58 SOCIAL SCIENTIST the landlord from actual cultivation and the accompanying ritual ban on a Brahmin using a plough—that is, engaging in labour. Apart from land monopoly, the incidence of landownership by Brahmins has traditionally been high in Thanjavur. In 1807, the Tanjore Committee in its report recorded that "there is hardly a family of this colony which does not hold land on ordinary mirasi tenure in Tanjore." To substantiate this statement, they quoted the fact that the Brahmins constituted over 27 percent of the total number of mirasdars (62,048). An 1676-77 jamabandi is even more revealing. Out of 136,532 pattas the Brahmins held 37,736, although the entire Brahmin population formed only 6.42 percent of the district's total population*3 Social Dominance of the Brahmin Community With this land monopoly, there had traditionally been a peculiar social monopoly exercised by this caste over the lives of the people in Thanjavur's villages. It has been observed that in brahmadeya villages which were to be 'purified5 of landownership by other castes, the Brahmin landlords were expected to absorb the land owned by other castes. But there were villages with heterogenous caste land ownership. In such villages there traditionally were two village assemblies—the sabha, formed of all the Brahmins and the ur, which was composed of other castes. Membership of both assemblies was restricted to landowners. The interesting feature of this system was that if landowners who were members of the lesser category of village assemblies fulfilled certain conditions, that is, acquired high educational qualification3 to enable them to match the Brahmin's vaunted skill in debating, they could become members of the sabha. Im Thanjavur» in the citadel of Brahminism, as many as nine different castes are known to have owned land on a significant scale. What is even more significant is that as a fesult of changes over a period of time, among the largest landlords in Thanjavur today arc mot Brahmins but Mwpanars (like the present President of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (I), Villalers and Naidus. And this is not a recent phenomenon. Manyi of these huge landlords have Awned land since the Mahratta Rajas, under whom they probably served as military officers, and erven earlier. The historical importance of the village assemblies cannot be overemphasized. In a commumty where elements of common landuwnership persisted, all major agricultural operations wete organized and planned by the village coaaimuirity 6f landlords* In a closed stratified Society, which was hierarchically orgaateed, all