as it is, without repeating my hope that our able Governor will feel interest in this important subject and bring about a spcedy termination of the Mirassi question. The necessity for the disposal of the question has now become urgent, as thé reduction of rates and the Revenue settlement of the District spoken of cannot be satisfactorily carried out without at first authoritatively defining the rights and privileges of the Mirassidars. Certainly as you propose, a Commission will be most effectual for prompt action.

I remain Sir,

Yours obediently,

NABOTH

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 17-09-1863)

****

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-The matter at issue between the Poyakkaris and Mirassidars is not simply that of tenant right; it further involves a denial in toto of any claim of the so called Mirassidars, over lands which the Poyakkaris cultivate on their own account, and over the other uncultivated immemorial waste lands for which said Poyakkaris apply. Poyakkaris and Sugavasis, be it observed, are not all of them the under-tenants of the Mirassidars. A goodly number of them have held and do hold Puttahs or leases direct from Government and for the lands thus cultivated by them, they have all along refused to pay the Mirassidars any fees whatever. The Mirassidars, however, have not left a stone unturned to effect their object, and their wealth, influence and position, would no doubt have brought their unfortunate opponents to an inglorious compromise, but for the firm and unwavering faith which the oppressed classes have in the final triumph of their cause, just and righteous as it is,– under the beneficent and impartial administration of the British Government.

The origin of the Mirassi right is indeed an enquiry of small importance at the present time, the more so as the subject is entirely mythical. But a single question may be asked; if the Chola Raja Prince had conferred the conquered lands, on hereditary tenure, on the Vellalars only, whence came the other two classes, the Brahmins, inhabitants of Agraharms, and the Vanneers, inhabitants of Munnavedu Villages?

But waving the question of the origin of the Mirassi right, it will be admitted on all hands that a consideration of the grounds on which the Mirassidars claim that right is of the highest value. The grounds stated by them are that they have enjoyed such right prescriptively for at least three generations. I will admit still more, that such prescriptive right existed for a generation more; but in making this admission, I at the same time assert that such prescriptive right was obtained by the Mirassidars, gradually, yet surely by the most palpable fraud and usurpation.

The initiatory measure was taken by Kango Royajee, a Mahratta Brahmin an high official under the Mohomedan Government. This individual, taking advantage of his influential position, and with the view of befriending his fellow countrymen, forcibly ousted the Head Village Officers, in the Chingleput Jaghire, from their posts, and bestowed their Maaniems, or free tenure lands, on his own class of Brahmins as well as that of Marays or perquisites recover- able on the lands cultivated by the Ryots.

This procedure, however, did in no wise effect the substantive enjoyment of the cultivators of their lands, as they were left in the undisturbed possession of their respective villages. The villages in the Chingleput Jaghire were at that time all called Pasungur or lands enjoyed in common by all the inhabitants, and notwithstanding the usurpations effected by the Mirassidars there are still many villages designated Pasungur.

The next step taken was that on the preparation of the Tharapady accounts by Colonel Bernard, the Brahmins falsely represented that the lands of the Jaghire were held by them on hereditary or Mirassi tenure. With reference to the statements prepared by Colonel Bernard, Mr. Bourdillon whilst Collector of North Arcot, stated, that as that gentle man was a European and knew nothing of the tenure on which the lands were held, his Tharapady accounts were not to be taken as a criterion by which such tenures were to be tested. The wily brahmins imposed on that Officer, and quietly established a prescriptive right to lands which they did not enjoy. The Tharapady accounts afforded them the means of still further usurping lands to which they had no right.

The third step was that on the issue of Mottah Puttahs, or leases for entire villages, the Brahmins presuming on Colonel Bernard’s Tharapady accounts confused the European authorities and stated that the Puttahs given to others than themselves should be given as Sugavasi. The Sugavasis from their inexperience, their want of knowledge and even acquaintance with the rudiments of learning and from the overwhelming influence of the Brahmins succumbed. Besides, they were not aware of the impositions practiced on them by the self-assuming Mirassidars. A few of them, however, did object to their individual and hereditary rights being infringed upon; but as the Village, Taluq and Huzur accounts were prepared by Mirassidars, even those were deluded into the belief that there was nothing entered antagonistic to their interests.

The Mirassidars having thus so craftily and under hand- edly worked out an ostensible claim, they next adopted meas- ures to render their claims more tangible and perfect, by gradually taking possession or asserting their right, through chicanery and deceit over nearly the larger number of Pasungur villages, one after the other which they were able effectually to do from the official positions which they held.

Such then are the grounds on which the Mirassidars base their prescriptive right. Nor would they have held so long a tenure, had the first British rulers of the country-and more especially the collectors of the Jaghire, when it was first ceded, thoroughly sifted the matter and came to a definite conclusion regarding the matter. One and other of the Collectors either admitted or disallowed the Mirassi right according to the whim of the moment ìnfluenced at the time by the native officials by whom they were surrounded, and incapable of forming an independent judgment or of furnishing sound and in irrefragable reason for the opinions entertained by them. Consequent on their conflicting opinions, the subject was allowed to be left in abeyance and the unhappy delay which thus occurred, tended still further to strengthen the prescriptive right of the Mirassidars.

The Mirassidars having, by the means above stated, secured to themselves, a prescriptive right, they have not thereafter hesitated openly to avow their claims, and to oppress and trample the Poyakkaris under feet.

I have stated that only 4th of the produce raised by the Poyakkaris is left for the benefit of himself, his wife, children and oxen, in consequence of the oppressive conduct of the Mirassidars. The following statistics will show that I have confined myself within the bounds of simple truth.

I have stated that the various taxes exacted and collected from the Poyakkaris are of four distinct kinds viz.

1. Government cess.
2. Thunduwarum or Mirassidars’ fees.
3. Maray, or Perquisites of Village Officers, &
4. Cooppathum, or the common expenses of the Villages.

Taking the mean produce of one Cawney of wet land throughout the District, it may be calculated at 160 in Madras Mercals. Of these 160 Mercals, there is first deducted Maray, 10 Mercals which leaves a balance of Mercals 150. Of these the Mirassidar takes on account of Tirwah, Thundu and Cupputaun 105 Mercals. There then remain 45 Mercals for Cudiwarum. Out of these 45 Mercals the Poyakkari has to pay, from the Mirassidars withholding such payment – to the village servants, consisting of the Dhoby, Barbar, Carpenter, Blacksmith and Potter 1¼ Mercals and reserve 4 Mercals for seed. This leaves him in the long run only 39% Mercals out of 160. Besides this, the Poyakkari has to supply the Dhoby and Barber with daily food, which comes up in the aggregate to one Mercal per annum. Reducing the above into figures, the price of 100 Mercals at the rate of 12 Mercals per Pagodas, on the average price of the last five years is Rs.40-10-8.

Rs.    40     10     8

Maray…                                  Rs.    2       1 ¼   8

Tirwah & C. …                       Rs. 30        10     0

Village Servants …                Rs.    0       5       10

Food for Dhoby & C….           Rs.    0       4       8

Seed…                                    Rs.    1       2       1

Rs.    35     5      10

Rs.    11     4       10

The average produce of one Cawny of dry land cultivated with Raggy is 40 Mercals, The value of this at 9 ¼  Mercals per Pagoda equals Rs. 15-8-0.

Rs.    15     8       0

The cess thereon is               Rs.    3       8       8

Thundu, Maray & C.               Rs.    1       8       0

Dhoby and Barber                  Rs.    1       0       0

Seed                                       Rs.    1       14     0

 Rs.    6      14     0

Rs.    8       10     0

Let it be here noted that the above is the proportion enjoyed by two-thirds of the Poyakkaris on the wet and dry lands cultivated by them and the cess & c. for which they pay in kind and that they are compelled to cultivate four Cawnys of wet lands, because profitable to the Mirassidars, and allowed to take up only one Cawny of dry land for their own special benefit.

The remaining one-third of the Poyakkaris who hold lands in ready money cess enjoy the following proportion. The average produce of one Cawny of low classed wet land is 80 Mercals, the value of which is Rs. 23-5-0.

Rs.    23    5      0

Tarum Tirwah               Rs.    7       0       0

Mirassidar’s exaction

as cess      Rs.    1       12     0

Thundu Cooppathum   Rs.    1       12     0

Maray                            Rs.    1       6       0

Village Expense           Rs.    0       9       6

Village Servants           Rs.    1       3       0

Seeds                            Rs.    1       8       0

Food for Barber

and Dhobi                     Rs.    0       14     0

Rs.    16     0       6

Balance remaining                                                 Rs.    7      4       6

To account for the above difference in the proportions enjoyed by the Poyakkaris and Sugavasis, it is to be remembered that the Mirassidars adopt the optional payment to them, either in kind or money. When the price of grain is high, they make all their demands in grain; but when the market prices are low, they willingly take the cess in money. In technical language, the Thunduwarum is converted into Melwarum and vice versa.

