Documenta Nepalica

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

A lālamohara of King Rājendra reconfirming the exemption of Guruṅs, Ghales, Lāmās, the four jātas, the sixteen jātas etc. from aputālī, cākacakuī and pharneulo (VS 1883)

ID: DNA_0014_0022


Edited and translated by Christof Zotter
Created: 2017-07-24; Last modified: 2023-01-27
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, 2017. 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 lālamohara of King Rājendra, addressing the Guruṅs, Ghales, Lāmās, the four jātas and the sixteen jātas throughout the realm, sanctions a thiti bandeja through a copperplate, according to which the addressees are granted an exemption from payment of cākacakuī and pharneulo fines, the state acquisition of aputālī, and enslavement as punishment for other offences. It is furthermore specified that Lāmās and Ghyābriṅs can be employed as necessary, but that Brahmanical rituals are to be performed by Upādhyā Brahmins.



Diplomatic edition

[1r]

1श्रीदुर्गाज्यू­\

1श्रीवुवाज्यू­

[royal seal]

1स्वस्ति­श्रीगिरिराजचक्रचूडामणिनरनारायणेत्यादिविविधविरुदाव•
2लीविराजमानमानोन्नतश्रीमन्महाराजाधिराजश्रीश्रीश्रीमहाराजरा•
3जेन्द्रविक्रमसाहवहादुरसमसेरजङ्गदेवानां­सदा­समरविजयिनाम्‌­
4आगे­हाम्रा­भर­मुलूकका­गुरूं­घले­लामा­चारजात­सोर्‍हजात­गैर्‍हके­•
5¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯वाट­अपुतालि­चाकचकुई­फर्नेऊलो­माफ­गरिवक्सनु­भया
6को­रहेछ­•आज­हामिवाट­पनी­तिमिहरूका­अघिदेषी­चलीआयाको­
7रितिथिति­अपुताली­चाकचकुई­फर्नेऊलो­हाम्रा­दर्वारमा­पस्याका­प
8सुईवाहिक­माफ­•गरि­•लामा­घाव्रिंले­गर्नु­पार्न्या­काम­लामा­घाव्रिंवा
9ट­गराऊनु­व्रार्ह्मणवाट­गराऊनु­पार्न्या­काम­ऊपाध्या­व्रार्ह्मणवाट­गरा
10ऊनु­औ­विराव़­माफिकका­षतमा­दंड­सासना­गर्नु­जिय­नमासनु­•भ•
11नी­थिति­वंदेज­वाधि­ताम्वापत्र­गरिवक्स्यौं­ईति­सम्वत­१८८३­साल­मि
12ति­वैसाष­सुदि­१०­रोज­४­शुभम्म्ं‌­¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯

[1v]

1⟪४४३­⟫

1⟪(३५)­⟫

1मार्फत्‌­प्राण­साह­

1मार्फत्‌­दलभजन­पाँडे­

1मार्फत्‌­भीमसेन­थापा­

1मार्फत­उदय­गिरि­

1मार्फत्‌­रणोद्योत­साह­

1मार्फत्‌­वालनरसिं­[...]व़र­

1मार्फत­भक्तवीर­थापा­मार्फत्‌­प्रसादसिंह­वस्न्या[...]­

Translation

[1r]

Venerable Durgajyū

Venerable Father1

[royal seal]

Hail! [A decree] of him who is shining with manifold rows of eulogy [such as] ‘The venerable crest-jewel of the multitude of mountain kings’ and Naranārāyaṇa (an epithet of Kṛṣṇa) etc., high in honour, the venerable supreme king of great kings, the thrice venerable great king, Rājendra Vikrama Śāha, the brave swordsman, the divine king always triumphant in war.

Āge: To Guruṅs, Ghales, Lāmās, the four jātas and the sixteen jātas2 etc. throughout our realm

By [our] ----3 [all of you] have been granted an exemption from [the state aquisition of] escheatable property (aputālī), and [the payment of] fines for illicit intra-communal sexual relations (cākacakuī)4 and pharneulo5 . 6 Today we, too, have issued a copperplate sanctioning the [following] custom (thiti bandejabā̃dhi): "In line with the customary practice of your households since earlier times, [all of you]—except for pasuīs7 who enter our palace (darabāra)—are exempted from aputālī, cākacakuī and pharneulo. As to the rituals (kāma) that need to be performed by Lāmās and Ghyābriṅs, have Lāmās and Ghyābriṅs perform them, but the rituals that one needs to have Brahmins perform shall be performed by Upādhyā Brahmins.8 Moreover (au), as punishment for [other] wrongdoing (birāva), [the authority] shall punish [you] with fines [but you] are not to be enslaved."

