Nattar


Nattars were an administrative body in the Tamil kingdoms of Chola, Pandya and Pallava, who had the right to sell and purchase land, and make them tax-free whenever such a request was made. Nattar generally meant an official of an area called nadu.
The institution of the nattar was well-defined. It was in charge of all matters pertaining to a village, including water-management. It was noted that: "If ruling class is taken to mean those with the power and authority to manage community resources, then the nattar was this class in Tamil country".

Description

Dr R Kalaikkovan and Dr M Nalini studied eighty three inscriptions from various parts of the temple complex of Saptarishisvara at Thiruthavathurai. A seventeenth regnal year inscription of Jatavarman Sundarapandiya records that the nattar of Pandikulasani valanadu and Vadakarai Rajaraja valanadu exempted taxes on certain lands which were given to the temple for lamps, offerings and festivals. Another inscription presents the name of a nattar accountant as Muththaiyil Udaiyan. It was noted that despite the role of the nattars as an administrative body, their modus operandi was not clear.
The book Feudalism and Non-European Societies by TJ Byres and Harbans Mukhia, speaks of Tamil peasant militias in the Chola kingdom domains as stratified peasant groups with dominance exercised by one group identified with the nadu locality as a nattar. From the nattars, one lineage provided chiefs called araiyar of the locality. Settlements within the nadu included centres of commerce called nagaram and settlements supporting brahmanical functions called brahmadeya. The nattars were the highest of the peasant groups with entitlement to the major share of the agrarian production. While ordinary peasant families were suggested to have received minor entitlement, the field labourers had no fixed share.
Ceremonial establishments of brahmin villages in the nadus to pursue dharmic ends were important in effecting links beyond the nadu. The brahmadeyas of different nadus created a network of ritual specialists and in doing so fortified the standing of the nattar upon whose patronage this depended. As per Arun Majumder in Structural Evolution of Indian Economy, whenever the Chola overlords failed to reward its rural base of clients, that is, the nattars, the system began to corrode from within. That was because, apart from various administrative functions, the jobs of temple construction and giving landgrants to brahmins depended on the nattar.
Nattar as a political body was recognized by the Pallavas and Pandyas. The Pallava and Pandya copper plates regarding grants of land had nattars mentioned in them.

Colonial Times

Shanti Jayewardene-Pillai notes in her work Imperial Conversations :
“The local counterparts of the new British elite were the nattars whose economic interests included agriculture, trade and production. Nattars were influential city patrons...” Their social life was captured in the work, Sarva Deva Vilasa, a eulogy to the city life of merchant princes, written around 1800. “Nattars were cultured high caste vellalars or brahmins with reputations gained from local social status and service to indigenous regimes. They played an important role as representative of multi-skilled jathis, collective bargaining / kinship bodies, at the higher councils or the nadus”.
“Nattars were of orthodox religion, supported temples and patronised Sanskrit learning and the arts. Although they maintained homes in Madras and FSG, their village links were never severed. Individuals like Manali Mudaliya were owners of extensive tracts of land in the city, but most seemed to prefer smaller suburban gardens in the older temple centres or villages outside the city wall. In the city, Pachaiyappa Mudaliar and his friends lived in the leafy exclusive residential suburb of Komaleswaram Kovil on the banks of Cooum River. Nattars travelled regularly to their country homes to fulfil their traditional duties, kaniyatchi associated with dominion over land.
The Tamil identity, high social status and intimate knowledge of diplomacy and local social and political networks made the nattars indispensable to the Company as its administrative role expanded. Some Telugu and Maratha Brahmins, with kaniyatchi status, served as agents in the revenue administration of the Carnatic and offered their skills to the British. Members of such establishment families served on the Madras Council that governed the city.”
Niels Brimnes wrote in Constructing the Colonial Encounter :
In the early days of the 19th century the offices of the nattar and desayi appear as important institutions of leadership within the right hand division. The nattars were village headmen and came from agricultural communities, such as the Vellalas. The desayi constituted a kind of petty chief in some areas and the office was closely associated with the Telugu community of Balijas. Transformed into the urban context of Madras, these offices seem to have been primarily concerned with questions of caste. In early 19th century Madras, the office of nattar was held by the Vellala Arnachellum Mudali. Apparently the co-existence of these two offices did not give rise to any problems. Instead, the established positions of leadership were challenged from outside.

Usage in later times

The New Cambridge History of India series, noted of work by Karashima where they wrote of local chiefs known as Vanniyars who ruled in the middle parts of the river basin of the Vellar valley. In the 15th century, they were independent as an authority and in addition to their ancient title of Nattar, they added the more fashionable Tamil equivalent of a Nayaka as Nayanar.
In the 18th century, the Vallambars of Karaikudi, helped the Maruthu brothers fight many wars against the British. The Vallambars were subsequently declared rulers of Karaikudi and 15 other villages, or one pallayam, by the Shivagangai King. Vallambars were then given the surname Amballam and came to be known as Pallaya Nattars or the citizens of Pallaya Nadu.
In the Madras Presidency, the East India Company employed Nattars to collect land revenue. Like other land-owners in South India, the Nattars employed padiyals and pannaiyals, and claimed on their behalf the right to a share of the harvest. Before the grain on the threshing floor was divided between the state share and the cultivator’s share, several deductions were made, including one for the paraiyar, padiyals and pannaiyals. This share was known as tuṇạu or kalavāsam.