CHAPTER III

CONFRONTATION WITH THE

BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY

The Carnatic Wars (1746-48, 1749-54, 1758-63) paved the way for the

British to have a strong foothold in the politics of Tamilnadu. As an ally of the

Nawabs of Arcot, the British East India Company waged a series of wars against

the kingdoms of Madurai, Ramanathapuram, Sivagangai and Thanjavur, and

against the Palayakarars and ultimately reduced them to submission. While

subjugating the powers who were unwilling to accept the overlordship of the

Nawab, the Company was very keen on its own gains. In the meantime the

Company had fought four important wars against Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan of

Mysore. During the course of the wars, and after the death of Tipu Sultan in the

fourth Anglo-Mysore war (1799) a major portion of his territories was taken over

by the Company. While assisting the Nawab, the Company had engineered its

own design of becoming master of Carnatic. Though the Nawab was well aware

of these designs, he could not check the growing power and influence of the

Company. Unable to withstand the pressure exerted by the Company, the

Nawab surrendered his possessions one after another by signing a series of

treaties with the Company. After the suppression of the uprising of 1800-1801,

on 31st July 1801 a fresh treaty was concluded between the Company and the

61

Nawab by which the Nawab had surrendered all his territories to the Company

and became a pensioner. The British East India Company became the virtual

master of Tamilnadu.1

By the end of 1801 the process of the transformation of the British East

India Company, a commercial organization basically, into a political power came

to a successful completion in Tamilnadu. This rendered the transfer of power

inevitable. With the acquisition of Kongunadu from Mysore, Thanjavur from the

Marathas, Madurai from Khan Shahib and the Carnatic from the Wallajah

Nawabs the Company gained possession of the entire Tamil country.2

Right from the beginning the relation between the Company and the

Kavalkarars was marked by confrontations and conflicts. The policies adopted

by the Company against the Kavalkarars of Tamilnadu were considerably

influenced by the bitter experiences it had with them during its operations against

the revolting Palayakarars. The Kavalkarars as a local base of political power

had made common cause with the Palayakarars during their struggle against the

Company in 1800-1801 and even earlier. Consequently the Company

considered the Kaval system as a threat and convinced that it should be

annihilated soon.

Towards the last quarter of the 18th century when the Company was

collecting taxes from the Palayakarars on behalf of the Nawab of Arcot it faced

stiff resistance not only from the Palayakarars but from the Kaval chiefs too.

1 Lord Edward Clive in Council, 1 October 1801, Letter, S.D to England, Vol.2, p.116.

2 Ibid.,

62

Company and the Kavalkarars: Early Experiences

According to the treaty concluded between the Company and the Nawab

on 2nd December 1781 the Nawab had accepted for the transfer of the revenue

of Carnatic to the Company for a period of five years.3 Collecting revenue from

the subordinate powers was not that smooth. But it was in Tirunelveli that the

Company witnessed stiff resistance especially from the Maravar Kaval chiefs of

Nanguneri and Kalakad regions.

Sivarama Thalaivar

In the Tirunelveli region Jackson, a British military officer was entrusted

with the work of subduing the rebel chiefs. Among the Maravar chiefs the most

important was Sivarama Thalaivar, the Kaval chief of Tirukkurungudi in the

Kalakad region.4 Probably he was the first among the Kaval chiefs to resist the

British attempts to usurp their power. He was powerful enough to have his own

fort and armed men and appointed one Sudalaimuthu Pillai of Panagudi to collect

taxes.5 Declaring himself as the Circar he plundered the Nawab’s treasury and

granary and fought with the Nawab and British forces.

The Company from its base at Palayamkottai dispatched a British force

under Jackson against Sivarama Thalaivar. His fort at Thirumalapuram situated

3 C.Atchinson, A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, Government Press,

Calcutta, Vol.5, p.181.

4 In Tamil the word Thalaivar means Chief, head man and leader.

5 Sivarama Thalaivar Kummi (Unpublished).

63

at Dalavaipuram near Thirukkurungudi was attacked by cannons and destroyed.

Regarding this Bishop Caldwell has stated that,

In 1782 a poligor named Sivarama thalaivar had erected a fort near

Thirukurungudi and was plundering the neighbourhood. The

commandant sent a detachment which took the fort and destroyed

it. ‘Sivaramathalaivar’ is the hereditary name of the head of a

powerful Marava family in that place.6

During this attack among those who were killed on the side of Sivarama

Thalaivar there was one soldier by name Sudalaimuthu. His family members

built a small temple at Tirukkurungudi in memory of the deceased soldiers. Even

today his descendants from the neighbouring villages are performing poojas

once in a year.7

When the fort at Thirumalapuram was destroyed by the British forces,

Sivarama Thalaivar constructed another fort at Kombai a place situated in the

western ghats adjoining Tirukurungudi and continued to plunder the Circar

granaries. Though some more attempts were made by the Company it could not

suppress Sivarama Thalaivar completely. After few years there was a dispute

between the Maravars of Manad and the Maravars of Elavankulam over the

collection of Kaval fee from the inhabitants of Valliyur, in which Sivarama

Thalaivar took side with Elavankulam Maravars. Towards the end Veerakutti and

6 Bishop R.Caldwell, A History of Tinnevelly, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1881,

p.144.

