1 This tradition finds reference in the Tevaram of Sundara, early ninth century A.D. Tiruvada-Muliuivayil 10.

1 There is a village of the name Vipparla about 12 miles west of Amaravati.

This gives us the complete system of organisation that obtained in the government of this region. What is more it gives us clearly to understand that it is the kind of organisation we gain knowledge of in the Arthasastra. It shows further that this Mauryan organisation had been introduced in this remote part of the Dakhan, in all probability in the Mauryan age. The interesting question then would be whether the organisation, such as we are enabled to gain glimpses of in the Tamil country, is a copy of this. It would be reasonable to answer the question in the negative, so far as an actual copying of it is concerned, though one would notice a considerable similarity in the general character of these two organisations. It is impossible that some kind of an organisation should not have existed in the Tamil country before the forest region that intervened between the Krishna and the Kaveri had been brought into civilisation. The general lines of organisation however were not so different as between these two to make a ready assimilation impossible. As we shall see in the course of the later history of this territory, the unit of administra-tion must have been the village or a group of villages. A certain geographical area containing a number of these units constituted a small division which in the Tondamandalam was dominated by a fort, while in the Chola coun-try an important town or city dominated it. A number of these bigger units taken together constituted a district; a number of these going to form a division giving us the regular gradation indicated both in the Chola division of administration and what we have already noticed in the Mayidavolu grant. That such divisions were not the inventions of the great Cholas is amply proved as these divisions are found recited in documents of the age of Pallava rule, certainly of the great Pallavas, extending from the commencement of the seventh century A.D. In all of these, and through all the periods of existence of this organisation, there is a well marked division of the sphere of the local and central governments recognised. All the officers mentioned in the Mayidavolu grant refer to a series composed of a certain number of royal officers; but these by themselves could not have Veen enough to carry on the administration. Even this small hierarchy could have exercised enough control and oversight, while the actual administration was carried on by local assistance. That is the feature that we find in full working order as we come to the age of the great Cholas for the very simple reason that we have access to a large number of official documents relative to Chola rule. The fact that such documents have not come down to us from an earlier period does not necessarily imply the absence of that kind of an organisation of the governing power. The one Mayidavolu grant is evidence of the existence of a similar organisation in the region of the Krishna river. Evidence in regard to the Tamil country is not however so direct for that early period.

Coming to the period of the great Pallavas we have a number of copper-plate charters issued by them, although they did not bear quite so largely and quite so directly upon matters of administration. Being the charters that they are, they give us a few glimpses of the organisation by means of which the administration was actually carried on. These generally show the same character of organisation that we find fully developed under the Cholas. The divisions of territory and the details of revenue and fiscal administration, as far as these charters give them, show the existence of an organisation quite similar to that which prevailed in the age of the Cholas. There is nothing in the now accessible documents to indicate that they were innovations by the Pallavas. At the very best the influence of the Pallavas might have gone to the extent of assimilating such organisations as existed in the Tamil country to that which obtained in the outermost southern frontier of the Mauryan empire of Asoka. We find no warrant for going farther in the direction of affiliating the one to the other.

The Tamil classic Rural to which reference had already been made, devotes the largest part of the work to Porul {Sans. Artha, wealth) and deals with what might perhaps be indicated by the term political economy, a combined treatise on politics and economies. Like Sanskrit works bearing on the Arthasastra and Nitisastra, this section of the Kural has to do with the king and kingdom, even the abstract noun "state" being derived from a word standing for king. It would seem strange that there should have been no other organisation known than that of the kingly. It would be a mistake however to draw that inference. As in the Arthasastra so in this work the subject dealt with happens to be merely what would in modern language be called the central administration.

A central administration had to be superimposed upon such tribal and communal organisations as existed already when the state came to be recognised as such. This fundamental fact has to be clearly borne in mind in discussing the administrative organisation of the South of India. A similar caution seems necessary in respect even of other parts of India. What the text books teach us therefore is the character of the central organisation, which welded the local organisations for local purposes into one unity which might be the state of those times. The local organisations were certainly of a democratic character, and rested for certain purposes on the communal basis. The devolution of power was complete. The central organisation had merely the control of local administration, the maintenance of peace and order in the country, and providing for defence against external enemies. That being understood it is clear these begin with describing the king and defining the qualifications that go to make a good king. It was already pointed out in a previous section that this work exhibits considerable indebtedness to the Arthasastra; the one chapter bearing on upada, makes escape from this conclusion impossible. Like the Arthasastra, the king is described as possessing the six angas such as the army, people, wealth, counsel, friendship and fortresses, or defences; together with the king himself, it makes the total seven angas of royalty. He is to be easily accessible and one that speaks softly and pleasantly. If he deal out justice and protect the people from injustice, he comes to be regarded as a god on earth for his subjects. A king educated in the functions of royalty would find happiness only in the happiness of his subjects, a statement that reminds one of an important sentence in the proclamation of Queen Victoria. These are some of the personal qualities of the king according to this work, parallels to which one could find repeated in the course of the Sanskrit Ramayana. The work goes on to describe the objects of rule as the maintenance of Dharma; and this can be best obtained by the choice of suitable persons, well-born, and well-educated to assist him. He is to make the choice of his ministers on the lines laid down by Chanakya by subjecting them to temptations with the four objects of desire, and accept those who show themselves to be beyond temptation. He has to see to the spreading of fertility over the land and the removal of obstacles that may come in the way of prosperity. His rule of righteousness is at the root even of the Vedas of the Brahmans who, if his rule were otherwise, would forget the Veda. Each one of the six angas then comes in for description in turn.