Besides, it is to be remembered, that, in the first instance given above; it is only during the prosperous seasons that the result of 80 Mercals can be realized: in seasons of scarcity the Mirassidars pounce down on the Poyakkaris, and demand of them, right or wrong, their payment in money immediately. Furthermore, it is to be particularly observed that the Mirassidars, in exacting the perquisites on account of the Village Officers and Village expenses, never devote the receipts for the purpose for which they pretend to receive them. Consequently, whenever the Poyakkaris are in need of the services of any of the village servants, they have to pay extra out of their insignificant means.

Yet, further, the Mirassidar may have only 4 yokes of oxen for the name of the thing to cultivate what it will require 10 yokes to perform. The Poyakkari is called upon to use his own cattle; and after the crops are grown, he, his wife, sons and daughters are peremptorily called upon to reap and make good the grain.

Thus Sir, I have proved my statement, and I trust to your satisfaction. But to show still further the oppression of the Mirassidars, let it be noticed that the Sugavasis, or those who hold lands independent of the Mirassidars, are prevented from cultivating their own lands, through the unreasonable, stupid clamor of the Mirassidars who violently prevent them from enjoying any of the means of irrigation, and retain the whole to themselves, but which they do not use. These means of irrigation are gratuitously supplied by Government, notwithstanding which, they not only fail to take advantage of those means themselves, but they prevent the Poyakkaris from making use of them. Thereby, the Poyakkaris become great sufferers.

The above causes will show why a clear majority of wet and 80 percent of dry lands are left waste in the District of Madras, as is universally acknowledged, and will also account for the opposition shown by the Mirassidars to the giving up of the waste sought to be occupied by the Poyakkaris. For the above reasons the Mirassidars have not cultivated the lands themselves, nor will they allow others to do so. They thereby inflict intolerable miseries on the Poyakkaris and a dead loss on Government. You and the public can hence judge, whether the complaint of the Poyakkaris is just and righteous, and whether they are not deserving of the greatest consideration.

Did your correspondent “Naboth” attend to the convention held on the 4th June 1880? They who raised such an hubbub about the Mirassidar’s claims, what had they to say about the circular issued by the Collector of the Madras District under date 14th September 1859, under instructions of the Board of Revenue and Government? What arguments did they assert regards the Mirassi right? What hold have they on the Poyakkaris?

While however there is nothing to be delineated or described with reference to the Mirassi right, it is strange that your correspondent should argue that a settlement of the dispute between them will terminate all matters. “Naboth” must or should clearly understand that according to the orders of the Board of Revenue and Government of the 18th June and 25th July, 1859 and the Istiyar*(*Government Gazette notification) published in the Chingleput District Gazette, the Mirassidars had to relinquish absolutely all their lands, unless they cultivated their lands or pay the Tarum Assessment.

What then is the meaning of this Istiyar? Does it or does it not convey the meaning that the Mirassidars will forego all claim to lands which they do not cultivate? Why then, were not such orders carried into effect? If those orders had been carried into execution, without a doubt, the Poyakkaris or the Sugavasis would not now be sending forth their cry for help and for assistance.

It were altogether hopeless for the Poyakkaris or Sugavasis to seek or obtain assistance or redress than from the higher authorities, and in view to reach their ears, it is fervently trusted that this communication will be published in the columns of “The Madras Times”.

POYAKKARI

***

P.S. – Your Correspondent Naboth enquires, why should the Tanjore District be in a flourishing condition, and that of Chingleput in poverty stricken circumstances, the Mirassi system prevailing in both? The reply is that in the first place the Mirassi system obtains only in a small portion of the Tanjore District, and in the second place the means of irrigation from river water are extensive and open to all without grudge, and the lands exceedingly fertile. In Chingleput the Mirassidars appropriate the larger quantity of water supplied by the Tanks kept in repair at the expense of Government, whilst the Poyakkaris, the bulk of the actual cultivating population, have solely to depend on the rains, and according to the fluctuations of the seasons are the results of their crops. To remedy this, there is but a single method open to the Poyakkaris, and that is to excavate wells at their own outlay, to do which they have not only no inducement, but are also effectually debarred from making any improvements, from the certainty they feel of being ousted by the Mirassidars without appeal or redress, immediately on any such improvements being made. Assure the Poyakkaris of the non-interference of the Mirassidars with their holdings and they will make every necessary improvement. Naboth candidly admits that lands are for years laid waste to the prejudice of Government interest. Why should Government suffer this loss? Why should so large an extent as 50 percent of wet and 80 percent of dry lands be left uncultivated year after year? And this, while there are thousands of needy cultivators ready to take them up? Why should these thousands live and die in misery, when they might otherwise enjoy plenty and contentment? Is it not owning to the pernicious Mirassi system, to the selfishness of the Mirassidars, to the indifference of Government, to the partiality evinced by the local autho- rities towards the Mirassidars? It is high time indeed that Government should come to some definite decision on the matter, as well to replenish the Treasury as to benefit a large number of their suffering subjects, and this can only be satisfactorily done by the appointment of a Commission as recommended by you.

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 17-09-1863)

***

EDITORIAL

There are many of our readers probably who will have passed over with indifference or a petulant growl, the three or four columns of repulsive looking correspondence, filled with figures and strange foreign terms, which we published on Thursday last. Nevertheless that correspondence referred to a question perhaps the most interesting and intricate in India, and gave what from the position of the writers, we have no doubt is on the whole a correct account of the condition and mutual relations of the millions of people or so, whose interests are involved in “Mirassi right.” The great seat of the contention is the district of Madras, which contains an area of 3,000 square miles and a population, excluding Madras city, of 600,000 inhabitants. We have in fact in our very centre a little Bengal retarding the advancement of this otherwise prosperous and progressive Presidency. Bitter hostility reigns between class and class; the landlord or Mirassidar persecutes and oppresses the tenant or Poyakkari and the tenant in his turn cheats and evades his landlord; the one appeals to the sacred right of property, the other to the more general but no less sacred rights of man; the one claims the land as the rich man’s hereditary property, the other claims it as the poor man’s natural and inalienable appendage. We believe that the letters of our correspondents “Naboth” and “Poyakkari” place before the public for the first time a clear and detailed account of Mirassi right and of the condition and relations of the Mirassidars and the Poyakkaris. The origin of the tenure, now a matter of little importance, has been explained in former articles. The land was originally given to the Mirassidars as an hereditary property subject to the payment of a certain proportion, one-third generally, of the produce and to other conditions ensuring the extension of cultivation. The precise nature of these conditions is disputed. The Mirassidars claim a right of property over the entire lands of a Mirassi village, and the Government so far admit their claim as to allow them the first option of cultivating the village lands. The delays which naturally and perhaps intentionally occur in exercising this priority of choice, and the favor with which the higher native officials generally regard the Mirassidars render, this admission a practical granting of everything they demand.

We gather very clearly from “Naboth’s” letter the manner in which the produce of the land was divided “prior to the conversion of the grain payment into the present money assessment.” Assuming that the gross produce of a cawny of land amounted to 11 ¼ kalumns of grain or 1080 Madras measures about 19 percent or 207 of these measures were in the first place deducted for distribution among the village servants. The remaining 873 measures or 81 percent were equally divided thus:

Melwarum, (or Government share)                    40 ½ percent

Kudiwarum, (or Ryots share)                             40 ½ percent

From the Circar share above stated a further deduction of 7 percent was made for the village officers, and from the ryots share two percent were deducted for the Mirassidar’s fees when the cultivator was a Poyakkari; thus the net Circar share amounted to 33 ½ percent and the net share of the Poyakkari ryot to 38 ½ percent of the gross produce. “But”, writes our correspondent, “the present state of things is quite different. The village fees amounting to 19 percent have almost disappeared, and what a Poyakkari really and invariably now pays to a Mirassidar is as follows” assuming the produce of a cawny of land to be 10 kalums (or 120 mercals) and to be worth Rs.24 at the district standard commutation price:

1st Assessment of land                                      8 ¾

2nd Mirassidars fees termed Thundoo

Amounting generally to Rs. 1 per cawny           1

3rd Village officers                                              4 ½

Leaving for the Poyakkari                                   9 ¾

Total                    Rs.    24

One fact is here brought out viz., that in the process of commuting the produce into money rents, the Mirassi fees have in some way been increased from 2 percent to from 4 to 6 percent, while the Poyakkaries obtain about the same proportion of the money value of the gross produce as they before obtained of the produce itself. We are left to infer that both Mirassidars and Poyakkaries have profited largely by the high prices of recent years. This is the case of the Mirassidars stated, we feel bound to say, with great clearness and apparently with equal impartiality.