Wednesday, the 10th of the bright fortnight of Vaiśākha [of the Vikrama] era year 1883 (1826 CE).9 Auspiciousness.10

[1v]

44311

Through (mārphat) Prāṇa Śāha

Through Dalabhajana Pā̃ḍe

Through Bhīmasena Thāpā

Through Udaya Giri

Through Raṇodyota Śāha

Through Bālanarasiṃ Kũvara

Through Bhaktavīra Thāpā

Through Prasāda Siṃha Basnyāt


Commentary

The present document is an example of what Stiller calls the “essential dialogue by which the Hindu ideal was accommodated to local custom” (Stiller 1976: 172; cf. Commentary in DNA_0013_0069). It is part of a whole series of documents regarding the issues addressed. In "A brief history of the Tamu tribe" by Bhovar Palje Tamu and Yarjung Kromchhe Tamu, an appendix to the English translation of Pignède's monograph (Pignède 1993: 479-493), a number of these documents are summarized and commented upon (see under "Royal decrees concerning the Gurung", ibid.: 490-491). It is worthwhile to consider the details provided by these two Guruṅ authors because, they shed some light on the context of the present series of documents and the disputes that punctuate the above-mentioned dialogue, from a perspective that is often only indirectly accessible when studying material stored in archives.

According to the account of Tamu and Tamu, Yaśobrahma Śāha, "the first Hindu king of Lamjung" (ibid.: 490),12 granted the Guruṅs of Lamjung an exemption from cākacakuī and aputālī, but succeeding rulers did not continue this concession (ibid., without reference). The debate over these two issues arose again after the events of 1805/1806 (VS 1862). In that year an order regarding the Guruṅs' annual tribute to the palace was issued (see ibid.). According to other decrees, each Guruṅ and Lāmā household had to send one man to fight on the western front of the expanding Gorkha empire. Government officers were ordered to fine all those who refused to go or who returned without having joined the armed forces commanded by Nayana Siṃha Thāpā.13 After returning from the battle, fought for the Gorkha government and far away from home, the Guruṅs organized themselves "to resist domination, exploitation and unfair taxation" (ibid.) and sent a petition to the government. Referring to the arrangement during the time of King Yaśobrahma, they asked for an exemption from cākacakuī and aputālī in return for the payment of an annual tribute. In a "Lal-Mohor (Mangsir 1865 V.S.)" King Gīrvāṇayuddha granted the exemption but also ordered them "to use [a] Brahmin priest for 10 rituals [probably the Hindu life-cycle rituals (saṃskāra), in Nepal also known as daśakarma or -kriya, CZ] instead of [a] Lama; [a] Gyabri to perform the Argu in tribal religion" (ibid.: 491).14 A "Tamra Patra (Baishak 1873?)" reconfirmed this former arrangement but made, according to Tamu and Tamu's synopsis, an exception for soldiers;15 and in a notably more strict tone urged Guruṅs "[f]rom now onwards [to] use [a] Brahmin priest" (ibid.).

The issue was still not settled, though. In a letter written to the Guruṅs in Kārttika VS 1875, the government offered two alternatives: cākacakuī and aputālī would be unenforced if they used Brahmin priests, otherwise, if they used Guruṅ priests, punishment would be reinstated. As Tamu and Tamu report, the Guruṅs, unwilling to dispense with their own priests, chose to live with the previous arrangement and "did not pay the taxes" (ibid.). Three months later (Māgha VS 1875) a compromise was formulated for the Guruṅs, Lāmās and Ghales of Lamjung. King Rājendra granted them the exemption from cākacakuī and aputālī and allowed them to "[b]e purified by Lama and Gyabri at birth and death" (ibid.).

The present thiti bandeja could be seen as the extension of this compromise to the "whole realm", but modifications from the government side again seemingly led to further quarrels. The mention of the four and the sixteen jātas in the addressee line provoked protests against the hierarchical stratification implied by this distinction16 and, just two years later in VS 1885, an amended version was issued that no longer contained the words in question (see DNA_0012_0053).17

That this and other issues addressed in the historical documents are still of great importance for many Guruṅs in their struggle to assert an ethnic identity of their own becomes obvious when looking at the declarations that were formulated in a nationwide Guruṅ conference held in Pokhara in March 1992:

(1) Gurung history was written and distorted by Brahmins. (2) There are no inferior and superior clan groups in Gurung society. (3) The traditional Gurung priests are the Pa-chyu and the Klabri; Lamas are a more recent addition. (Quoted in Macfarlane 1997: 185)

Interestingly, no mention is made of the Brahmin priests the Gorkha administration so insistently tried to establish in the Guruṅ community.