7 Sivarama Thalaivar Kummi (Unpublished).

64

Kathakutti the leaders of the Maravars of Manad bribed the bodyguard of

Sivarama Thalaivar and treacherously killed him.8

Periya Waghaboo

Periya Waghaboo Muthukumarasamy Nainar, popularly known as Periya

Waghaboo, was a Kaval chief of Sirkali in Mayavaram, Subha of Thanjavur

district. Along with another Kaval chief known as Chinna Waghaboo (who might

have been his brother or a close relative) he had joint Kaval control over sixty

eight villages in Sirkali region. The annual gross receipt as Kaval dues collected

by him was 1024 chuli chakrams 9 fanams and 67 casues.9

The first name Periya Waghaboo is a Muslim name but the second name

Muthukumarsamy Nainar is a Hindu name causing confusion. Further in the

British records he is described as a close relative of one Thondaimanpadayatchi,

a Kavalkarar of Kumbakonam. Thondaimanpadayatchi is also a Hindu name.

However in the same material his son’s name is recorded as ‘Subbaraya Ravutta

Muhaideen’ a mixture of both Hindu and Muslim names. In all probability we may

assume that Periya Waghaboo might have been a convert to Islam or this may

be an instance of fluid identity.10

As per the treaty signed by the Maratha king of Thanjavur with the British

East India Company in 1796 two subhas of the kingdom, Kumbakonam and

8 Ibid.

9 “Statement showing the number of cavilgars and poligors in the district of Chidambaram with

the former and present revenue”, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Vol.5B, p.7533; Vide Appendix – I.

10 Benjamin Torin, Resident, Thanjavur to F.A.Grant, Collector, Mayavaram, 3 October 1799,

Judicial Consultations, Vol.6A, pp.570-571.

65

Mayavaram respectively, were brought under the temporary management of the

Company.11 Sirkali was a sub divisional administrative unit of Mayavaram subha.

Consequently, the Kaval chiefs of these two subhas were expected to obey the

orders of the Company and to surrender their Kaval rights, and they were

deprived of their traditional right to collect Kaval dues.

However the development was contrary to the expectations of the

Company. Periya Waghaboo the Kaval chief of Sirkali openly challenged the

authority of the Company and started revolting against the Company. For the

Kavalkarars their office was not only an avenue of income. The Kavalship was a

source of power, a symbol of social status, prestige and privilege. Kavalship was

considered by them as their traditional right, and surrendering it to an alien power

was unacceptable to them and they were ready to protect this right at any cost.

Periya Waghaboo was no exception.

After establishing its power over the Mayavaram region the Company’s

administration started replacing the native system of administration with that of

their own. Consequently the inhabitants were motivated not to pay the

customary Kaval dues to their Kavalkarars. Hence the people stopped paying

Kaval fee to Periya Waghaboo. Deprived of his traditional power, social status

and prestige coupled with the closure of all the avenues of income Periya

Waghaboo began to involve himself in extortion from the people who were

nominally, under his Kavalship. To maintain himself and his army he was in

11

Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Serial No.7410, pp.64-69.

66

need of money which he collected from the people through the means of force.12

In a petition written by the affected inhabitants to Francis Alexander Grant, the

then Collector of Mayavaram the following interesting observation was made

which indicates under what circumstances Periya Waghaboo turned be a rebel.

“…Periya Waghaboo having assembled an armed force, he

from the year 1797 to this period has seized and imprisoned the

inhabitants and their people in the villages, plundered houses,

carried away seed grains. In the course of these three years the

property which he has plundered from us amounted to 10,000

chuckrams and our losses in paddy amounts also 10,000

chuckrams making together 20,000 chuckrams… He has burnt and

pulled down many houses… In our district there are two

cavilcarrahs one called Periya Waghaboo, the other Chinna

Waghaboo and each of them has separately his free gift lands,

Varesaypattoo, Pannay bramum and watching villages, and in the

enjoyment of these privileges they conducted themselves

agreeable to established custom and to the satisfaction of the

inhabitants until Ratchasa warcham after which Periya Waghaboo

became refractor and he acted contrary to the usual custom…”.13

12

Petition submitted by the inhabitants of Sirkali district to Francis Alexander, 1 September 1799, Judicial Consultations, Vol.6A, pp.547-548, Vide Appendix II.

13 Ibid., Vide Appendix II.

67

The above description is self explanatory and it is clearly stated that

Periya Waghaboo conducted himself agreeable to the people until ‘Ratchasa

Warcham’ [Tamil year corresponding to 1797] i.e., one year before the take over

of administration by the Company.

The British East India Company was much worried about the rebellious

nature of Periya Waghaboo and the frequent raids he was repeatedly conducting

in the countryside because, it affected their revenue collection and prevented the

farmers from cultivating their lands.14 Consequently the Company took a

decision of suppressing him by destroying his fort at Woothengudi.

Before the actual commencement of military operation against Periya

Waghaboo elaborate arrangement were made by the Company, detachments of

British military were ordered to move towards Sirkali and Mayavaram and

intelligence were gathered about his movement. When they received information

that Periya Waghaboo was at his fort at Woothengudi a strong detachment was

dispatched under the command of one Roopsing which surrounded the fort on

29th September 1799. In the battle that ensued four soldiers of the Company,

including Muhamad Sahib, the Subedar were killed, and fourteen others were

wounded. Among those killed the bodies of three soldiers were collected by

Waghaboo’s men and buried inside the fort.15

14

Col.A.Brown to Captain Smith, commanding a detachment to Mayavaram, dated 3 October 1797, Judicial consultations, Vol.6A, pp.578-581.

15 Subedar Roopsingh to F.A.Grant, Collector of Thanjavur, dated 29 September 1799, Judicial

Consultations, Vol.6A, pp.555-559.

