(Photo Courtesy: Google)
Abstract
This paper explores the traditional system of village establishment and administration in Assam during the Ahom era, with particular emphasis on the reforms introduced by Momai Tamuli Barbarua, one of the most distinguished administrators of seventeenth-century Assam. His reforms in the khel and pāika systems restructured Assamese rural life, creating self-sufficient and socially balanced villages. Drawing upon oral traditions and local knowledge transmitted through generations, this study reconstructs how occupational and administrative organization during the Ahom period fostered a form of social socialism long before colonial or modern political ideologies appeared in the region. The paper further discusses the socio-economic logic of this system and its relevance to present-day Assamese society.
Keywords: Momai Tamuli Barbarua, Ahom
administration, village structure, pāika system, khel organization, Assamese
socialism, pre-colonial Assam, rural economy.
1. Introduction:
The Ahom kingdom (1228–1826 CE) of Assam represents one of the most organized and sustained political systems in pre-colonial India. Among its numerous administrators, Momai Tamuli Barbarua (active during the reign of King Pratap Singha, early 17th century) is remembered as a visionary organizer who rebuilt the Assamese village structure with extraordinary efficiency and foresight.
The structure of the Assamese village that persisted until the pre-colonial period owes much to his administrative model. It combined occupational organization, land distribution, and communal cooperation into a framework that maintained both economic productivity and social harmony.
2. Historical Context and
Administrative Philosophy:
Momai Tamuli Barbarua was not only a high-ranking officer but also a social architect who understood the organic relationship between livelihood and community. His reforms aimed to bring together people of similar occupations to form self-sustaining production groups known as khels.
Each khel consisted of members of a particular occupational group — potters, blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brass and bell-metal workers (Marīās), Brahmins, artisans, weavers, and others. These khels were not strictly bound by religion or caste but by their means of livelihood, reflecting a socio-economic rather than a sectarian approach to community organization.
This occupational grouping gave rise to a functional social order, where each group contributed a specific service to the collective life of the village. The interdependence among khels ensured that no household or village was entirely dependent on outside markets, fostering a cooperative and self-sufficient economy.
3. The Pāika System: Backbone of Ahom
Administration:
Central to this administrative structure was the pāika system, a unique socio-military organization that integrated civil duties, agriculture, and defense.
Initially, each pāika unit consisted of four able-bodied men. Momai Tamuli Barbarua reformed the system by reducing this to three able-bodied men per household, known respectively as the Mūla, Devāla, and Nevāla.
Ø The Mūla : the primary worker who served directly when called upon.
Ø The Devāla : the substitute who assisted or replaced the Mūla when needed.
Ø The Nevāla : responsible for maintaining the household and field when the Mūla was in royal service.
Ten such pāikas were placed under a Bora (officer of ten). Ten Boras were commanded by a Saikia (officer of one hundred), ten Saikias under a Hazarika (officer of a thousand), followed by Rajkhowa and Phukan at higher administrative levels. This graded hierarchy maintained order and communication from the village to the royal court.
4. Land Distribution and Labour Ethics:
Each pāika household was granted two puras of farmland — approximately 10,715 square metres, locally known as gāmāṭi.
In return, every able-bodied man was required to serve the king for four months annually. “Service in the king’s house” did not merely mean palace duty; it encompassed all sectors of royal administration — from civil and military works to temple construction, agricultural maintenance, and public infrastructure.
When one member of the household was in service, the other two were responsible for his land and family, ensuring continuity of production and social security. This system created a cyclic model of duty, balancing personal, communal, and state responsibilities.
Momai Tamuli also codified labour norms. The pāikas were required to construct bamboo dolā (carrying devices), kulā (winnowing trays), sieves, and other necessary tools for both household and community use. Women participated equally through domestic crafts, such as spinning four thread balls per cycle, reinforcing the gendered balance of labour within the system.
5. Village Structure and Social
Composition:
Through the khel and pāika systems, Momai Tamuli effectively reconstructed the Assamese village into a self-sustaining and cooperative unit. Villages were organized not along religious or linguistic lines but according to occupational specialization.
Thus, every village contained clusters of interdependent craftsmen, cultivators, priests, artisans and others. The exchange of services and goods within the same locality ensured economic independence, minimal inequality, and a sense of collective responsibility.
This model also limited social conflict: as individuals were united by work and locality rather than sectarian identity, the system fostered mutual respect and interdependence. The Ahom administration thereby achieved what modern economists might call functional socialism — a system balancing production, labour, and resource distribution through communal ethics rather than capital accumulation.
6. Socio-Economic and Cultural
Implications:
The Ahom village model under Momai Tamuli Barbarua reveals a pre-modern example of sustainable
governance.
Its key features included:
i. Occupational interdependence — ensuring economic balance and communal integrity.
ii. Cyclic labour service — maintaining productivity alongside civic duty.
iii. Decentralized administration — empowering local officers within a clear hierarchy.
iv. Cultural inclusivity — merging multiple faiths under the unity of livelihood.
Such a model provided both security and dignity of labour, qualities often missing in later colonial or capitalist frameworks. The system also allowed for the integration of art, ritual, and craftsmanship into the moral economy of the village — sustaining Assamese cultural identity across centuries.
7. Decline and Modern Relevance:
In the post-Ahom and colonial periods, the cooperative structure gradually dissolved as capitalist and religious bases of settlement emerged. Villages began to be formed on linguistic, religious, or urban-cosmopolitan principles, leading to the fragmentation of traditional community ties.
Modern Assamese society, therefore, faces challenges of social conflict and economic disparity that were largely absent in the older system. Revisiting the Ahom model offers insights into decentralized governance, rural sustainability, and inclusive social planning — ideas still relevant to contemporary rural development.
8. Conclusion:
Momai Tamuli Barbarua’s administrative reforms stand as a profound example of indigenous governance rooted in social equity and economic sustainability. His model of village formation — based on occupational khels, cyclic service, and cooperative living — demonstrates how traditional Assamese society achieved balance without dependence on modern capitalism.
For scholars, policy-makers, and seekers of cultural knowledge, the Ahom
system provides a historical framework for understanding social harmony through livelihood integration. Its enduring values
remind us that true civilization thrives not by accumulation, but by
cooperation — a principle that remains vital in our fragmented modern world.
0 Comments