Notes

1. In the amended VS 1885 version of this document, the number 5 is placed after śrī, indicating that the father (i.e. King Gīrvāṇayuddha) is fivefold venerable. [⇑]

2. The division of the Guruṅs into two groups, namely the four (cāra) and the sixteen (sorha or solah) jātas, is an issue heatedly debated even today (cf. Macfarlane 1997: esp. 192-195). Pignède 1993, who proposes that jāta is here best translated as "clan" (ibid.: 158), argues that in pre-Hindu Guruṅ society there was a privileged class consisting of local kings, administrative functionaries and hereditary priests. This tribal elite was later on—adopting a Hindu model—transformed into the cārajāta of two priestly clans, Lama and Lamechane, and two clans of chiefs, Ghale and Ghotane (ibid. 166-175). Of the sorhajāta, that is, "[a]ll clans which are not included in the Carjat group" (ibid.: 175), Pignède was able to identify a group of nine but not all sixteen clans (ibid.: 175-185). Others, for instance Bhovar Palje Tamu and Yarjung Kromchhe Tamu in their appendix to the English translation of Pignède's monograph (ibid.: 479-493), consider the legend that portrays the four jātas as of Brahmin and Chetrī descent and the sixteen jātas as the descendants of a slave (cf. ibid.: 160-162) simply as a false genealogy "written for King Jagati Khan of Nuwakot by his priest Bhoj Raj Purohit (9th Falgun 1594 V.S.), and used to facilitate the conquest of Lamjung" (ibid.: 489; cf. ibid.: 486 and Macfarlane 1997: 202). According to their account, based on traditional oral myths (cf. ibid.: xxi), the Guruṅ, or "Tamu tribe," consists of eleven clans subdivided into three groups (with each clan further divided into its own subclans), and since they do not come under the Hindu caste system, none of them is in any way superior or inferior (ibid.: 489). Tamu and Tamu further argue that the largest of the three clan groups was "slotted in" with the sixteen jātas, a category explained by the two authors as the sixteen non-Hindu tribes that were not on the side of the "Hindu Aryans coming up to the Gandaki zone from the west" (ibid.) and so regarded as inferior by them (ibid.: 489f.; for a similar list of sixteen non-Hindu tribes, see ibid.: 464 and Macfarlane 1997: 194f.). Cf. Commentary below. [⇑]

3. Here "Venerable Father" (i.e. King Gīrvāṇayuddha), written at the left side of the blank space above the main text, is to be added. [⇑]

4. The word cākacakuī, often translated as "adultery" or "fine for adultery" (see e.g. M.C. . Regmi 1982: 135; cf. Śarmā VS 2032: s.v. cākacakuī) and sometimes explained as "incest" (cf. Bhaṭṭarāī and Dāhāla VS 2041: s.v. cāka cakuī), is a term frequently occurring in documents regulating the customs of certain communities in the Gorkha empire. As I argued elsewhere following Stiller 1976: 174 (see note 3 in DNA_0013_0069), the marriage customs of many ethnic groups in the hill regions often did not follow the Hindu ideal of marriage as a sacrament constituting a bond indissoluable until death and beyond. There were informal ways to deal with divorce or remarriage (e.g. of widows). The Śāha administration declared these practices to be cākacakuī and fined them. According to the chapter "Māsinyā jyū amālile lināko" (§§ 4.5.7) of the Mulukī Ain, among "enslavable alcohol-drinkers" the punishment of such an illicit sexual relation was the enslavement of the man (cāka) and the woman (cakuī or cakuvī) involved (MA-KM VS 2022: 367ff.; cf. Fezas 1986: 173; for further details, see note 3 in DNA_0014_0028). However, numerous documents referred to in the Regmi Research Series attest that instead of enslavement monetary fines were imposed—ranging, depending on gender and the group membership of the offender, from five to twenty rupees (or sometimes even thirty when paying an additional fee for the amālī); see e.g. M.C. Regmi 1970: 155; M.C. Regmi 1972: 153; M.C. Regmi 1973: 139f., M.C. Regmi 1980: 140f.; M.C. Regmi 1982: 107 and M.C. Regmi 1984: 63. Besides the Guruṅs, a number of other groups were granted an exemption from the payment for cākacakuī, often seemingly in return for the payment of a salāmī, or levy (for examples and references, see Commentary in DNA_0013_0069). [⇑]