68

The defeat of the Company’s army in the hands of a Kaval chief was a

humiliation that greatly hurt the prestige of the Company. So the Company had

to put much effort to track down the rebel Kaval chief. The British army stationed

at various centers were pressed in this job. The Governor in Council at Madras

was appraised of each and every move. A great hunt followed.

In tracking down Periya Waghaboo the Company sought the co-operation

of the king of Thanjavur.16 Apart from that, the Company enlisted the co-

operation of Chinna Waghaboo too in their operation against Periya Waghaboo.17

Administrative offices and treasury buildings were provided with additional

guards because the British thought that they may be attacked any time and

plundered by Periya Waghaboo.

However all these efforts proved futile because Periya Waghaboo vacated

his fort at Woothengudi after his battle with the British detachment on 29th

September 1799 and retreated to the jungle. Inspite of its elaborate arrangement

and extensive spy network the British army could not even locate his

whereabouts. But they were successful in destroying his fort at Woothengudi

after he vacated it. About 150 people were employed for many days to demolish

the fort.18 Lieutinent A. Fraser commanding detachment, 2nd Battalian, 13th

16

Torin, Resident, Thanjavur to the Collector, 3 October 1799, Judicial consultations, Vol.6A, pp.570-571.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

69

Regiment who led the demolition team was very much surprised the way in which

the fort was cunningly constructed.19

Periya Waghaboo continued to disturb Company’s administration with his

armed men even after the evacuation and destruction of the fort. With the help

rendered by his fellow Kavalkarars such as Muthaiah Moopen, the Kavalkarar of

Pavanasam, Thondaiman Padaiyatchi the Kavalkarar of Kumbakonam and

Aundiappa Udayar, the Kavalkarars of Caddalangudi he escaped the hunt and

continued his resistance.20

The Company’s administration could not gather any reliable information

regarding the whereabouts of Periya Waghaboo. This might have been partly

because of the respect he commanded over the inhabitants and partly due to the

fear of the inhabitants regarding the impending repercussion. In order to extract

information from Muthaiah Moopan, the Kavalkarar of Pavanasam and a close

associate of Periya Waghaboo, Captain Smith commanding a detachment at

Sirkali decided to take him under his custody. But a stern warning came from

Benjamin Torin, the Resident at Thanjavur saying that “Moopan is an influential

man in the society. Any attempt to apply violence to extract truth from him would

create problem which will endanger collections”.21

19

Ibid.

20 Judicial Consultations, Vol.6B, pp.618-620.

21 Benjamin Torin to Captain Smith, 27 October 1799, Judicial consultations, Vol.6B, pp.648-

651.

70

Regarding the inability of the Company in tracking down Periya Waghaboo

the Collector of Thanjavur lamented the power enjoyed by the Kavalkarars in his

letter to Captain Smith in the following words.

…I feel disappointed at the prospect of being unable to make an

example of this offender, and though fully sensible of the eventual

inconvenience which the public service may liable to form his

escape. Yet being well apprized of the many difficulties you have

had to contend within a country completely under dominions of the

cavilcarrah and whose utmost influence will no doubt had exercised

to defeat an object wherein their common interest is so materially

concerned…22

The above said assessment of the British officials about the Kavalkarars

indicates the respect and fear commanded by the Kavalkarars among the

inhabitants.

The struggle between the Company and Periya Waghaboo continued for a

few more years. In the meantime the Company, in consequence of its treaty with

the king of Thanjavur on 25th October 1799, brought the entire Kingdom under its

direct rule.23 The king was pensioned off. With the annexation of the kingdom of

Thanjavur the Company continued its hunt for Periya Waghaboo with renewed

vigor. Towards the final stage of the prolonged struggle the Company finally

22

Francis Alexander Grant, Collector of Thanjavur to Captain Smith, Judicial Consultations, Vol.6B, pp.651-657.

23 Madras Council, Military Consultations, 26 October 1799, Vol.No.269, pp.6736-6796.

71

gained an upper hand over Periya Waghaboo. In the military point of view it was

the Company which was more powerful. It was resourceful enough to press as

many soldiers as needed. From the monetary point of view Periya Waghaboo

was not a match to the Company. The Company had everything under its

command.

On the other hand the position of Periya Waghaboo became weak and he

started loosing ground. Encircled by the enemy forces on all sides he could not

mobilize funds necessary for maintaining his army and for replenishing arms and

ammunitions. When he was unable to pay his soldiers many of them deserted

and retired to their villages. Moreover the continuous travel as a result of the

relentless chase by the Company’s army coupled with abnormal life condition in

the jungles shattered his health and spirit.

As a last resort the Company fixed one thousand chakrams of price

money on Periya Waghaboo’s head which yielded the expected result.

I.Wallace, Collector of Tiruchirapalli district, having informed of the presence of

Periya Waghaboo in the woods of Udaiyarpalayam region ordered his Thasildar

to arrest him. On the night of 28th September 1803 he was apprehended in a

small village named Kottaikadu situated in the woods of Udaiyarpalayam. When

he was arrested there was nobody to guard him and he did not offer any

resistance. Thus the prolonged struggle came to an end.24 The prize money as

announced earlier was distributed to eight soldiers of the Company viz.

24

I.Wallace, Collector of Trichirapally District to Charles Harris, Collector of Thanjavur, 2 October 1802, Judicial Consultations, Vol.No.6B pp.660-663; Trichirapally District Records, Vol.3662, pp.176, 177.

