Documenta Nepalica

Documents on the History of Religion and Law of Pre-modern Nepal
Version with DOI and citation guidelines Editorial Principles

A rukkā from King Surendra to the jogīs of the Bārhapantha re the ānāmānā payment and the funding of patrapūjā (VS 1896)

ID: K_0471_0014


Edited and translated by Christof Zotter
Created: 2017-02-07; Last modified: 2018-06-15
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, . 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

In response to a complaint by the maṇḍalī Bholanātha over disruption in the customary payment of certain levies to the Bāhrapantha, this executive order of King Surendra, addressing the jogīs of the Bāhrapantha, orders that, as before, the darāis, kumāles and danuvāras shall provide the ānāmānā payment and the mājhīs shall fund the patrapūjā.



Diplomatic edition

[1r]

[...]

[royal seal]

1स्वस्ति­श्रीमन्महाराजाधिराजकस्य­रुक्का­¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
2आगे­•वार्‍हपंथ­जोगिहरूके­•हाम्रा­भर­मुलुकका­कुमाल­दर‌ई­द
3नुव़ारले­आनामाना­घाटका­माझिहरूले­पत्रपूजा­हिजैदेषि­वार्‍ह
4पंथलाई­तीमीहरूले­तीरिआयाको­हो­वीचमा­अटकाईदीय़ा­भ
5नि­मंडली­भोलानाथ­जोगिले­हाम्रा­हजूरमा­वींती­गर्दा­जाहेर­भ
6यो­तसर्थ­वार्‍हपंथि­जोगिको­रकम्‌­पत्रपूजा­र­आनामाना­अट
7क्याको­फुकाइवक्स्यौं­दराई­कुमाल­दनुव़ारले­आनामाना­घाटका­
8माझिहरूले­पत्रपूजा­वार्‍हपंथलाई­षसोषास­भरिदेउ­•जसले­
9षिचला­गर्ला­सो­अपसरिया­होला­•ईति­सम्वत­१८९६­साल­मिति­मा
10घ­सुदि­४­रोज­५­शुभम्

[1v]

⟪[two seals]⟫

1[...]साहः­
2रूजू­तारानाथ­अर्ज्याल्‌­•रूजू­करवीर­पाँडे­
3[...]रणजोर­थापा­

⟪[two seals]⟫

Translation

[1r]

[Venerable Durgājyū] 1

[royal seal]

Hail! [This is] an executive order of the supreme king of great kings.

To: the jogīs (of the) Bārhapantha

Since earlier times (lit. yesterday), the darāis, kumāles [and] danuvāras of our whole country have been customarily paying ānāmānā2 , [and] the mājhīs of the ghats [the expenses] for the patrapūjā3 to the Bārhapantha. 4 It came to [our] notice when the maṇḍalīBholānātha Jogi made petition to us that [these payments] have since been halted. Therefore, we will undo (phukāibaksyaũ) 5 the bārhapanthi jogīs' revenue (rakam), patrapūjā and ānāmānā [all] having come to a halt. The darāis, kumāles and danuvāras shall properly (khasokhāsa) make full [payment of] the ānāmānā [and] the mājhīs of the ghats [that for] the patrapūjā, to the Bārhapantha. He who holds back on full [payment] will be [considered] a rebel (apsariyā).

Thursday, the 4th of the bright fortnight of Māgha of the [Vikrama] era year 1896 (1840 CE). Auspiciousness.

[1v]

[two seals]6

[...]7 Sāha

attested: Tārānātha Arjyāl; 8 attested: Karavīra Pā̃ḍe

[...]9 Raṇajora Thāpā

[two seals]


Commentary

Also available in the Guṭhī Saṃsthāna (Pokā no. 10, 60/84, Bha. Gu. La. Ja. [Guṭhī Lagata Jā̃ca], Ms. no. 1) is a copy of the rukkā, assented to by the abbot (pīramahanta) of Mṛgasthalī, Dhārīnātha (in office 1905-16). It was filmed by the NGMPP twice, under reel-nos. K 44/67E and K 440/12 (see K_0440_0012). Another copy (Pokā no. 10, 60/84, Bha. Gu. La. Ja., Ms. no. [?]), assented to by abbot (pīrajī) Nārānnātha, was filmed under reel-no. NGMPP K 451/58 (see K_0451_0058) .

In earlier documents regarding the privileges of the central overseer (maṇḍalāi) of jogīs (for references, see K_0469_0009), the darāis, kumāles, danuvāras and mājhīs (without any further specifications) along with a number of other ethnic or professional groups (jāta) are ordered to pay one ānā per household as a customary fee (dastura) and to offer food (to the jogīs) morning and evening. In these documents, neither is the institution of the Bārhapantha mentioned, nor is a distinction made between different levies assigned to specific groups.