5. According to Fezas 1986, this unclear term may mean "incestuous sexual relations" (ibid.: 173). For a discussion, see note 6 in DNA_0012_0053. [⇑]

6. In order to reproduce the sense of realization implied in the word rahecha (the second perfect tense of the verb rahanu ) one could begin the translation of the sentence with: "We have come to learn that ..." (cf. note 4 in K_0469_0008). On the decree(s) the present document refers to, see Commentary. [⇑]

7. The word pasuī (from pasnu, "to enter") has been variously interpreted. In their synopsis of the document, Tamu and Tamu, perhaps thinking of the royal guard mainly composed of Guruṅs and Magaras during the 19th century (cf. Pignède 1993: 18), state that an exception was made for the "soldiers" (Pignède 1993: 491). Fezas (1986: 174), referring to occurrences of the term pasuī [or pasuvī] in the Mulukī Ain, assumes that probably slave concubines are meant (see note 2 in DNA_0013_0069). Whatever pasuīs may have been, one likely reason for their special treatment is that they lived in the royal palace (darabāra). While for the country some divergences (cf. note 4) could be tolerated, at the Hindu kingdom’s centre of power Hindu norms were to be followed. [⇑]

8. The Guruṅs use a number of different ritual specialists. While the Lāmās follow the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, the Ghyābriṅs (like the pucus, not mentioned in the present document) are rooted in the old local tradition (cf. Pignède 1993: 17). According to Fezas (1986: 174 with reference to an oral communication with M. Gaborieau) the word ghyābriṅ is still used among the Guruṅs in the meaning "shaman". The Nepālī Bṛhat Śabdakośa defines ghyāpriṅa as "a priest of the Guruṅs" (guruṅaharūko purohitaParājulī et al.VS 2052: s.v.). According to Pignède (1993: 312)—who calls them klihbrĩ—they use their own ritual language and play an important role in funerals among the Ghales. For a recent discussion of the "original" Guruṅ priests, see Macfarlane 1997: 195f. For further details on the prescribed use of Brahmin priests, see Commentary. [⇑]

9. The date corresponds to 17 May 1826. [⇑]

10. The word śubham is written as śubhammṃ. [⇑]

11. This addition by a second hand is the Ms. no. of the National Archives. The meaning of the second addition is unclear. [⇑]

12. Yaśobrahma Śāha was the father of Dravya Śāha, the founder of the Gorkha kingdom. [⇑]

13. Tamu and Tamu mistakenly write that the Guruṅs were forced "to fight in the battle of Kangada against Kaji Nayan Singh Thapa" (Pignède 1993: 490). In fact, they were ordered to serve Nayana Siṃha Thāpā (the brother of Bhīmasena Thāpā) who, having been appointed—together with Ambara Siṃha Thāpā—as chief administrator of the Kangra region in September 1805 (Āśvina śudi 2 VS 1862; see M.C. Regmi 1987: 59 and 1999: 53f.), prepared an attack on Saṃsara Chanda in the besieged fortress of Kangra (see Acharya 1975: 137; M.R. Panta VS 2024: 393 and Dabaral 1987: 66f.). For documents regarding the recruitment of Guruṅs and Lāmās and the punishment imposed on renegades, see M.C. Regmi 1987a: 133f. The military service was regarded as jhārā labour, and recruits were therefore exempted from other forms of forced labour (ibid.: 134). [⇑]

14. For a brief account of the saṃskāras as they are practised today among the Guruṅs (often not involving a Brahmin priest), see Pignède 1993: 426. [⇑]

15. See the discussion in note 7. [⇑]

16. See note 2. [⇑]

17. Tamu and Tamu summarize a "Lal-Mohor (Push 1924 V.S.)" (ibid.: 491) declaring all Guruṅ clans to be the same and equal, and fixing a fine of Rs. 20 if someone says differently. Furthermore, they refer to a court case regarding a Thara-Gotra-Pravarāvalī published in 1911 (VS 1968) in Benares that caused irritation because it stated that the four jātas were the princes and the other sixteen jātas were the slaves. The court decided to remove the book from the market and impound the remaining copies (ibid.: 491f.). [⇑]