of Madras, writes of ancient rural administration in his book South Indian Polity, University of Madras, 1955. The reading is taken from pages 336 to 337.

FOR A STUDY of the beginnings of rural administration in the Tamil country we depend largely on the classical literature of the śangam age, wherein we get frequent reference to two terms, the Manram and the Podiyil. The word Manram has been explained by the commentator Naccinārkkiniar as the open place in the centre of the village where all people meet under the shade of a tree (ūrukku naḍuvāyellā-ru-mirukkum marattaḍi)- It was the common public place also called Podiyil, Podiyam or Poduvil usually with the tree of the region or the banyan in the centre. It was a place which was used by the shepherds, as a result of which they were probably called Manrāḍis. It was a place where the social festivities of the village were conducted with mirth and enthusiasm. Sacrifices to the gods were made at that place. The Manram was so important that it was considered that its capture and ploughing with asses was symbolic of the conquest of the village.¹ It served as a public place for more serious actions also. The Kośar, for instance, are said to have met in the Podiyil under the banyan tree for the discussion of common affairs. The kings used to go to the Manram for the transaction of public business, such as administration of justice. The Coḷa king Kiḷḷivaḷavan had ordered the sons of his enemy Malaya-man to be thrown to the elephant. When the order was about to be executed, Kovil Kiḷār, the poet interceded on their behalf and appealed to the king for mercy pleading that a strange fear had overtaken them and they were standing at the Manru in bewilderment.² This shows that it was a place where public punishments were inflicted. Poet Pottiyar, a good friend of another Coḷa king regrets very much for the death of the king by starvation as a result of which the Manram at Uraiyūr had become bereft of the king.³ Apart from such stray references to the Manram and the Podiyil one does not get any further information about them. Even the Kuraḷ does not contain any clear reference to the village and its institutions. The sabhā (avai) mentioned in the work seems to have only some vague meaning though the commentator Parimelalagar would see in it reference to the king's sabhā. Anyway the Manram appears to have been a public place of great social activity in every village. "As the modern distinctions between the political and other aspects of social life found no expression in the organisation of a more primitive age, it

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹Puram, 276.

²Puram, 46.

³ Ibid, 220.