The advocate of the Poyakkaries being the representative of “the outs” addresses himself to the subject with all the warmth characteristic of those who justly or unjustly lay claim to the possessions of others. With an appearance of reason be disputes the existence of any Mirassi rights over the uncultivated immemorial waste, or over the lands which the Poyakkaries cultivate on their own account. Excluding from “the waste” the lands over which the Mirassi villages have the right of pasturage, we feel inclined to concede his first demand, but with regard to the lands cultivated by the Poyakkaries on their own account, it is more difficult to form a decision. In a Mirassi village the lands are first offered to the Mirassidars and whatever they decline to cultivate is given so far as there is a demand for it to outsiders of Government Puttah. The question is whether the Mirassi- dars by declining to cultivate, forfeit for ever all claims over the land thus given away. Authorities are on the whole perhaps in their favor, but in present practice the Government Poyakkaris do not pay Mirassi fees and enjoy the land on the same terms as the Mirassidars. The Government rules however favor the Mirassidars and contain stringent provisions that their right of priority should be always accorded to them; and no doubt these rules are carried out by the native officials in the sprit in which they were dictated and are always interpreted in a manner favorable to the Mirassidars. It is very probable, as Poya- kkari states, that the predecessors of the present Mirassidars obtained their lands in no very honest way. Most landlords might be convicted of the same offence if we go far enough back to investigate their titles. Admitting than the truth of “Poyakkaris” statement, we cannot allow that it is worth introducing into the argument after three or four generations have passed away and the Mirassidars title, however unjustly it originated, become good by prescription. Our correspondent writes more to the purpose when he proceeds to prove his assertion made in a former letter that – “only one fourth of the produce raised by the Poyakkari is left for the benefit of himself, his wife, children and oxen, in consequences of the oppressive conduct of the Mirassidars.” This he does in the following manner:

1. А. P.      R.     А.     P.

Mean produce of one

Cawny of land in the district

160 Madras Mercals value                                          46     10     8

Mirassidars take for Government

share, village servants, Mirassi

fees, & C. Mercals value…..                                        30     10      0

Villages officers, Mercals value                                   2       14      8

33     8       8

Leaving apparently for Poyakkari                                13     2        0

From which however must

be deducted – village servants

fees which Mirassidars omit to pay                             0       5       10

Food for Dhoby and Barber…                                                0       4       8

Seed…                                                                                    1       2       1

1       12     7

Net sum left to Poyakkari…                                                   11     5       5

The cultivation of dry land is according to our correspondent much more profitable to the Poyakkaries than wet cultivation and they derive from it upwards of one half the value of the produce; but the plague Mirassidars always interfere and compel them to cultivate four cawnys of wet land to one of dry land. The Mirassidars besides retain the option of exacting payment in produce or money, a very valuable option as we can well imagine in these prosperous times. Taking the two statements it is tolerably certain that the Poyakkaries cannot earn more than, or perhaps as much as, one-third of the gross produce of the land they cultivate, and that the Mirassidars exercise very great influence in Madras and, in protecting their own immediate interests, retard the extension of cultivation and the prosperity of the district; the extent of which is nearly two million acres and the cultivated land not withstanding its vicinity to a large city only 400,000 acres. Both sides indeed agree as to the injury which this dispute inflicts on the Presidency and call for an early settlement of it, and the suggestion made in a former article that a Commission should be appointed at once to investigate the Mirassi question is referred to with approval. When both sides invite inquiry, we can only hope that Government will take all carly opportunity of respon- ding to the appeal. Indeed there are rules extant which if they were strictly applied would decide the rights of each party, but in this matter the Government have been always halting between two opinions. There can be little doubt which side suffers and which side gains by delay; and this consideration should hasten a solution of the question.

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”;, 19-09-1863)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir, “Naboth,” the self constituted, disinterested advocate of the Mirassidars, unnecessarily betrays a want of temper, evidencing the weakness of the cause advocated by him. The question at issue involves the interests and welfare of tens of thousands of human beings, sunk in the lowest depths of poverty and consequent wretchedness and misery, and the truth, and justice demand that it should be argued coolly, fairly and deliberately.

Passing by his unproved assertion that my reasonings are weak and statements palpably incorrect, there is one point, the miserable “working of the Mirassi system” still, not only undisputed, but is candidly admitted by himself. The operation of that pernicious system impedes the progress of the district; prevents the cultivation of about 1,400,000 acres of good cultivable lands, places in the most depressing condition more than 500,000 inhabitants, and causes the loss of a large amount of revenue to Government,

Further, “Naboth,” fond of alliteration, I suppose, puts the Pullis and Pariahs together, and then makes an incorrect and unfounded, assertion that they with other lower classes of Sudras were the serfs of the once influential Vellalars. Now, what necessity was there to offer so gross and wanton an insult? What good could he effect by arousing the angry feelings of an already irritated people by classing the Pullis with the Pariahs, and declaring the Pullis to have been the slaves of the Vellalars? What proof can he adduce in support of his libel? History proves his statement to be untrue. In the Agneya Puranum, one of the 18 Puranams, and in the chapter regarding the Pullis or Vanneers, it is distinctly stated that the Vanneers were princes and rulers. This is further seen from the term “Munnavedu” issued to designate villages exclusively inhabited by Pullis, and the word Mannu signifying king, proprietor of all. (Vide Manual Dictionary published by the Jaffna Book Society). The villages inhabited by the Vellalars are called Nuthums. Whence the difference of the two designation? “Nabot’s” puerilities are unworthy of notice. Why, Sir, even to this day, in Oodiarpalliem, Ariyalur, & etc, Poliputs*(Palayappathus, Palayakkarars), there are many descendants of the ancient Native rulers, and are now in possession, as Poligars, of a portion of their hereditary estates. Yet more, has not Tirumungai Alwar, a great Poet and a devotee of the Vishnu Caste, written a work entitled “Perrs Peruntolli”, in which the praises of Toola Dhanum Pullava Royer are described? Has not Retta Pallanar Shasteri written a Poem, entitled Druga Oola, in which he describes the power and authority of the Pullava Royer? And who is this Pullava Royer, but a prince of the Pulli caste? Kumber, the author of the Ramayanum, declares that the Pullis or Vanneers were rulers of the lands, and that they were great warriors. If other evidence be required, innumerable instances can be adduced. Who were Krishna Royor of Chandraghirri and Vallala Royer of Tiruvana Mulley but Pullis? Is there not a copper plate inscription respecting Toola Dhanum Pullava Royer, (a king of the Pulli caste) buried in Meenatchee Ummen Covil, in the Egambara Iswara Pagoda at Conjeeveram? “Naboth” could not have taken in the full meaning of the language he uses, or appreciated the consequences which would ensue by his coupling Pullis with the Pariahs, and describing the Pullis as having been the slaves of the Vellalars. Thousands are ready to take up with warmth the stigma cast on them, and throw back in the teeth of any Mirassidar or advocate of the Mirassidar the assertion that the Pullis were serfs at any time of the Vellalars. The indignation of the Poyakkaris, suffering as they are through the oppression of the Mirassidars, and Government native officials may not be kept within bounds, and such expressions as have been used by “Naboth” will only tend to widen the gap of the sore differences which already exist between the oppressing and oppressed classes. I am prepared to come forward publicly in my own proper name to substantiate my statements; will “Naboth” do so?

“Naboth” calls in question my statement that the lands granted to the Gramattars were on the same terms as those bestowed on the rest of the village servants. That statement I reassert. In the same manner as lands were given to the other eleven village officers on free-hold tenure in 99 perpetuity, the Gramattars were, as heads of villages, granted a larger extent in consideration of the services to be rendered by them. From their wealth, influence and position, they secured a “prescriptive right”, by incessant fraud and usurpation to still larger extent. This fraud and this usurpation the Gramattars have all along practiced, and succeeded in securing a prescriptive right to lands which their fore-fathers never did own or acquire. For a particular purpose and on certain conditions, a certain extent of land was granted them on hereditary tenure, failing which, they were subject, like all the rest of the village officers, to forfeit their grants. But that grant did not bestow on them the right to all the lands of the village or constitute them landlords. Even as the other village officers are liable to be expelled from their hereditary offices for neglect of duty and be deprived of their hereditary Manniems, so also are the Gramattars liable to be dispossessed of their offices and Manniems or Mirassi lands. And this is done in the District of Madras. Government do not give any ready payments to the Puttah Manniems and Munsiff; the only remuneration these receive is the Mirassi lands, and this fact is in itself sufficiently expressive to prove that the Mirassi right claimed by the Gramattars is without foundation. The Gramattars, in collusion with the higher class of Native officials, have indeed usurped the lands, and do now seek to establish, on their usurpation, their right to the proprietorship, but will that give them a title to property acquired by chicanery and deceit?