72

Lakshmana Singh, Bhavani Singh, Muhamad Selar, Rengapa Naick, Arunachala

Naick, Alagiri Naick, Roop Singh and Kulla Appoo, who were instrumental in

apprehending Periya Waghaboo.25

A few days after his arrest, on 2nd October 1803 Periya Waghaboo

submitted the following explanation when he was called for26

My name is Periya Waghaboo. I was the cavilgar of the Shially

district in Mr.Grants time. It is true that I shot at the sepoys that

came against me. I did not know them to be the Company’s

sepoys. I thought they were attached to Chinnawaggupoo my

enemy. On the next day when I found them to be the company’s

sepoys through fear I ran away.

(signed) Periya Waggupoo

The explanation is highly evasive. Following this Periya Waghaboo was

kept in confinement for nearly two years and later on transported to the island of

Penang for a period of seven years on the charges of rebellion and crimes

committed against the government.27 Thus Periya Waghaboo’s resistance,

which commenced in 1796 came to an end after nearly a decade.

25

I.Cotton, Collector of Thanjavur to the Secretary to the Government, Judicial Department, Fort St.George, 28 August 1804, Judicial Consultations, Vol.7, pp.1068-1071.

26 Judicial Consultations, Vol.6B, pp.660-663.

27 Resolution passed on the basis of the communication sent by T.B.Hurdis, The Registrar,

Thanjavur on April 9, 1805 to the Chief Secretary, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.No.10, pp.225-226.

73

Maravars of Tirunelveli

Another striking example of the Kavaklarar’s resistance to the British East

India Company was the resistance posed by the Maravar Kavalkarars of

Nanguneri and Kalakad regions of Tirunelveli district. These Maravar

Kavalkarars belonged to the Kondayamkottai branch of the Maravar community

which formed the majority Maravar population of the Tirunelveli region. Oral

history has it they were originally form Ramand and they migrated to the

Tirunelvel region during 15th century in different batches. These Maravar

Kavalkarars were highly independent and behaved like independent rulers in

their region may be owing to the fact of the absence of any Palayakarars nearby.

The Maravars of Nanguneri were popularly known as Arupangunadu

Maravars. Arupangunadu comprised of six villages. The Maravars of these

villages were in charge of Kaval of the neighbouring villages. In all these six

villages there were Kudi Kavalkarars functioning under Men Kavalkarars. In turn,

all of them were controlled by their Desa Kaval chief hailing from Marugalkuruchi.

In the Kalakad region the Kaval was controlled by the Desa Kaval chief of

Thirukkurungudi. While the Nanguneri Maravars had Kaval rights over the

Vaisnavite temple at Nanguneri, the Maravar Kaval chief of Thirukkurungudi

enjoyed Kaval rights over the vaisnavite temple at Tirukkurungudi.28

The power and influence enjoyed by the Maravar Kavalkarars of

Nanguneri and Kalakad was well observed by Nicholas B.Dirks in his Hollow

Crown as stated below:

28

David Ludden, Peasant History in South India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1993, p.50.

74

“Below the regional kings of three great mantalams - ranged from

Ramanathapuram and Pudukottai on the one hand to the tiny

estates of certain Tirunelveli Palayakaras on the other. At an even

lower level, the developmental process of becoming a little kingdom

probably include certain kavalkarars (Protection chiefs) as well for

example the Maravar Kavalkarars of Kalakkatu and Nankuneri

regions of Tirunelveli”.29

After the defeat of Panchalamkuruchi in 1801 some of the close relatives

and associates of Oomaidurai namely Dalawaipillai, Veera Pandia Nayak and

Muthaiah Nayak escaped from Panchalankuruchi and found asylum with the

Maravar Kavalkarars of Nanguneri and Kalakad regions.30 Notifications were

issued against them by the Company demanding the surrender of men from

Panchalamkuruchi and directing the Kavalkarars to surrender themselves with

Captain Hazard, the commander of Company’s troops at Kalakad.31

However the Maravar Kavalkarars were neither ready to surrender the

men from Panchalamkuruchi nor to surrender themselves. On the other hand

they continued their struggle in some form or other. This tendency of the

Maravar Kavalkarars was well described by S.R.Lushington the Collector of

Tirunelveli.

29

Nicholas B.Dirks, The Hollow Crown: Ethno History of an Indian Kingdom, pp.154-155.

30 ‘Notification of the Principal Maravas of Nanguneri’, by S.R.Lushington, Collector of

Tirunelveli on 20 September 1801, Tirunelveli District Records Vol.No.3579, pp.160-163; Vide Appendix III, IV.

31 Ibid.

75

From the general satisfaction given by the kavalkarars in general,

you are aware, that I have to except the marava kavalkarars of

Nanguneri. The notorious profligacy and savageness of their

character always checked any sanguine expectation of retaining

them, but no effort was omitted to accomplish their reform by

convincing them of the justice of the company’s Government. But

their obstinate concealment and protection of the rebels proscribed

by Col. Agnew and their refusal to tender any surety of their

submission and allegiance compelled the exercise of that coercion

which was explained in my correspondence of October…32

However at the final stage these Maravar Kavalkarars were suppressed

by the Company’s forces. About eight Kaval chiefs of Nanguneri region were

arrested and imprisoned at Tuticorin. It seems from the report of S.R.Lushington

the Collector of Tirunelveli district that those eight Maravar Kaval chiefs might

have been transported to the Island of Penang.33 Their names are furnished

below:

1) Erulappa Thevan of Nanguneri

2) Madasamy Thevan, S/o Ramasamy Thevan of Marugalkuruchi

3) Narayana Thevan of Marugalkuruchi

4) Periya Pitcha Thevan of Marugalkuruchi

5) Chinna Pitcha Thevan of Marugalkuruchi

32

S.R.Lusington’s Report to Board of Revenue, 28 May 1802.

