Check the image paths!
DNA_0003_0025
Version with DOI and citation guidelines Editorial Principles

A letter from Bālāśaṃkara re a visit paid by Ekakṛṣṇa Vaidya to Delhi (VS 1893)

ID: DNA_0003_0025


Edited and translated by Nirajan Kafle and Rajan Khatiwoda in collaboration with Pabitra Bajracharya
Created: 2024-09-11; Last modified: 2024-12-06
For the metadata of the document, click here

Published by Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Documents on the History of Religion and Law of Pre-modern Nepal, Heidelberg, Germany, 2024. Published by the courtesy of the National Archives, Kathmandu. The copyright of the facsimile remains with the Nepal Rashtriya Abhilekhalaya (National Archives, Government of Nepal). All use of the digital facsimiles requires prior written permission by the copyright holder. See Terms of Use.
The accompanying edition, translation/synopsis and/or commentary are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License CCby-SA.

Abstract

This letter sent by Bālāśaṃkara from Delhi informs of a 12-day period spent by Ekakṛṣṇa Vaidya in the Delhi region prior to his heading on to Lahore.


Diplomatic edition

[1r]

1॥श्री­॥

1॥श्रीदुर्ग्गायै­नम­:॥

1नं­२५८­

1"स्वस्ति­श्रीसर्वोपमानोपमेयशौर्योदार्यादिसकलसद्गुण
2गणालंकृतराजिराजितराजभारोद्धरणसामर्थ्य­श्रीश्री
3श्रीश्रीश्रीमत्‌­कमान्यरइञ्चिफ़­जनरल­साहब­भीम
4सैन­थापाजीक­योग्येषु­।इत­:बालाशंकरस्यस­सहस्रा
5शीर्वादपूर्वकपत्रमिदम्‌­।अत्र­कुशलं­तत्र­भवतां­सर्वा
6ङ्‍गेषु­कुशलं­वांछामि­।अग्रे­बृत्तान्तम्‌­।अर्सा­महीने­२­
7का­हुवा­।मेरी­अर्जी­सर्कारके­चरणोमे­नहीं­पहोँची­।–
8गरीब­पर्वर­मेरे­।सबब­इसका­ये­है­।बन्दा­अपने­छोटे­भा
9ईकी­शादी­कर्नेके­वास्ते­पटियालेमे­गया­हुवा­था­।सो­सर्का
10रके­इकबाल­से­।बखुबी­शादी­कर्के­दिल्ली­मे­हाजिर­हुवा­हूँ­।
11ज्येष्ट­वदी­४­रोज­मे­।वैद्यराज­एककृष्णजी­दिल्लीके­डेरे­दा
12खिल­हुवे­।वारह­रोज­मुकाम­किया­।मगर­।दिल्लीमे­न
13ही­आए­।दिल्लीके­बाहर­बागमे­डेरा­किया­था­।सो­दिल्ली­
14मे­जो­काम­काबिल­बनवाने­के­था­उसका­सरंजाम­कर्के­
15ज्येष्ट­सुदी­प्रतिपदा­रोजमे­दिल्लीसे­कूँच­कर्के­लाहौर
16को­गए­।आज­तलक­चिठी­लाहौरसे­कोई­आई­नही­है­
17वास्ते­इत्तिलाहके­अरज­रखता­हूँ­।बन्दा­सर्कारके­चरणो­
18से­बहोत­पर्वर्शका­उम्मैदवार­है­।जो­कार­खिजम⟪त⟫­मेरे­
19लायक­होय­सो­।सर्कार­से­आज्ञा­होती­रहे­।तो­मेरे­हक्क­
20मे­बेहेतर­है­।पर्चा­अख़बारका­मैने­अर्जीके­साथ­भे
21जा­है­।सो­सर्कारमे­पहोँचता­है­।सं­१८९३­द्वि­।­आषाढ­वदी­१०­⟪रो­६­⟫
22॥अर्जी­बालाशंकर­ब्राह्मणकी­॥

Translation

[1r]

No. 285

1

Śrī

Veneration to Goddess Durgā

Hail! This letter (arjī) with a thousand auspicious blessings, is from Bālāśaṃkara to the fivefold venerable General Commander-in-Chief, the honourable Bhīmasena Thāpā, who is adorned with a multitude of excellent virtues such as heroism (śaurya) and nobility (audārya), who [is beyond] all exalted comparison (upamā) and subjects of comparison (upameya), and is capable of bearing royal duties.

