Commentary

This rukkā, issued under the authority of King Rājendra Vikrama Śāha in 1834 CE, is much more than a routine order about temple management. It defines the sacred landscape around Gokarṇeśvara, sets different rules for different caste groups, establishes methods of ritual purification and shows how the Śāha state used royal authority to protect and regulate sacred spaces.

I. The Sacred Landscape

One of the most striking features of the decree is the way it divides the temple area into several zones, each with its own set of restrictions. Each is identified by way of rivers, ponds and other landmarks, and each has its own rules about who may enter and what activities are allowed. Although some place names are difficult to identify today, the document ends by referring to "the three cities," making it clear that these rules applied across the wider Kathmandu Valley to include parts of Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur.

The outer zone stretches south of the Sūryebhāgā River, north of the Karmanāsā River, east of Rāval Pokharī, and west of Bhīmasen Sthan. Here, no one, regardless of caste or occupation, was allowed to kill fish or birds.

The middle zone, defined by Śrī Vāsukī, Mula Vārā, Sānu Satal and Ṭhulā Saṃlu, had stricter rules. Poḍhyās were completely barred from entering. If dogs or birds brought in carcasses and polluted the area, the Kasāhīs were responsible for removing them, after which the area had to be purified with pañcagavya.

The innermost zone lay along the banks of the Bagmati between its confluences, in the north, with the Sūrye Bhāgā, and in the south with the Karmanāsā’s waters. On the day of Kuśe Āmāvāsī, the strictest rules applied to it. Poḍhyās, Cyāmyās and even villagers were forbidden from entering.

These three zones show that sacredness was measured on a sliding scale. The closer one came to the ritual centre, the stricter the rules became. The restrictions also changed according to the ritual calendar, becoming most severe on the shrine’s most important day, Kuśe Āmāvāsī.

II. Water and Sacred Geography

Most of the boundaries in the decree are defined by rivers, streams, ponds or their surrounding areas. This shows that water formed the basis of the sacred geography.

In the Kathmandu Valley, the Bagmati holds a place similar to that of the Ganges in the wider Hindu world. Its waters are believed to be both naturally sacred and essential for successful ritual performance. The temple's sacred landscape therefore depended on the river itself, and the decree protected that landscape by setting up legal boundaries around it.

The document also shows that this sacred geography was monitored by the state. The king defined the protected areas, appointed local dvāre, pradhāna and nāike officials along with local gentry (bhalā mānisa) to enforce the rules, and ordered that violations be reported to the amālī (revenue officer). Sacred authority and royal administration worked together.

III. Ritual Purity

The main purpose of the decree was to preserve ritual purity. Each rule addresses a different source of pollution.

The ban on killing fish and birds prevented the impurity associated with death. Although these animals were not normally protected in the same way as cattle, killing them was forbidden within the sacred area. This may reflect the mixed Hindu and Buddhist traditions of Gokarṇeśvara. Hindus worship the deity as Mahādeva (Śiva), while Buddhists identify the site with the Bodhisattva Gaganagañja. Buddhist ideas of non-violence may have strengthened this broad ban on killing.

The exclusion of Poḍhyās reflects another idea of ritual purity: caste-based pollution. Here, impurity was linked to inherited social status rather than individual behaviour. The rule about stray animals shows that pollution could also come from non-human sources. The Kasāhīs were responsible for removing dead animals or other sources of impurity, and the site was then purified with pañcagavya, a mixture of milk, curd, clarified butter, cow urine and cow dung that was widely used in Brahmanical purification rituals.

The special restrictions on Kuśe Aũsī (Bhādra Kṛṣṇa Aũsī) reflect the importance of ritual time. This festival is dedicated to performing pitṛśrāddha and tarpaṇa, the rites for deceased fathers and ancestors, and is widely known in Nepal as Father's Day. These ceremonies required especially high standards of purity, because they involved contact with the world of the dead, and their success depended on the purity of the participants, the ritual materials and the sacred waters of the Bagmati. Since many pilgrims gathered on this day, protecting the river from pollution became even more important. The decree therefore imposed its broadest restrictions during this annual event.

IV. Caste and Access

The decree clearly distinguishes between two kinds of restriction.

The ban on killing fish and birds applied to everyone. It regulated behaviour and had to be followed by everyone regardless of caste.

The bans on Poḍhyās and Cyāmyās were different. They were based entirely on inherited social status rather than personal actions. Good behaviour could not remove these restrictions, because they were tied to caste identity. This reflects the wider South Asian system in which ritual purity shaped social hierarchy. Behavioural impurity could usually be removed through purification or the passage of time, but caste-based impurity was treated as permanent and managed through exclusion from sacred spaces.

The role of the Kasāhīs speaks to the same purpose. Their work involved removing sources of pollution, a task assigned because of their traditional social position. Their labour helped to maintain the purity of the sacred space, while also reinforcing existing caste roles.

Other groups listed in the decree—dvāre, pradhāna, nāike and bhalā mānisas—were not themselves subject to these purity rules. Their duty was simply to enforce the king's orders and report offences to the amālī. This reveals a basic but effective administrative system linking royal authority with local governance.

V. The Śāha State: Maintaining Purity in Its Capital

Taken as a whole, the decree shows how sacred geography, ritual purity and caste hierarchy were closely connected in the Kathmandu Valley under early Śāha rule. The temple was not treated as a single sacred space but as a series of zones with different levels of holiness, each protected by different rules. Purity was seen as something that had to be constantly maintained through regulation, purification rituals and a division of responsibilities among different social groups.

Rather than creating a new sacred order, the king formally recognized and enforced an existing one. The decree did not invent the sacred geography of Gokarṇeśvara; it gave it the force of royal law. This fits the broader pattern of Śāha rule, in which the monarchy strengthened its authority by presenting itself as the guardian of inherited religious traditions. What appears to be a simple administrative order therefore provides valuable evidence for understanding the religious, social and political organization of the Kathmandu Valley in the early nineteenth century.

Notes