The Poyakkaries request that the Mirassidars should not have the prior right or preference to lands either immemorially waste or left waste through their wilful negligence, and the request of the Poyakkarics, it will be admitted, is fair and proper. The Mirassidars leave their land uncultivated, and they prevent the Poyakkaries from either obtaining Durkhast*(Assigning Government land to a landless peasant.) the lands applied for by them, nor will they themselves bring the lands under cultivation. Are then the Government to permit so great a loss of Revenue to themselves, or are they to allow so many hundreds of thousands of Her Majest’s loyal subjects to suffer and die in want and privation? Has “Naboth” or any of his friends the smallest conscience to behold the fearful miseries of the unfortunate Poyakkaries, and yet speak about their Mirassi right? The Almighty himself knows the sufferings of the Poyakkaries.

The question in dispute between the so called Mirassi- dars and Poyakkaries resolves itself into a single point; what right have the Mirassidars to lands uncultivated by them? None whatever. In the Istiyar published in the Madras District Gazette, under date the 14th December 1859, based on the orders of the Board of Revenue of the 18th June and 25th July last, it is required that “all lands owned by Mirassidars should pay their Farm assessment or relinquish absolutely”. Why was not this Istiyar or Notification carried into effect? What more do the Poyakkaries solicit? Let them be placed in the undisturbed possession of their Kyput*(Occupation of Government waste or Puramboke land) lands, the Ditta Buyer lands which the Mirassidars are unwilling to cultivate and the immemorial waste for which they apply on Durkhast, and instead of the Chingleput District being a poverty stricken one, it will become prosperous and fruitful.

As frequently requested and as approved by you, the matter in dispute can only be fairly and finally decided by a due investigation of impartial Commissioners. Such an investigation is specially and speedily wanted.

ΡΟΥΑΚΚARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 01-10-1863)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-Naboth has certainly taken an oblique view of the question at issue between the POYAKKARIS and the so- called Mirassidars, as will be apparent to any unprejudicial mind from a consideration of the remedial measures proposed by him to adjust the differences between the contending parties. Taking for granted the existence of Mirassi right, in the sense the so-called Mirassidars urge it, he affirms that they will not yield their right without “considerable compensation” as otherwise it cannot be annihilated, Had justice been done to them on the management of the Jughirs falling into the hands of the British, the preposterous pretensions they now put forth would not be heard of. The species of Mirassi right set up by them was also claimed formerly by so called Mirassidars who inhabited the tract of country known to the Natives by the name of Thondamandalam extending from the limits of Nellore, nearly to the Colleroon, and embracing the two divisions of Arcot and the Jaghir, Query: How were the alleged claims of the Mirassidars of North and Soulh Arcot rendered extinct? Did they receive any compensation? Failing to prove their assertions, their pretensions were set aside, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition offered by them to the mode of settlement decided on by Government at the time. Mr. Hyde, Collector of South Arcot, in his reply, under date 17th December 1817, to the question propounded to hìm by the Board of Revenue as to whether the Mirassi- dars lost their rights and privileges (such as Thoundu- warum, Cadootuni, Meeraha Varie, & c) in the land occupied by the Ulcoodies or Puracoodies, stated that they did. His answer was not yet-for on the introduction of the land Tax into this Collectorate all such fees were consolidated into the Tax, and no sort of remuneration was ever granted in  lien thereof; indeed I may venture to say Mirassi has never been recognized by any of my predecessors”. In other Districts also Mirassi right “was almost ignored and set aside in the early settlement of the revenue, and had in a great degree ceased practically to exist”. And in like manner, it would have fallen into disuse in Chingleput also but for its wretchedly misordered state at the time owing to a variety of causes. Innumerable impediments were thrown in the way of the authorities, preventing them, in the great measure from obtaining a right comprehension of the nature of land tenure in the Jaghir. The Village Accounts were either suppressed or falsified by the Kurnums; the more influential of the inhabitants practiced on the ignorance and helplessness of the rest of the popu- lation, and the craft and cunning of the native officials were effectually employed in imposing on the credulity of their European Superiors, using the pernicious ascendancy they acquired in benefitting themselves, their families, their dependants and clients, to the utter detriment of the interests of Government and the actual holders and cultivation of the soil. Hence the continuation of a system which being country to every principle of good Government, has baneful in its results impeding cultivation and the improvement of the soil, and diminishing the Public Revenue and marring the prosperity of the cultivator.

To adopt the measures proposed by Naboth, is not only to perpetuate, but to increase tenfold the evils already existing under the present mode of administration…. in all his suggestions, he aims at nothing more than a full and firm recognition of the absurd pretensions of the Mirassidars and to secure to them irrevocably their vaunted rights and privileges to which they have not the slightest claim. And in his eagerness to effect the desired end, he recommends the issue of permanent Puttahs on easy terms to the so called Mirassidars, the tendency of which would inevitably be, not the enhancing of the Public Revenue, but the increasing of the facilities already afforded the Mirassidars in making indefinite demands, and severe, oppressive exactions. In a word, Chingleput will become Bengal on a small scale. These permanent Puttahs are proposed to be given to each share holding Mirassidar of a Village. It is to be remembered that this share-claimed by the Mirassidars range from 1 to 20 in some villages, while the Mirassi of a number of other villages is claimed by a single Mirassidar only. Supposing Naboth’s proposition to give each share holder a Puttah were carried into execution, what would be, what have been the results? In their proceedings of the 14th May, 1850, the Board of Revenue say, “experience has shown that when many proprietors share a village, a sense of interest does not always guide their conduct. The effects of indifference, jealousies, absence, or engagement in other pursuits have been found to counteract a sense of self interest, and it is that therefore safe to make the interests to Government depend on that one feeling. The Board alluded to this subject when reviewing the state of Chingleput and its neglected cultivation in their Proceedings of 14th April, 1823, para15th. Therein, “it is shown that the Mirassidars not only neglected their lands but impeded their cultivation by others”. And to the end of time, such will be the inevitable consequences of so partial a system. Nor will the alternative of forfeiture better its operations. Again and again have the so called Mirassidars been threatened with the penalty, and as often have they set at defiance the orders of the ruling power by taking advantage of the many subterfuges afforded them, by the undefined position they hold, and the indecision evinced by the local executives to give effect to the instructions of the higher authorities.

Again, Naboth proposes that a reduction of the Assessment of waste lands should be granted because, foresooth, it would be “fair and advantageous to Government,” and, he should have added, advantageous also to the suffering thousands and tens of thousands of the population! Facts, stern and stubborn facts, show that this Mirassidars obstruct cultivation neither cultivating the lands themselves, nor permitting others to do so. And to place the waste lands in their possession at so low a rate is like granting them a premium to continue their oppressive exactions, and render the fluctuations in the collections still more unsteady. Letting alone the waste, the Mirassidars wilfully neglect bringing the full extent of their present holdings under the plough, and what grounds are there to suppose that they will extend their cultivation, and increase the public revenue by conferring a further extent on them. There are thousands and thousands of acres of cultivable and immemorial waste in the district, and there are thou- sands and tens of thousands of ryots who are ready and willing to take them up, and at their own outlay, to improve and make them productive, and pay without demur the full assessment according to the Tharapady rates. Let common sense decide which will be more advantageous to Govern- ment, Best owing waste on those who will not cultivate it. and receiving 1/8th for the privilege of letting such waste alone or conferring it on those who will be sure to cultivate it, and from whole the full assessment can be as certainly levied.

In including waste, with the cultivated lands, as belonging to the so-called Mirassi share holders, Naboth. unwittingly perhaps, falls into an error. Waste is of two kinds cultivable and immemorial, and with regard to the proprietary right of such lands the Board and Government express themselves as follows. In proceedings dated 25ch June 1855, the Board says “The Mirassidars are unable to bring proof of the cultivation of the land within a lengthened period. It may, therefore be termed immemorial waste, which cannot be alienated except with the concurrence of Government. It appears also that no certificate in conformity with the Notification of 1800, has been taken out for the land, and that by this omission, the Meerassis, if ever existing, was forfeited”. And Government in E.M.C. of 11th February, 1856, state that “the Proclamation of 1800, mentioned in Mr. Stokes letter of the 16th May 1855, seems to have had the effect of cutting off from the privileges of Meerasi all land not included in the certificates there referred to, in which predicament in immemorial waste land must be, and as long therefore as that rule is maintained, such waste cannot claim Meerasi rights”. Mirassidars then have no more right to the waste lands of a village, that the generality of its community.