33 Ibid.

76

6) Kauthakutti Thevan of Marugalkuruchi

7) Veera Perumal Thevan of Thennimalai

8) Veera Perumal Thevan of Pudhupalaipudhur

Apart from these Kaval chiefs about forty Kudi Kavalkarars were also

arrested and imprisoned in a fort at Kamudhi in Ramnad district. They were

banned from entering Tirunelveli District. S.R.Lushington the Collector of

Tirunelveli in his communication to Col. Martin, commander of Ramnad district,

directed him to take necessary steps to strengthen the Kamudhi fort.34 He also

mailed a list of names of those Kavalkarars who were arrested.35 The names of

the arrested Kudi Kavalkarars were mentioned below:

1) Woodaiyar Maravar Pudhur

2) Kulathuran Maravar Cunneyvetti

3) Muthumandi Maravar Pudhur

4) Vanamamalai Maravar Mayilam

5) Mandiramoorthy Maravar Cunneyvetti

6) Maligen Maravar Manchangkulam

7) Ananja Perumal Maravar Mudalaikulam

8) Rakkamuthu Maravar Mudalaikulam

9) Palavesam Maravar Sethoor

10) Veerabadiran Maravar Elanthaikulam

11) Aundy Maravar Shevalmangapuram

12) Vanniyan Maravar Kalandhaneri

13) Petchiyan Maravar Konnemarpatti

14) Woodaiyar Maravar Marugalkuruchi

15) Veerabadiran Maravar Marugalkuruchi

34

S.R.Lushington, Collector, Tirunelveli to Col.Martin, Commander, Ramnad District, 25 March 1802, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.135B, pp.3868-3871.

35 Ibid.

77

16) Subban Maravar Marugalkuruchi

17) Kuppan Maravar Dalawaipuram

18) Veerabadran Maravar Thuvaraikulam

19) Muthan Maravar Dalawaipuram

20) Petchiyan Maravar Thavanalloor

21) Muthu Maravar Shevalmugaperi

22) Sudalaimuthu Maravar Pudhur

23) Velan Maravar Marugalkuruchi

24) Veeralakutti Maravar Kadampadugai

25) Kumaran Maravar Kadampadugai

26) Thevan Maravar Kadampadugai

27) Iyam Perumal Maravar Kadampadugai

28) Aundy Maravar Cannimarpatti

29) Vanamamalai Maravar Yeerapalai

30) Chinnu Maravar Coundaperumalkulam

31) Sudalaimuthu Maravar Pallapatti

32) Tavoo Maravar Kadamparavoo

33) Sudalaimuthu Maravar Oyanery

34) Madan Maravar Manjankulam

35) Veeranan Maravar Kadamparavu

36) Velu Maravar Tennimalai

37) Veerabadran Maravar Oyanery

38) Rakkamuthu Maravar Pudhur

39) Kumaran Maravar Pudhur

40) Vanamamalai Maravar Manjankulam

The Kaval privileges hitherto enjoyed by these subordinate Kavalkarars

were taken over by the Company and given to local Nadars.36

36

In the opinion of the Company, the Nadars were the original custodians of the Kaval System in Nanguneri region. The Nadars of Nanguneri showed to S.R. Lushington a copper plate grant regarding their Kaval rights.

78

These Kavalkarars who were apprehended in the Nanguneri region were

transported to Ramnad to be imprisoned in the fort of Kamudhi and Pamban.

After a few months, as a reform measure each one of them was provided with

five pagodas for the purpose of procuring cattle and rent free agricultural land.37

This programme was carried out by the Company with the hope that these steps

would make them to turn towards peaceful way of life. They were also released

with special orders that they should not return to Tirunelveli District. However the

programme failed miserably.

After some years these Maravar Kavalkarars violating the special orders

of the Company regarding externment returned to Nanguneri on some pretext or

other and tried to reestablish their Kaval hold and committed robberies too.

Consequently there were direct confrontation between these Maravar

Kavalkarars and the Nadar Kavalkarars newly appointed by the Company. In

one such incident when the Nadar Kavalkarar were chasing the Maravar robbers

one Nadar by name Swamikutti was killed and many others were wounded, and

the Maravars took refuge in the hills.38

Kallars of Madurai

Resistance of a different nature took place in the Dindugal region of

Madurai district. Dindugal, Salem and Baramahal regions had been a part and

parcel of Mysore kingdom. They were taken over by the Company after the

defeat of Tipu Sultan in the Third Anglo-Mysore war (1790-92).

37

I.Cottan, Magistrate of Tirunelveli to the Secretary to the Government in the Judicial Department, 11 October 1808, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.135B, pp.315-318.

38 Ibid.

79

Following this development the Company introduced a new system of

administration in these regions. The Permanent Land Revenue Settlement was

also implemented in 1803. In consequence of these changes the tax free lands

enjoyed by the Kallar Kavalkarars as Kaval grants in the villages were

appropriated by the new administration.39 Kaval system was brushed aside and

the inhabitants were encouraged not to pay Kaval dues to the Kavalkarars. Thus

the avenue of income of the Kallar Kavalkarars was closed and their economic

well being and social prestige were at stake.

