STRUGGLES FOR RIGHTS DURING LATER CHOLA PERIOD 31 Apart from the fight against the tax burden, we discover struggles that the toiling people waged for better emoluments. The Paraya people demanded higher emoluments for their work on the ground that their work warranted this. A revolt developed in the face of the refusal by the landlords to raise the emoluments. The veterans of the Ur and the Sabhai expected to crush the fighting people through the instrument of repression, but they failed to do so. With the struggle progressing to a stage where blood was shed, the demand was conceded. As a result of this heroic struggle which encompassed 24 villages including Paganeri, the Paraya people who were cruelly oppressed^ and denied human rights were able to wrest a few rights from their oppressors. A compact to provide them paddy during festive occasions as well as during times of mourning -was concluded.12 The antagonism between the Paraya people and the Brahmin landlords did not cease as a result of winning a few rights by the former. Several struggles continued to erupt against the oppression of the Brahmin and Velala landlords. The movement against taxes, the movement for higher emoluments, along with the movement for ownership of land and the right to cultivate and the agitation for social rights, pushed the oppressed masses into spontaneous struggles. Since the Brahmin and the Velala landlords wielded repressive authority on behalf of the king through the Sabhai and the Ur, many of these movements developed a sharp edge against the landlord class. At one stage Kulothunga III (1178-1218), confronted with a proliferation of these struggles, was compelled to issue prohibitory orders. He decreed that there should be no struggles against Brahmins and Velalas and that those who violated this decree would be fined 20^000 coins. The Kilaiyur inscription provides this crucial evidence of the suppression of struggles against feudal oppression.13 Instances are known, too, of Brahmins opposing Brahmins. One inscription tells us of the fine imposed on Kuvaniyan Sreekapatan, Sree Krishnan and Sreekapatan Periyandan for setting fire to the house of a Brahmin named Harinarayanan.x 4 One Brahmin immolated himself to express his protest against a temple management which had refused him a right in the temple.3 5 Brahmins less privileged were forced to fight against the denial of justice by those Brahmins who dominated the Ur and the Sabhai. The Punjai inscription of the Thanjavur region tells us of the immolation of four Tirusula Velaikarar (temple servants) as a protest against the appropriation of the lands they cultivated into temple property. 16 N Vanamamalai, a Tamil scholar, considers self-immolation a form of protest prevalent in that period.17 One inscription suggests that such acts of self-immolation were fairly frequent.1 B From the announcement that lands were gifted to the heirs of those who perished through •self-immolation, one may conclude not only that self-immolation as a form