I am well here; I wish Your Excellency well-being there in all respects (sarvāṅga). Furthermore (agre): The matter at hand is that it is already the month of second Asāra (i.e. Āṣāḍha), [and] my arjī has not reached Your Excellency's (sarkāra) feet. O Lord of the poor! The reason for this is that [your] devotee was in Paṭiyāla (i.e. Patiala) seeing to his younger brother's wedding. By the grace of Your Excellency, I was [able to] successfully have the wedding performed and have now returned to Delhi. On the 4th of the dark fortnight of the month of Jyeṣṭha, the honourable Vaidyarāja Ekakṛṣṇa2 arrived at the monastery (ḍere) of Delhi. He stayed for twelve days but did not come to [the centre of] Delhi; instead, he stayed outside of Delhi in a monastery at a place called Bāga. Thus, he made arrangements for whatever tasks he had in Delhi to be completed, and on the first day of the bright fortnight of Jyeṣṭha he set out for Lahore from Delhi. As of today, I have not received any letter from Lahore. [Your] devotee is requesting information [from there]. I am a strong candidate at the feet of Your Excellency for your favour. Should there be any work suitable for my services, it would be gratifying to keep receiving Your Excellency's directives. I have sent a newspaper clipping along with my arjī. It is on its way to Your Excellency.

On Friday, the 10th dark fortnight of the second (dvitīya) Āṣāḍha in the [Vikrama] era year 1893 (1836).

This arjī is from Bālāśaṃkara Brāhmaṇa.


Commentary

In this letter, Bālāśaṃkara informs Prime Minister Bhīmasena Thāpā of his recent activities, and explains his delayed response as due to having attended a brother’s wedding in Patiala. He also mentions Vaidyarāja Ekakṛṣṇa’s brief stay at a Delhi monastery before departing for Lahore, though the purpose of his stay remains unclear. The letter hints at Bālāśaṃkara’s Punjabi ties and highlights formal arrangements for dignitaries in Delhi. His consistent requests for directives and his inclusion of a newspaper clipping underscore his role as a diligent informant within Nepal’s diplomatic network.


Notes

1. This is the manuscript number inserted by the National Archives for their internal recording purposes. []

2. He had been granted land by the king the previous year (DNA_0016_0007). The Nepalese royal court had vaidyas (Ayurvedic physicians), the head of them being titled vaidyarāja.Two vaidyas, Gaṃgānātha and Cakrapāṇi, were notably present among the dignitaries during the promulgation of the Mulukī Ain of 1854 (Khatiwoda, Cubelic, and Michaels 2021, 88). As noted ibid., 66, Nepal’s 19th-century health system lacked state support, but there were specific rules for medical treatment. Vaidyas risked confiscation of property if they improperly treated a patient, and if death occurred due to unpurified substances, the doctor was required to swallow the same medicine. The relevant article in the Ain had the following provisions: (1) Medical treatment was to be performed by an experienced and trustworthy practitioner, and false accusations following a death from natural causes led to penalties for the accuser. (2) If unpurified or improperly prepared substances were given and the patient died, the doctor had to consume the same dose to determine malice or natural causes. (3) If the substance was properly purified and administered, the death was considered natural, and false accusations resulted in fines. (4) If surgery was consented to by the patient or their family and the patient died, it was considered a mishap, not malpractice (ibid., 359-360). []