Inspite of the stringent measures adopted by the Company’s

administration to curb the power of the Kavalkarars, they continued to exercise

their powers as before. The Kallar Kavalkarars sent Olais40 to the inhabitants of

the villages which were under their Kaval control previously, demanding supply of

grains and cattle and other food stuffs. If there was no positive response from

the villages concerned, then they would be plundered by the Kavalkarars. One

such Olai sent by the Kallars of Pudur and Vellappanery and Nalluthevanpatti

sent to Bodappa Naicker, the village head man of Kandamanayakanpatti and the

village headmen of Kannayapillaipatti and Vadugarpatti reads as follows:

It is well known to you that from the time of your forefathers we

have continued to obey your commands.

39

George Parish, Collector of Madurai to the Police Committee, 10 July 1805, Madurai

Collectorate Records, Vol.1148.

40 Olai means Palm leaf with message written on it. The former Kallar Kavalkarars of Dindigul

region used to send such Olais to the principal inhabitants of villages demanding supply of grains and cattle.

80

It is further in the knowledge of the Poligor that you used to pay us

kaval Kattanams of your villages. This also is known to you. From

the time you ceased to grant us the kaval, we have received only

one year profit from it. The balance due to us you have not given.

Now it is well known among you that we have two of the circar

Poligors with us and that we are become a proud and independent

people despising and holding in contempt both the orders of the

poligors and that of the Circar and as we have now occasion for

money for all expenses you will accordingly be pleased to send us

by some of your people forty black rusnel and twenty sheep. If you

do not do so we shall consider it as a breach of faith, to avoid

which, you will act as we have described and we shall ever keep in

memory the favours you may grant us.41

John Ravenshaw, Assistant Collector of Dindugal while reporting about

the prevailing situation to J.B.Hurdis the Collector stated that “…Sending Olais in

this way is only their way of declaring war. I suspect an incursion will be made in

this quarter and I am prepared to receive them”.42

The anti-British struggle of Sivarama Thalaivar, Periya Waghaboo, the

Kallars of Madurai and the Maravars of Nanguneri in Tirunelveli district are a few

cases to prove the stubborn nature of the Kavalkarars of Tamilnadu in their

41

Madurai District Records, Vol.1176, pp.232-233.

42 Madurai District Records, Vol.No.1176, p.227.

81

struggle against the British prior to the abolition of Desa Kaval in 1802. During

the Palayakarar Wars they made common cause with Palayakarars against the

combined efforts of the Nawabs of Arcot and the British East India Company.

Regarding the Maravar Kavalkarars S.R.Lushington the Collector of Tirunelveli

stated that “During the rebellion of Panchalamkuruchi they [Kavalkarars]

fomented and aided the disturbance in every quarter”.43 It was true that by 1801

all these Kavalkarars who resisted the encroachment of the Company were

suppressed by the Company. But it was not the end. The Kavalkarars continued

their struggle relentlessly against the colonial state up to 1947. In the mean time

the colonial government had taken much effort against the Kavalkarars by means

of enacting laws against them in 1806 and 1816 and reorganizing its police

machinery repeatedly to face the challenges of the Kavalkarars. However for the

Company, a complete success over the Kavalkarars was always elusive and a

distant dream. Of late in 1943 G.H.P.Bailey Superintendent of Police of

Tirunelveli district has stated that, “It is century old skeleton for which the

cupboard is the Madras Village Police Regulation Act of 1816. The bones are

now exposed in their grain and dismal nakedness”.44

Abolition of Desa Kaval

After the suppression of the upsurge of 1800-1801 the Company had

established its virtual control over entire Tamilnadu. Those Palayakarars who

were loyal to the Company were crowned as Zamindars and those Palayakarars

43

Lushington’s Report to Board of Revenue, 28 May 1802, p.7.

44 G.O. Home, No.1802, 31 July 1943.

82

who resisted were expelled and their territories were either annexed by the

Company or distributed among the loyal Palayakarars.

When Panchalamkuruchi Palayam was occupied it contained 104 villages.

They were divided into two portions and given to the Palayakarars of

Ettayapuram and Maniyatchi in recognition of their support to the Company in the

time of Palayakarar War.45

In the meantime the process of consolidation which commenced earlier,

parallel with the conquest was geared up further by the Company. It was during

this stage that the Company had to confront the Kaval system which threatened

the administrative control of the Company.

During the course of consolidation the Company aimed at establishing a

new and uniform system of administration resembling the western models. In

this venture utmost caution was exercised by the Company’s administration.

Some aspects in the traditional system of administration, if found beneficial and

inevitable were incorporated in the new system and the rest were abolished.46 In

the agenda of abolition the Kaval system found the first place.

The Kaval system, the power and influence enjoyed by the Kavalkarars,

their rebellious and independent nature were not conducive for the Company to

implement its plans. Moreover the huge amount of money collected by the

Kavalkarars in the name of Desa Kaval and Kudi Kaval fee was a constant irritant

45

H.R.Pate, Tinnevelly District Gazetteer, p.272.

46 George Parish, Collector, Madurai District to the Police Committee, 10 July 1805, Madurai

Collectorate Records, Vol.1148.

83

to the Company. Hence the Company was determined to replace the Kaval

system by a new police system of its own creation. It was estimated by the

Company that the total amount of money collected in the name of Kaval fee was

more than enough to maintain a new and efficient police system.47

During the course of consolidation calculated measures were adopted by

the Company against the Kaval system. In the minds of the colonial

administrators soon both the Desa Kaval and Kudi Kaval were equated with

oppression and misgovernance. The bulky volumes of colonial records of

Collectors of the southern districts of this period are almost unanimous in

condemning the Kaval system as a world of criminals. Invariably all the British

officials had accepted that the ancient origin of Kudi Kaval and praised it for its

simplicity and transparency. But all of them in a single voice condemned the

‘Desa Kaval’ as a creation of the Palayakarars to plunder and exploit the people.