Another argument adduced by Naboth in favor of his proposed mode of settlement is that the Mirassidars will readily dispose of such excess of land as they cannot well manage themselves and that thereby the POYAKKARIES may become proprietors. Neither one nor the other will be the result of placing the cultivated and waste in the bonafide possession of the Mirassidars. Never, if they could help it, would they allow the transfer of the smallest fractional of an acre from themselves to another. And why should they when they can enjoy a tolerable portion of the produce either in money or kind of lands, the trouble and the expense of the cultivation of which they are not to undertake, and for which they are not to pay the cess when they can hold a large extent under the head of waste for a mere song! Is it possible that under such circumstances that the Mirassidars will be willing to part with any portion of their lands or that labor will become dearer is truly, it does not require a spirit of divination to perceive that when all the cultivated and waste lands of the district are guaranteed to the Mirassidars under permanent leases there will be no lands left for the vast majority of the population, who consequently, will be entirely at the mercy of the land holders. Having no lands to revert to, the POYAKKARIES must, perforce of necessity, have recourse to the lands of the Mirassidars, who will not fail to extract the most exorbitant demand and oppress and grind down their tenants without the smallest hesitation. Appeal there could be done, and a general “strike” among the cultivators would be the only alternative to bring the Mirassidars in their senses, but the adoption of such a measure it would be preposterous to expect.

Lastly, how the “Khandamwar Ryotwar” mode of settlement as Naboth terms it is to obviate the evils of the Ryotwar and Moota systems, it is difficult to conceive. According to the Hindu Law of inheritance, the shares of the Mirassidars will ultimately become divided and subdivided over and over among their hairs and then what will become of the “body of independent affluent land holders” held in anticipation? What is to become of the moderate holdings of the modest landlords that are to be, who are disinterestedly to bestow their wisdom and their wealth on an ignorant and… Government? Perhaps under these magnificent expectations, the Presidency Législative Council may be induced to pass a law, adopting the “Khandamwar Ryotwar” system for the special benefit of the Presidency District and thereby constitute it as a nursery for future Solons and Cresus.

As already stated, the views taken by Naboth are all one- sided; nor could they be otherwise. His sole objects is to defend and promote the interests of the Mirassidars, irrespective of the interests of Government, and of a numerous population, which is already trodden down and oppressed.

In the question at issue there are three parties concerned, viz Government, Mirassidars and POYAKKARIS; and it is only by an authoritative, final definition of the lawful rights of each, and a stringent enforcement of the rights so recognized, that the conflicting claims at present putforth by one and the other can be definitely settled. It need be urged that it is absolutely imperative in the higher authorities to bring the matter to a speedy yet equitable conclusion. And this they can readily do either by a patent and careful research of the voluminous correspondence whic has transpired on the subject, and pass a decisive judgment, or to appoint a Commission, which would be the more preferable and more acceptable plan,-to closely investigate the question on the spot in person, and on the basis of the facts elicited to form a settlement which shall be atleast as just and impartial as the Revenue Administration of the other Districts in which… tenure was of the same nature as it is in that of Chingleput. In solving the differences between the parties concerned, it need not be done blindfoldedly, on mere surmise. Let it be distinctly ascertained.

What are the rights of Government?

What are the rights of Mirassidars?

What are the rights of the POYAKKARIS?

By conquest Government have a paramount right of sovereignty in the soil.

Mirassidars have the right to the use and occupancy of lands for which they obtained certificates in the year 1800, as per notification of Government. POYAKKARIS have the right to the use and occupancy of lands which they hold in uninterrupted hereditary succession.

As superior lord of the soil, Government is entitled to rent for the lands held by the Mirassidars and POYAKKARIS; and it also has the right to take measures for the cultivation of lands neglected by the occupants.

In consideration of the services supposcd to be rendered by them, the Mirassidars are entitled to Merah, and to Warum on such lands only as they sublet belonging to them. They have no right to any other privileges. In regard to this matter, the Board of Revenue says “the so called Mirassidars were originally heads of Villages, and received their fees for services performed in that capacity, though they afterwards attempted to make out that they were the universal landlords of the Village and received their fees in that character, a claim which in justice to the actual holders of the Village lands was disallowed”. That they are not “entitled to Swamy Bhogum or a portion of the produce of all lands cultivated by persons not Mirassidars”, Sir Thomas Munro emphatically denies. That authority observes, “The right of the Mirassidar to derive a rent from land for which he neither pays the public revenue nor finds a tenant is certainly not acknowledged now and probably never was so at any former time.”

In virtue of their hereditary residence, and of the long uninterrupted enjoyment of the lands reclaimed and cultivated by themselves and their ancestors, the POYAKKARIS have the right to retain their holdings. subject to the payment of Government rent only.

From the foregoing it will be perceived that Government has the right to dispose of all waste lands as they choose as also the right of levying the full assessment from occupants, whether Mirassidars or otherwise, under pain of forfeiture. It will be likewise apparent that the POYAKKARIS who carry on cultivation on their own account are not liable to pay the fees now, unjustly exacted from them by their oppressors.

If these principles were carried out-if the acknowledged rights of Government be enforced the claims of the Mirassidars strictly defined, and the title of the POYAKKARIS to the lands cultivated on their own account recognized,-what would be the results. Without question, cultivation would be extended, and the Public revenue would be largely increased; thousands of suffering, cultivators will be relieved, and the District of Chingleput will become, what it never will be under the pernicious Mirassi system, a happy and prosperous one, realizing the many advantages it possess from its nearness of situation to the Presidency Town populous and opulent as this is.

In conclusion, it is to be remcmbered that in the disposal of waste lands cultivable or immemorial-the instructions of the late Honorable court of Directors, should be had in view. In conveying those instructions, the Board of Revenue in Proceedings dated 15th July, 1857, say “that when the old residents of a village whether they call themselves Mirassidars or not decline to cultivate (or else pay for) waste land, the usual Puttahs may be given to Durkhastdars without forcing them to become subtenants of the old residents, and that the influence which the so called Mirassidars have hitherto exercised in keeping much land out of the occupation of others, though not occupying it themselves, may be put an end to”. Happy the day for Chingleput when this decision is abided by.

POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 05-11-1863)

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-Permit me still further to trespass on your space, and it is to be trusted that the imposition will be overlooked by your readers in consideration of the vast importance of the subject. Thousands and tens of thousands of mcn, women and children are suffering the greatest distress and misery from the exactions of the so called Mirassidars.

The issue of fresh Durkhast Rules is at present under the consideration of the Board of Revenue and Government,-the Rules framed and forwarded to the Acting Collector of the District of Chingleput last month having been objected to by him. In fact the Rules though printed in the District Gazette were not published. What the grounds of objection are is not of course to be known. It is to be trusted however, that the Board of Revenue, in taking the matter into reconsideration will bear in mind the numerous orders that have been hitherto passed by themselves, the local Government and the late Honorable Court of Directors.

In my letter of the 5th instant, I have distinctly proved that the Mirassidars impede cultivation, and that through their willful neglect and stubborn opposition thousands of acres of good arable lands are lying waste, to the utter detriment of the interests of Government and the welfare of the great majority of the inhabitants.

The distress of the population has indeed been well known to the higher authorities, and taken into consideration by them, and to relieve them of their sufferings, they have frequently issued orders which if carried into effect. would have convicted the disputed Mirassi question; but these orders were rendered nugatory by interested and intriguing parties.

A Government all powerful, convey their instructions through their executives, the Board of Revenue, directing that immediate effect should be given to them, yet those orders have been allowed to be burked time after time to the inevitable loss of the Public Revenue and to the continued sufferings of a numerous people. Why and wherefore this state of things has been permitted to remain for more than half a century, is a question of some interest, and demands immediate and searching enquiry.

Some of the orders issued regarding Durkhast or applications for waste lands I will here quote.

In para 30 of the Court of Directors letter of the 17th December, 1856, to the Government of Madras, definite instructions are thus given:

When applications for waste land are made by strangers, they should be communicated to the resident cultivators or not; and the option should be given to them of engaging for it, finding security for the payment of the assessment.

The Board of Revenue is conveying these orders in a circular that express themselves. “The Board trust that as regards the province, the ques- tions now so far set at rest by the decision of the Court of Directors as to guide the Revenue officers and that when the old residents of a village whether they call themselves Mirassidars or not decline to cultivate (or else pay for) waste land, the usual Puttahs may be given to Durkhastdars with- out forcing to become sub – tenants of the old residents, and that the influence which the so-called Mirassidars have hitherto exercised in keeping much land out of the occupation of others though not-occupying it themselves may be put an end to.”

Again, Government, in their order dated 18th June, 1859, directed that Mirassidars should pay the full Farmers  assessment on all lands held or owned by them, or relinquish them absolutely. To the same effect the Board of Revenue issued two Circulars dated 18th June and 25th July 1859 respectively and the Collector of Chingleput published an Istiyar on the 14th September 1859, giving general notification of the intentions of the authorities.

