Documenta Nepalica

Commentary

Another copy of the same document was microfilmed twice, as K_0031_0001D and K_0348_0002. That copy, which does not include the royal praśasti, summarizes the two right-hand columns of the table, to the effect that on Caitrāṣṭamī the same things are needed as during the main Dasaĩ (caitrā dasaimā pujā mula dasai vamojīma cāhīncha). Still another copy of the lālamohara was microfilmed as K_0084_0041C together with two other documents (K_0084_0041A and K_0084_0041B). The first of these (K_0084_0041A) is a declaration of four guṭhiyāras that was made on the 7th of the bright fortnight of Kārttika in VS 1943 (1886 CE). It lays out the revenue, expenditures and activities of the trust (guṭhi) that go into organizing the worship during both Dasaĩ festivals at the temple of Śrī Bhagavatī at Palāñcoka. It refers to a lālamohara issued in VS 1847, the original of the present copy, as the first authoritative basis for this.

As alluded to in the present document, and as also clear from other documents issued in the VS 1840s in its early days, the proper operation of this guṭhi must have been affected by some unclear legal difficulty. Although—as all later documents agree—a kheta (i.e. 100 muris of paddy) at Rānīpokharī had been endowed by Pṛthvīnārāyaṇa Śāha for supplying worship material for both daily worship (nityapūjā) and worship during the two Dasaĩ festivals,16 the scheme for distributing revenue from the landed property to support the various temple rituals seems to have been left open. As specified in a letter by KaparadāraKālīdāsa Khaḍkā in VS 1841 (1785 CE), previously everything had been under the charge of a Buddhist temple priest, Bhagavanta Bāḍā, who was responsible for the nityapūjā (see K_0579_0071). A conflict arose when the guṭhi supporting Dasaĩ activities started operating. In the words of the present document, "the amālī and the temple priests stirred up a fracas." The present lālamohara cleared up that situation by authorizing a settlement whereby the guṭhi was granted the right to the revenue from 30 of the 100 muris of land. Note that this was less than the 50 muris that were previously assigned to the guṭhi, both in the kaparadāra’s VS 1841 letter (K_0579_0071) and repeated in another letter from Devāna(s) Nāhāra Siṃha, Abhimāna Siṃha, Dhaukala Siṃha and Jahara Siṃha written in VS 1844 (1787 CE, K_0579_0072).

In comparison to the earlier documents from VS 1841 (K_0579_0071) and VS 1844 (K_0579_0072), not only was the share in landed property diminished, but the list of resources to be mobilized on the basis of its revenue was paradoxically extended. Whereas the earlier documents stipulated that one he-buffalo, one he-goat and one rupee for a gift of lamps (dīpadāna), bheṭī and dakṣiṇā were to be supplied for both Dasaĩs, along with material for the worship with five offerings (pañcopacārapūjā) for the autumnal Dasaĩ, here the list is topped up by two more he-goats and 14 pairs of silver miniature eyes. The pañcopacārapūjā was to be carried out for two different forms of the goddess and on both festive occasions. Moreover, food provisions (sidhā) for Brahmins and musicians, and festive meals (bhoja) for guṭhiyāras and desuvāras as well, figure in. This does not necessarily imply an expansion of what material was supplied by the guṭhi, but it may represent a more faithful account of what was usually supplied under its oversight.

The scheme to share the revenue from the land at Rānīpokharī as fixed in the present document seems to have been not as binding as it appears. According to the guṭhi's proceedings in VS 1943 (1886 CE), at that time the field at Rānīpokharī was distributed in equal shares of 25 muris each among four guṭhiyāras: Pūjāhāri Hirānanda Gubhāju, the elder (thakālī) Bhairava Siṃ Śreṣṭa, Rāma Siṃ Śreṣṭa and Cāme Śreṣṭa (K_0084_0041A). Each of them submitted 7 muris and 10 pāthīs of rice (dhāna)—the ensuing 30 muris being equivalent to a sum of 40 mohararupaiyā̃s—and additionally half a rupee as the ghiu khāne levy. The sum of 42 rupees was stated as the guṭhi's annual income. Thus it seems that about a century later the complete field, formerly shared between supplying the daily worship under the charge of the Buddhist pūjāhārī and supplying the Dasaĩs under the charge of the guṭhi, had come to be completely under the charge of the guṭhi, and the Buddhist temple priest too had been brought under his fold. Though the control of the guṭhi over the land had increased, its revenue was not sufficient anymore to cover the expenditures for the Dasaĩ rituals. Therefore the account from VS 1943 includes many sums that could "not be covered by the produce of the guṭhi land" (guṭhi jagākā paidāvāṭa ṣarca nahune).

Notes