In due course the Company was successful in constructing a distorted

image of the Kaval system and the Kavalkarars. It described that ‘thieving’ was

the traditional occupation of the communities involved in the Kaval system. The

crimes committed by the Kavalkarars were exaggerated and amplified. The

Kaval fee paid by the inhabitants was equated with protection fee or ransom paid

to the Kavalkarar in order to prevent him from plundering the properties of the

inhabitants. A single incident of crime committed by a Kavalkarar was

47

Letter from R.H.Young, Magistrate of Tinnevelly District to the Chief Secretary to the Government, 31 March 1813, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Reports), Vol.4A, pp.51-59.

84

generalized, conceptualized, theorized and applied to the whole lot of the

Kavalkarars and even to the caste he belonged to. The land revenue

settlements made by the Company in the beginning of the 19th century were also

targeted at closing the avenues of income of the Kavalkarars. Agricultural lands

allotted to the Kavalkarars as Kaval grants were assumed by the colonial

administration.48 Finally both the Desa Kaval and Men Kaval were officially

abolished through the Regulation of 1802 A.D which reads as below:

The establishment existing in the Zillah of Caroongooly for the

purpose of police having been committed to certain poligors and

cavilgars have proved by long experience under the administration

of the said poligors and cavilgars to be inadequate to the

prevention of crimes or the apprehension of offenders; and have by

the abuse of power entrusted to the poligors and cavilgars, being

converted into additional means of disturbing the order of society

with impunity; Therefore the Governor in Council has resolved to

abolish the office of Poligors and cavilgars and substitute a more

efficient plan of police for the Zillah of Caroongooly.49

To start with these two systems were abolished in Tirunelveli and

Karunkuli (Chengalpat district) in 1802. Gradually it was extended to other

48

George Parish, Collector of Madurai in his report to the President and members of the Committee investigating and reporting upon the present establishment of police, 10 July 1802, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Vol.8B, p.1878.

49 Regulation of 1802 A.D. No.XXV; The History of The Madras Police, Centenary Volume

(1859-1959) Madras, p.212.

85

districts. The Kavalkarars were asked to renounce all their claims to police

authority and Kaval fee.

By the regulation of 1802 the Men Kaval system was abolished by the

Company and the Palayakarars and other Men Kaval chiefs were asked to

renounce all their claims to police authority and collection of Kaval dues.

Following this the process of consolidation commenced. It was a period of

transition for the Company becoming a land-revenue financed state from that of a

tribute based state. The Company felt the need to assert its legitimacy by

maintaining order and protecting its subjects especially in the rural tract, the

social base of the emerging land-revenue-financed state.50 Maintaining order

and providing protection to the people necessitated the creation of a vast

administrative network which included the establishment of a new police and

judicial administrative machinery. This process if to be completed successfully

needed the investment of huge amount of money. Unfortunately the Company

was not in a position to meet out the necessary financial requirements. Hence it

was decided to collect the Desa Kaval fee from the inhabitants through the

revenue servants, to be spent for the new police establishment. The following

statement made by R.H.Young, Magistrate of Tirunelveli District is pertinent here:

The police of this province was formerly entrusted to Desh and

Tallam cavilgars, the former having general protection of the

50

Sandira Freitag, “Sansiahs and the State: The Changing Nature of ‘Crime’ and ‘Justice’ in Nineteenth-Century British India”, in Michael R.Anderson, Sumit Guha (eds), Changing Concepts of Rights and Justice in South Asia, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000, p.84.

86

country and high roads and the later acting under their orders as

the immediate watchers of villages. The Desacavil was

sequestered in the year 1800 and its revenue collected on account

of government, these appear to have amounted in the first year of

fusly 1209 [A.D.1800] chakrams 68635-0-3 casu a sum fully

adequate to defray the expenses of efficient police.51

Table 3:1 provides details of the amount collected by the Company from

the province of Tirunelveli from 1800-1805 as given by the Magistrate.52

51

R.H.Young to Chief Secretary, 31 March 1813, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries), Vol.No.4A, pp.51-54.

52 Ibid., p.81.

87

Table No. 3:1

Statement of Desa Kaval collections in the District of Tirunelvely (1800 – 1805)

S.No. Year Fusly Amount

Chuli Chakrams Fanam Casu

1 1800 1209 68635 - 3

2 1801 1210 58421 - -

3 1802 1211 53831 7 33

4 1803 1212 49530 1 -

5 180 1213 40402 - 10½

6 1805 1214 32862 - 15¾

Total 3036682 - 14¼

Tirunelveli

17th December 1812

Source : Judicial Proceedings (Sundries), Vol. No.4A, 1812, 1813, p.81.

88

This method of collecting Kaval fee through the revenue administration

was prevalent in other districts as well. Regarding Thanjavur district it was

categorically stated in the following terms.

After the abolition of Kaval system in Tanjore district, the Company

collected the Kaval fee as it was before and spent it for police

establishment created by Regulation I of 1816. This fee with house

tax were kept in separate account till 1852 then it was incorporated

in to general account. It 1854 this was intimated by the Collector

suggesting the discontinuation but the government insisted on its

collection due to growing expenses of police establishment.53

The abolition of Desa Kaval and Men Kaval in 1802 followed by the

confistication of land grants enjoyed by the Kavalkarars rendered the Kaval

chiefs jobless and closed their avenues of income. Changing occupation

overnight was not that easy to any community that too in an agrarian society

which is compartmentalized into many castes and each one of them bound to

traditionally pursue a particular occupation. So changing occupation and at the

same time relinquishing power and status enjoyed traditionally were

unacceptable to the Kavalkarars. The atmosphere that prevailed then was

charged with discontent and it was conducive enough for the outbreak of

disturbances.