Notwithstanding the issue of such stringcnt and emphatic order they were not carried out. Any why? Why indeed! Numerous applications or Durkhasts have been tendered for waste lands, why were they not, and why could and should they not have been accepted?

Be it remembered that the POYAKKAR is are not strangers to the village, and that they are the cultivators and actual holders of the lands. These parties applied for waste lands and yet they were refused.

I appeal to you Mr. Editor, I appeal to the opinion of the intelligent Public, and I appeal also to the consideration of the Board of Revenue and Government that the Orders already issued as shown above may be confirmed and put into effect.

Let the orders be carried into execution there will be no dispute. Should the Revenue Board now frame Durkhast Rules in accordance with their previous regulations, without a doubt, the Ryots of Chingleput,-the actual cultivators of the soil will be relieved of their miseries and the Public Revenue will be benefitted.

In conclusion, allow me to put in my humble suggestion that the Board of Revenue should pass orders that waste lands should be delivered to applicants without reference to the so-called Mirassidars.

POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 26-11-1863)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,- In the Madras District Gazette of the 14h Beptember 1850, the Collector, in conveying the instructions of the Board of Revenue of the 18th June and 25th July 1859, declared that in the event of … leasing … lands be should obtain document or Deed of Agreement from the p…; and should such lands be granted without such deed of Agreement, the contract would not be recognized by the Revenue Authorities. This rule it will be observed, refers to lands one’s personal holding-to lands mutually hold and cultivated.

It clearly does not refer to lands which have hear for generations back in the p… found enjoyment of the so called Sugavasis, not yet to lands which they said Sugavasis have reclaimed from the … waste since 1859., Yet, by some process of brooked reasoning, peculiar to thousand year the Mirassidars have, since 1859, not only, on the … of the Advertisement, presumed to exact deeds of Agreement from the Sugavasis, or those who have from generations cultivated their own lands, but also for lands which since 1859 have been brought under the plough. Clearly, the Mirassidars have no right of extracting any such documents the terms of the advertisement itself will show this.

This is one out of the thousand impositions from which the POYAKKARIS seek to be delivered. They cannot but help executing the deeds of agreement exacted from them, and any appeal from such exactions would be futile. Surely the ruling authorities must know that such things at exists. It is for Government to take a just and impartial view of the matter and issue an order directing that all the transfers of Puttahs of Kyput lands from 1859 as also of recovered waste lands should be cancelled, and that the Puttahs should be issued, in the names of the respective holders themselves, agreeably to the Revenue Board’s. Proceeding of the 5th July 1857, to the effect that the usual Puttahs may be given to Durkhastdars.

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 11-12-1863)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-In reference to the frequent representation, I have made as to the loss incurred by the State … granting waste lands to applicants on Durkhasts, allow me here to state that Rs.4,50,000 have been proposed to be granted as remission for Fusly 1272 for Pod seal lands. Why sO Berious a loss land to whom is it. to be attributed? To Government, to the local authorities, to the lower subordinates or to whom?

In addition to this loss, there is a still more serious one incurred by Government from the usurpations and encroachments of Mittahdars, year after year, and for years together on waste-Poramboke, immemorial and jungle lands- which were never intended to be included in their leases.

It is an universally acknowledged principle that the Ruling Power is the proprietor of the land, and agreeably thereto the parties purchasing a Mittah are entitled only to the cultivable lands or the actual Ayacut or lands under cultivation, whilst the waste belongs to the Sircar.

Whilst this is a recognized principle is it not hard that the Mittahdars should be permitted to exact more than their actual dues or that the cultivation should be compelled to pay more than their dues.

Further…, whilst the Mittahdars have obtained their Mittahs on the exits terms possible, as is herein under shown, they enjoy a larger profit, much large than that which, they should enjoy or actually belongs to them.

1. Arumugam Mudeli, Muldurandam Taluq, he possesses Natwars Villages three:

Arcot ..                 Rs. 170      add the proceeds         Rs. 3,000

Vayloor                Rs. 105                                             Rs. 2,500

Arassor                Rs. 66                                               Rs. 4,500

Rs.341                                             Rs.10,000

Besides, the above party has a Mittah of 8 villages

1. Shayoor Chandapet proceeds Rs. 1,000
2. Villejiaukum Rs. 1,000
3. Taley Cherry Rs.    800
4. Vothelangam Rs.    800
5. Suracuppam Rs.    300
6. Manapakum Rs.     800
7. Cos… Rs.                  400
8. Poodduputtau Rs. 4,000

Total                             Rs.             9,100

The kisthy is Rs.168.

Another Mittah consists of 7 villages.

1. Veligondagarum Rs.   400
2. Erasoor Rs. 2,000
3. Vothilagaram Rs. 1,500
4. Sero Myaloor Rs. 1,500
5. Pullu… Rs. 1,000
6. Thashara… Rs. 1,000
7. Pitchua Thangal Rs.    500

Total          Rs.             7,900

Another Mittah consists of 7 villages.

1. Melapoothoor or Kelapoothoor Rs. 2,000
2. Poren Rs. 1,500
3. Cochren Thangal Rs.   800
4. Poodoo Coopum Rs.   500
5. Wadur Rs.   800
6. Ny… Rs.   300
7. Moottoocaddoo Rs. 1,000

Total          Rs.             6,900

In the same Taluk one Natvar,

Thodander Kalappa …                             Rs.             5,000

He has… 30 villages.

Kadaklur … Shretriem, Puthe…                Rs.             3,000

Mittahdar Caddalore Comarasavtory Medelli… villages Kypaukumuttu Chmorappa Reddy’s Mittah.

1. Paria Kypaukum Rs. 3,000

2.Chinnathypaukum                        Rs.             4,000

3. Cadapyary Rs.    500
4. Podaghutan Rs. 2,000
5. Poonaramjatikut… Rs. 2,000
6. Yeraranoor Rs. 1,500

Total          Rs.             13,000

Palambankum Muttur Venkatram Reddy’s Mirassi Villages:

1. Puranthakadu
2. Mudhukeni
3. Saralambakkudi
4. Chitalam
5. Siruvalur
6. Ravalliyanallur
7. Ullur
8. Keelathenbakun

In this manner such party possessed from 11 to 30 or 35 villages either as Muttah or Mirassi.

Under these consideration it is for you Mr. Blitter and the public demand to the Government that justice should be done to the Poyakkaries.

POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 18-12-1863)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-In the many letters I have addressed to you on the subject of the grievances,-in sufferable as they are,- of the Poyakarries, I have, both by facts and figures, clearly and distinctly proved, that they, from the impositions of the so-called Mirassidars, are dispossessed of their Kyput or actual holdings; that after paying the various demands made on them, the Poyakarries had anything but a sufficiency to reward them for their toil, labor and expense that the exactions of the so-called Mirassidars were oppressive that therefore the Poyakarries were left without the means of subsisting themselves, their wives and families. I also represented and proved that the Mirassidars had no right or title to the claims preferred by them; that they were only entitled to Manniem Land,-a common with all other Village Officers-just so long as they continue to perform their duties faithfully; that the Board of Revenue, Government and the late Honorable Court of Directors declared the Mirassidars or Gramattars to be nothing more than the Heads of Villages, having certain duties to perform, failing which they were to forfeit their Manniems; that they have managed to usurp the rights and dues of Government; that their assumption to the right of waste lands is preposterous, the State being the supreme proprietor; that they from ignorance, inability or other cause prevent and impede cultivation, and that in consequence of the Mirassi system obtaining in the District of Madras, the Government suffer the loss of a large amount of revenue, and the Sugavasis and Poyakarries, the actual cultivators of the soil,- experience a vast amount of distress. I have also pointed out that had the land authorities, stringently and unreservedly carried out the orders of their superiors, such things would not be.

In order to obviate the difficulties in the Revenue Administration of the District of Madras or to evolve the mysteries and iniquities of the Mirassi system, I stated that it was the wish-the express desire of … both Mirassidars and Poyakarries,-that a Commission should be … is their desire … Whether reasonable or unreasonable, let Government, let the Board of Revenue, let the public and yourself, Mr. Editor adjudge.

The Collector Mr. Banbury is truly a gentleman of ability, and willing from his compassion to the poorest to do justice to all find everyone. But his duties are already onerous, and to impose upon him the still more arduous duties of enquiring into and settling the system which unfortunately prevails in the Jughire of Chingleput, would be to impose on a valuable, highly respected and greatly appreciated officer of Government. Therefore it is, that the Poyakkaries ask for a Commissioner, who shall be assisted in his enquires, village after village by a faithful Native Subordinate. Such an Assistant is to be found in Madura, Virasawmy Pillay, Munsiff of the District of Conjeevaram. This Native Gentleman’s character is highly appreciated by all the inhabitants not so much with regard to his kindness and urbanity, as to his fair and impartial decision. In fact, he is well and honourably known to the Judge of the Appellate Court.