Not much is known about the life of the darāis, kumāles and danuvāras at that time or about the reasons for the conflict the rukkā was meant to resolve. Fortunately, at least with regard to the mājhīs of the ghats, the fishermen who were obliged to provide ferry services and transportation of mail and supplies under the hulāka system, some information is available that helps to explain the situation. M.C. Regmi 1978: 95f. (with reference to RRC 34: 516f.) summarizes a complaint of the mājhīs of "Syalpa Ghat" that was made to the government just two years before the present document. 10 As the headmen (mījhāra) of the mājhīs reported, four of the eleven mājhī families had left the place after a flood washed away their land in Benitar, and the remaining families, having no adequate means of livelihood and lacking any fiscal concessions, were not able to stay and provide services anymore. According to Regmi (ibid.: 96), the government thereupon evicted tenants on jagīra land (land assigned as an emolument) in Khurkot and allotted it to the remaining mājhī families. Furthermore, the mājhīs were exempted from the obligation to provide unpaid labour services (jhārā, beṭha, begāra) for other purposes, and from the payment of the maṇḍalī levy for the jogīs.

A similar case is documented in a rukkā (filmed under reel-no. NGMPP E 3416/9) to the mājhīs of Paiṅyũ Ghāṭa and their mījhāra, dated Sunday, the 5th day of the bright fortnight of Māgha of the [Vikrama] era year 1895 (1839 CE). In order for them to "operate the river landings" (ghāṭa calāunu), pākho land was assigned to the mājhīs as kipaṭa. The addressees had to pay sermā and sāunyāphāgu but were granted an exemption from supplying other revenues (aru rakaṃ mārīmeṭī māpha baksī). As the royal edict to the jogīs of the Bārhapantha issued in the following year shows, such concessions were not permanent, but could be reversed without prior notice.

Notes

1. The imprint of the royal seal indicates that the document is an original edict, but the invocation the document should therefore start with is not visible in the photograph. The addition is based on the filmed copy K 451/58. According to another copy (K 44/67E and K 440/12) the invocation is "śrī" (for the copies, see Commentary). [⇑]

2. The meaning of the term is unclear. In modern Nepali ānomāno can denote a small sum in cash or kind (see Parājulī et al. VS 2072: s.v.). In other documents, the above-mentioned groups are ordered to offer food to the jogīs morning and evening (see Commentary). Accordingly, ānomāno might be understood as a portion of food (or the money to purchase it) provided to sustain the ascetics (cf. Parājulī et al. VS 2072: s.v. mānu/māno and mānā-cāmala). The cataloguers of the NGMPP took ānāmānāghāṭa as a place-name ("mājhis of Ānāmānā Ghāṭa"), but it is more plausible that the text speaks of two different levies, the ānāmānā and that for the patrapūjā or pātrapūjā (see below). [⇑]

3. The term patrapūjā, lit. "leaf worship", in the certified copies (see Commentary) written patrapujā, does not make much sense in this context. More plausible would be pātrapūjā, lit. "vessel worship" (cf. Unbescheid 1980: 178 who briefly refers to the present document and explains "pātrapūjā" as cakrapūjā). One may also think of the worship of the pātradevatā (or amṛtapātra) which is of central importance for the Nātha ritual tradition (see Bouillier 2017: 30f. and passim). [⇑]

4. The sentence contains the MGH 2nd per. pl. pronoun tīmīharūle, which does not fit the present context. If it refers to the addressees, one would expect tīmīharūlāi. If the aforementioned groups are meant, tinīharūle would be correct. [⇑]

5. The word phukāunu used in the compound verb literally means "to untie, unfasten" etc. but also "to remove an obstacle" ("bādhā-aḍkāu ādi haṭāuna lāunu" Parājulī et al. VS 2072: s.v. phukāunu). [⇑]

6. The rukkā is part of a series of documents glued to each other. Two round seals were impressed over the splices. While the text of the larger seal is illegible, the legend of the smaller one reads: śrī hīrālāla 61. [⇑]

7. The signee's first name (and probably his function) is covered by another document glued to the present one. [⇑]

8. Tārānātha Arjyāl's signature is found in other documents, too. For a rukkā addressing the Biṣṭa of Dzarkot (1842 CE) which he (and Abhīmānasiṃ Rānā) signed as mārphat, see Pant and Pierce 1989: 84, 86 (doc. 21). [⇑]

9. If the signee's function was mentioned, this information has been lost (cf. n. 7). [⇑]

10. The date is given as the 11th of the dark fortnight of Māgha of the [Vikrama era year] 1894 (1838 CE). [⇑]