53

G.O. Judicial No.1028, 19 July 1897; G.O. Judicial No.1385, 3 September 1897.

89

On the other hand the abolition of Desa Kaval and Men Kaval system

paved the way for an increasing number of crimes. This was because when

these Kaval systems were abolished the Kaval chiefs withdrew the Kudi

Kavalkarars employed by them and there was no machinery to look after the

police functions.54

Another important development during this period was the demobilization

of the armies of the Palayakarars. After the suppression of the upsurge of 1800-

1801 the Company had ordered for the general demobilization of the armies of

the Palayakarars and surrender of arms. Consequently a considerable section of

the martial communities like Maravars, Naickers, Kallars and Padaiyachis who

were serving in the armies of the Palayakarars were disbanded and deprived of

their livelihood. Further the Company conceived that there was every possibility

for an understanding and co-operation between the former soldiers and the

Kavalkarars which would jeopardize its future plans.

Taking cognizance of the prevailing situation the colonial state came out

with a new strategy of minimum compromise of providing pension to the

Kavalkarars. To cite an example the Kavalkarar of Parur of South Arcot district,

Ponnambala Kachi Rao was granted a life pension of Rs.104-12-08 after his

Kaval rights were resumed by the Company. He died in 1838 and the

government sanctioned the continuance of half the pension to his son.55 There is

a long list of Kavalkarars of Arcot, Vandavasi and Vellore of North Arcot district

and the amount received by them as pension annually is found in the report

submitted by the Collector of Chittoor the head quarters of North Arcot district

(Table 3:2).56

54

D.Cockburn, Judge and Magistrate of the District of Dindugal, to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Judicial Department, 2 October 1802, Judicial Consultations, Vol.13, pp.2075 - 2076.

55 W.Francis, South Arcot District Gazetteer, Madras, 1906, pp.392, 393.

56 Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Vol.6A, pp.875-881.

90

Table No.3:2

Statement of Allowances Annually paid to

Men Cavilgars by the Collector of the Zillah of Chittor

[Extract]

District Cavilgars Amount of Allowance per Year

Star Pagodas

Panam Casu

Tiruvallam Siddhama Nayak 24 - -

Guruvappa Nayak 24 - -

Venkatachala Nayak 12 - -

Paupery Perumal 24 - -

Vellore Kulasagudi Ram Nayak 6 - -

Pullpettai Ram Nayak 6 - -

Mummalai Pettai Ram Nayak 6 - -

Kanahaiya Nayak 6 - -

Nelvay Rama 6 - -

Kumaresa Samutram Muniya 6 - -

Munangipet Venkatesa 6 - -

Permaga Perumal Nayak 6 - -

Senbaganallur Kulappa nayak 6 - -

Alamelumangapuram Veerapa Nayak 6 - -

Venkatapuram Samy Nayak 6 - -

Ammapuram Perumal Nayak 6 - -

Kanniyampadi Lakshmana Nayak 6 - -

Kanniyampadi Dauthappa 6 - -

Cholavaram Parusuram Nayak 6 - -

Thuthepettai Perumal Nayak 6 - -

Total 180 - -

Source : Judicial Proceedings (Sundries Police Committee Report), Vol.6A, 1812, pp.875-881.

91

Regarding the abolition of Kudi Kaval the colonial state approached the

matter with utmost caution. When compared with Men Kavalkarars the Kudi

Kavalkarars were numerically superior and more closely associated with the

people and their affairs. They were an integral part of the everyday life of the

inhabitants. Kudi Kavalkarar was a person who possessed intimate knowledge

of villages - its inhabitants, details of their properties, livestock and revenue

particulars. For a government which was still not that familiar with the people

and its knowledge about the land and people it was going to govern being narrow

and limited, the service of the Kudi Kavalkarar was essential and inevitable.

Regarding this, George Parish the Collector of Madurai district observed:

In their present situation of restraint they are incapable of doing

material injury, because whenever the kavalgar is employed, it is

always in a subordinate situation acting under police officers

immediately appointed by myself and in this capasity their local

knowledge and general acquaintance with the characters of people

under them is useful instruments in the hands of the government.57

Yet another important factor which prompted the Company’s government

to think in favour of the continuation of Kudi Kaval was the numerical strength of

the Kudi Kavalkarars.58 S.R.Lushington the first Collector of Tirunelveli district is

one of his report has stated that “abolition of it will be a danger. They may turn to

57

George Parish to the President and Members of the Committee for investigating and reporting upon the present establishment of police, 10 July 1805, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Reports), Vol.8-B, p.1875.

58 Vide Appendix, V.

92

robbery which cannot be suppressed”. Later in 1808 when Woodcock, the then

Magistrate of Kumbakonam when asked about his opinion regarding the abolition

of Kudi Kaval he cautioned the government in the following terms:

…attempting a total abolition of the institution [Kudi Kaval] in this

rich and fertile province would be brought with serious danger to

the country affecting as well the realization of the revenue as the

property and the safety of the inhabitants.59

If this was the situation in 1808, the power of the Kudi Kavalkarars in the

earlier century may well be imagined. Hence the Company decided to permit the

Kudi Kaval system to continue under the supervision of the government.60

59

Fifth Report from Select Committee on the Affairs of British East India Company, Madras Presidency, Vol.II, London 1812.

60 Woodcock to Secretary to the Government, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.40, p.4368.