In my letter published in your invaluable paper on the 18th instant, I showed that Government suffered a loss of Rs.4,50,000, by remission being granted on Poducal lands, and that they suffer a still greater loss from the encouragement of the Mittahdars of Government lands which were not included in their leases. By the usurpation of these lands by the Mittahdars, it can be will perceived that the Ryots are the more immediate sufferers.

Allow me to point out another gross instance in which both Government and the Poyakarries and Sugavasies are sufferers.

There are about fifty ond add villages in the District of Madras which are let out on Izara or annual Lease. These villages consist of Shrotriem villages which were taken possession of in consequence of the desertion of the Shrotriemdars, or the non-payment of the jody, the favorable rent asked by Government.

In giving these villages out on lease, it is to be remembered that the lands made over to them consisted of only the Ayacut or cultivable lands–exclusive of the Porumboke and immemorial waste lands, just the same as the lease given to the Mittahdars. The Izaradars enjoy a far larger extent of land than that to which they are entitled, depriving Government and the Poyakarries and Sugavasies of their rights. Last year the lands of the Iyaradars were surveyed and classified, but the … has not yet been determined upon. And why not? To whom is the delay attributable in not imposing the right amount of … and in causing so great a loss to Government and to whom are the sufferings of the Cultivators to be assigned.

Let these outs be cracked by the Government, Board of Revenue or Collector.

ΡΟΥΑΚΚARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 31-12-1863)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-“Mr. Pelly’s Bill for the levy of a cess in lien of Village Service fees is a measure of the utmost importance, striking as it does at the root of one of the oldest Civil, Political and Social Institutions of this country”.-permit me to add that it is an axe laid at the root of an evil tree of immense magnitude, which has hitherto borne apples of Sodom and Gomorah-fair to look at-ashes to the touch. The Village System, like the village maiden, is thought, poetically, to be entirely good-possessing not the slightest particle of depravity. A closer view, a more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the much applauded system, will not only enlighten you, as it has done many another Philanthropist, as to the positive evils of the admired “Institution”, but will also prove that Mr. Pelly’s Bill has not been introduced too soon, but that the springs of “western civilization have been too long delayed in being grafted into the wild olive tree of Hindu Matnool, and that the conquerors from the west have failed in an imperative duty in not earlier adopting and carrying into effect in measure, among … others, which will be productive of the greatest benefit to the vast majority of the village inhabitants whom Providence has placed under their benign administration”.

Mr. Pelly’s Bill fully undertakes the suppressions of some the evils-of which he must have been long content-of the Village System-by the… of the Village Service fees into reach money payments. It is true that the payment of fees in kind has existed-say, from the general dispersion from the Tower of Babel up to the present time-but to assert that there has been all along, through so many centuries, contentedness and peace by the continuance of such a semi- barbarous system, will not be in accordance with truth. The facts are that for hundreds of years, ad, previous to the rule of the Mahomedan dynasties and even during the times of the Hindu Princes their own native Rulers-the unfortunate Village inhabitants suffered the oppressions and exactions made on them:-and were ground down, centuries back, till at last, they gave in, and were made to feel that it was their bounden duty to vield to the demands exacted from them. The Village Servants 12 in number are -1. Gramattan, 2 Kurnum, 3 Notakaren, 4 Talliary, 5 Toty, 6 Carpenter, 7 Blacksmith, 8 Potter, 9 Dhoby, 10 Barber, 11 Village Durmacurtahs and 12 Calendar Brahmins. The first five village servants act on behalf of the ruling power, and the remaining 7 on account of the duties involving on them as servants of the Villagers. Previous and subsequent to the assumption of the country by the British Government, all the Village Servants were paid their fees in kind. Whilst so paid the mischievous results were:-

I.-The Villagers, though they punctually paid the said fees found it always difficult to get their private business 2. done.

II.-That year after year, they were imposed upon by excess in demands, and, it need not be said, more than was legally due and far more than the services rendered them by the Village Servants were worth.

III.-That whilst such fees were paid, the Villager had to await the pleasure of the Heads of the Villages, who, rather than bestow the slightest thought on the comfort and happiness of the less wealthy and more submissive of their neighbours, would always seek their personal gratification, by a prostitution of the petty power and authority they held.

IV.-That not only from fear were the Village Servants prevented from faithfully fulfilling their duties, but also from the hopes and prospects of better treatment and emolument which dispatched them to obey the orders of the mended aristocracy and therefore the influential portion of the village commonly.

V.-Text from quaintly the Village Servants left the Villages-often on the most important occasions and necessitous circumstances, to get through their affairs the best way they could.

I leave it to the imagination of yourself and the public, whether the Curnum in the preparation of the Village Accounts, the Shroff in receiving the money, the Talliary and Toty could connive at robbery of the fields brought under cultivation by the Ryots, and then make a false report?

Now by Mr. Pelly’s Bill all these several evils will be remedied by the Village Servants being directly responsible to Government, and, that under a penalty of forfeiting their several posts. This dread prevents them, and in fact, precludes them from imposing on the Villagers; and the Heads of Villages will, hereafter, not have any opportunity of imposing on the Ryots. This blessing is brought about by no deprivation of any one of their rights and privileges-in lieu of Manniem lands and fees; but instead thereof a fair commutation is and will be given in lieu of Manniem lands, and it behoves the Village Servants to attend to their business as they should, they having nothing to be aggrieved about. The only complaint they will have is that they will not have the opportunity of encroaching on lands which is not their own. This they have always done, and Mr. Pelly knew this full well and it was therefore that the present Bill was introduced.

But why did not Mr. Pelly complete the reform whilst he was about the subject? In South and North Arcot, his. together with more effectual measures, were adopted resulting in the increased welfare of the Ryots, and the enhancement of the Circar revenue administration of the South Arcot District, it was found expedient that the whole of the fees, not only of the Village Servants, but also the fee of the Mirassidar were consolidated into the tax. Why is not this principle carried into effect now as heretofore? The expediency and morality being the same, why not include the Cooppathum of the so called Mirassidars with the Marahs or fees? What difficulty would there be in doing this? Would not such a full measure obviate all difficulties between the Villagers and so called Mirassidars-and, the Mirassidars and Government. This suggests the questions what the Mirassidars and what are they entitled to? Are they …… of the land? No, because the Sugavasis, right to the land belongs to the ruling power. Are they the landlords? Certainly not, in as much as neither they nor their forefathers ever expended the smallest amount of work, labor or money in reclaiming the jungle lands, or after they were reclaimed caused the said lands to be brought under cultivation. And why did not the Mirassidars, who, apparently, felt sure of their Mirassi rights establish their claims in days long gone by? Why did they not object to the issue of Puttahs in the names of the individual Puttahs to the Sugavasis their supposed under-tenants?

POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 31-03-1864)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-In reference to your leader of the 24th ultimo, giving your opinion-which is, in fact, the opinion of most thinking people-as to the benefits arising both to Government and their subjects from the introduction of the Ryotwary system in Southern India, permit me to observe that is it not strange, passing strange, that that system should not be introduced and upheld in the Madras District in its integrity. It is astonishing that, as you say, from motives of interest, not to mention justice, the Government do not adopt it universally. I have repeatedly brought to public notice through the medium of your paper the miseries of the Ryots of Chingleput District, inflicted on them by the so-called Mirassidars. It has been repeatedly and distinctly proved that the so-called Mirassidars have usurped the lands of the actual cultivators, the Poyakarries and Sugavassies of whom cultivated 1,000 villages, each cultivating raggy for the first crop and then paddy. But in the 4,000 other villages, raggy is not allowed to be cultivated, since the Mirassidars will become losers, and they therefore insist on their lands being cultivated, with paddy. When the Puttahs were issued by the late Honorable Company, the Mirassidars imposed on the Poyakarries, and got a Puttah (Mottab) issued in their own names, and exacted from them an extra amount of warum. The Mirassidars declare that they are unable to cultivate the lands this year, and it is only in the event of his giving his Rajesnamah that another can give a Durkhast. Such is the order of the Board of Revenue under date of 1846. The mischief of all this is that the Mirassidars resign 100 cawnies, whilst they cultivate 10 cawnies only, and thereby Government suffers in their revenue, Be it remembered that the whole of the manure of the 100 cawnies is thus thrown into the 50 cawnies, and thus the Poykarries are fraudulently dealt with should these lands be given to them. Why should such loss be incurred?

That Durkhasts though applied for are not granted, and lands are lying waste from time immemorial, from which Government suffer a great loss of revenue. Why should not the orders of the Board of Revenue and Government be put into effect? Why do the subordinates delay for one and two years and place the onus of the Durkhastadars in pound and deprive them of their Kyput lands. The Government passed an order in 1859 that the Kyput lands of the Poyakarries should be retained in their possession, and not withstanding the objection of the Mirassidars; the Ryots have cultivated the lands from time immemorial; why then do they object to the lands being made over to them? Why then do they come forward for lands which have lain waste for a series of years. Of all the other Zillahs to grant remission in it is adjust on the part of the Mirassidars to exact from petitioners excess warum whether the Poyak- arries cultivate the lands or not. Why should Government pass an order that half remission should be granted them on Nunjai and Punjai and Manawari lands. From this bcing done, whilst Poyakarries purchase oxen worth from 5 to 20 Rupees and cultivate their lands, 10 cawnies of lands are only cultivated by the Mirassidars. The Sugavassies have no other means of livelihood and have to labour, themselves wives and children by night and by day; they therefore suffer great distress and want. The lands left as back yard are being absorbed by the Gramattars, and because the backyard lands have been taken up, all the memebrs of families are thrown together; in consequence of which the greatest immorality obtains. At the Jamabundy of 1863 on the misrepresentations of the village officers that the cultivation of the Mirassidars had become withered, extensive permission was granted them. The local authorities also directed that no lands were to be given to the Poyakarries which lay at the mouths of the tanks. The Poyakarries offered to pay the full Teerwah of certain extents objected. and the Collector declined to comply with their application.

Why did not the Gramattars cultivate the lands previously, and why should they oppose the lands being given to the Sagavassies, especially as the lands have lain waste for more them half a century? Have any of the Poyakarries ever failed in paying the Teerwah? Instead of enquiry into the matter, the granting to the Mirassidars remission is most unjust, and that will be perceived by His Excellency in Council. The lands which they have accepted on Durkhast, have been left waste, whilst the Circar have been deprived of the …… of from 100 to 200 cawnies. From the Poyakarries not cultivating the lands of the so-called Gramattars, they place their oxen in pound and then unjustly fine them; should their cattle graze on our lands they are returned with …… in charge. In view to preventing the Poyakarries from obtaining lands for which they apply on Durkhast, they have suffered enough from the Gramattars. By frightening them or by bribery, they induce the Poyakarries to give Durkhasts. They give Razeenamahs for Varagoo and Podkul and Detta Bunger, Kararnamahs Bungerlands, which lands they leave uncultivated. Many Ryots are thereby thrown out of their Durkhasts, and much loss is incurred by Government. The Collector should make particular enquiries regarding this matter. Then Government would be bettered whilst the whole of the lands would be brought under cultivation. Government have issued Tape rules for waste ground for 20 years. Whilst Poyakarries have applied for those lands, the so-called Mirassidars have opposed them and have obstructively brought Kararnamahs against them for Nunjab and Punjab lands; they claim said lands as pasture by …… a few fruit trees as boundary. When Mittadars undertake Mittaha the cultivators are all Sugavassies and Poyakarries who should, as the actual cultivators of the lands, be placed in their possession.

POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 21-12-1865)

***

LETTER FROM POYAKKARI

Sir,-In reference to my previous correspondence-or rather my original letters as published in the Madras Times from 1863 up to the present period, regarding the interminable disputes between the Mirassidars and Soogavassies and Poyakharries, and with respect to your own recommendation, in compliance with the earnest prayer of all the actual cultivators of the lands in Chingleput District, that a Commission or a Commissioner should be appointed to investigatge the differences between the so- called Mirassidars and the Poyakharries, and thereby bring the dispute to a final settlement, I beg to remark that had a Commissioner been appointed at the time, much of the disquietude, and the absolute poverty and consequent distress and misery in which the large majority of the inhabitants of the District of Madras are involved would have been obviated. However, as the adage goes,”better late than never,” it may concern the ruling authorities now at least to appoint a Commissioner to adjust the painful differences which exist between the alleged Mirassidars and Poyakharries of the Madras District, and this the more especially as Major A.H. Hessey, Superintendent of Revenue Survey, has published a set of Rules, just in themselves, but which will involve the Soogavassies and Poyakharries in a world of trouble, inasmuch as from the several reasons given in my last communication of the 10th instant, they will be undoubtedly imposed upon, and cast into still greater poverty and distress, and the feelings of animosity at present existing between the two classes will be much strengthened.

To put an end to all these disputes and ill-will, it is incumbent on the Board of Revenue and Government especially to pass definite orders with regard to this much vexed question, or to appoint a Commission, consisting of Revenue Officers, well experienced in the anamolous administration of the Chingleput District, differing as it does from the system prevailing in all the other Districts of our Presidency. To all intents and purposes, the Ryotwarry system is the best and most approved of by able Revenue Officers, Sir Thomas Munro being the first. Why then should it not be introduced into the District of Madras? Why should not the actual cultivators be placed in undisturbed possession of their respective holdings? of lands which their ancestors reclaimed from immemorial waste, seeing that they pay the Teerwah regularly to Government. The ploughing cattle are their own, the seed is their own, and the labour is their own; why then should they be called upon to pay other than the fair Teerwah due upon their lands?

Now, that the survey of the District is commenced, this is just the opportunity for the higher authorities to give a fixed and decisive order respecting the long urged claims of the Soogavassies and Poyakharries, and this could not be better done than by the appointment of such Gentlemen as Messars. Banbury and Hutchins as Commissioners, to act conjointly with the head of the Demarcation Department. Both the Gentlemen above-named have served in the District, and are well acquainted with its revenue details, and perhaps none more fit could be selected for the purpose. Among native officials Ruthna Sabapathi Mudelli, the Deputy Tahsildar of Tirparoor, Chellappa Naicker, Taluq Munsiff of Tripasore and Madura Virasamy, Pillai, Taluq Munsiff of Conjeeveram, might be appointed as Assistants, they being men of talent and the highest probity. The subject is an important one and involve the welfare of thousands and thousands of hard-working men, their wives and children.

POYAKKARI

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 17-02-1866)

***

CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT MIRASSI

Sir,-After perusing the letter which appeared in your issue of the 17th instant signed Poyakharry, I felt called upon to make a few cursory remarks thereon. In the first place, I must say that I quite agree with him in urging the Government and the Revenue Board to a settlement of the much vexed question of Mirassy. The subject has been for a long time agitated, and by the Mirassidars of the Madras District a petition was made in reference thereto; this question is the gordian knot of the authorities concerned3B and to cut it, we want one of the Great Macedonian line endowed with as much mental faculty as his illustrious ancestor was possessed of muscular power. In whom then shall we find this desired person? The Government, I fancy, can best find such a one as is desired. For my part I differ from your correspondent in his recommending Mr. Banbury to a membership in his proposed Commission, inasmuch as he (or Philo-Mirassidar) is adored by Poykaries and their likes, and dreaded by Mirassidars. With regard to the 13 native officials mentioned in his letter, 1 have the same difference of opinion, and I quite disagree with your learned correspondent, because two of them are said to be of the anti- Mirassidarean seat, and one is over inclined to push up men of his class who form the majority of Poykaries in the District. The question of Mirassy is a question of proprietary right; and as such it is one of great moment and naturally enough forms the subject of law. Being a question of law, I think, it should be left to the study of men versed and well read in law, such as our judges and lawyers. Then only do I think can a satisfactory conclusion become to. I assure you, Sir, I have not the smallest interest in the settlement of the question. Disinterested as I am, I am of opinion that a Poyakary paying cess to a Mirassidar has on his side every thing but proprietary right from his own avowal; he lays stress on ploughing cattle, seed and labor being his own; this is the only plea, and the best that he can set up, and has none other, as far as my knowledge of the question goes, upon which he seeks or can seek exemption from paying Mirassidar’s due. On the other hand a Mirssidar lays his right to the very soil by an unbroken thread of inheritance, or by way purchase. Rangasamy a tenant of Ramasamy has been for 30 years and upwards occupying a house of the latter, during the so many years repairing the building at his cost, and all along paying rent to his landlord; but at the end of the 32nd year say, Ranga finding payment of rent irksome or desiring to appropriate to himself the house he has so long been accustomed to, brings in a suit to a Court of Justice for being put in possession of the abode, and pleads in support of his claim his long occupation and a great outlay towards its repair; then, I fancy, Ranga will be told that any length of time he may have dwelt in the house cannot give him a title to it as against its owner Rams. Now the relative position of a Poyakary and a Mirassidar is just the same as that of the above named Ranga and Rama.

Your obedient servant,

MINOS

(“THE MADRAS TIMES”, 26-02-1866)

***