AGRARIAN SOCIETY IN MEDIEVAL KUMAON AND GARHWAL

Author(s): Ajay Kumar Ghosh and Suman Rani

Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 2013, Vol. 74 (2013), pp. 335-345
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/44158833

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGRARIAN SOCIETY IN MEDIEVAL
KUMAON AND GARH WAL
Ajay Kumar Ghosh and Suman Rani

The focus of the present paper is to study the society of the Uttarakhand and
esp. the people of Kumaon and Gurhwal and their changing nature of
landrights. The economy of the people of Uttarakhand was pre-dominantly
agricultural and land formed the backbone of economic life. Under the
Chandras and the Parmars, proprietory right in land was vested in the sovereign
and this right was inalienable. The paramount proprietary in soil thus rested
with the sovereign.1 The subjects held land at the pleasure of the sovereign
and none could claim to have held full priprietary rights in the soil under their
control. They however enjoyed certain status-relevant basic privileges o
ownership such as those of succession, mortgage and limited alienation in
regard to the land held by them.

The king could transfer his proprietary right in the following

circumstances: (a) Donation of land to temples and to Brahmans. During the
rule of Raja Dip Chandra's (1748-1777 A.D.) a record number of grants, at
least thirty six, were made to temples and Brahmans.2 In Garhwal, Raja Fateh
Shah was a great patron of the 'Nath Panth' as is evident from the 'Tamra
Patra' of the year 1667 A.D., issued by him in favour of one Balak Nath Jogi
who had achieved great fame amongst the 4Siddhas' of northern India. Fateh
Shah also had cordial relations with the Sikh Guru Ram Rai and built a
Gurudwara in Dehradun. He also made an endowment of three villages,
Khurbura, Rajpur and Chamsari to Guru Ram Rai.3 (b) Rewarding the brave
with land for their gallantry through the process of investiture known as raut
which was considered as one of the most honorable rewards. Rudra Chandra's
copper plate grant4 dated 1581 O.E. records the grant of several villages to
Parkhu Pant, a brave officer who led the Chandra troops in conquering Siragarh
in Doti.

Relationship with Land: Proprietors and Tenants

Land or property in soil was termed thul. In pre-British times land could be
acquired in two ways: ( 1 ) By original settlement after clearing the forest which
was claimed by the indigenous Khasi and (2) By royal conferment through
which the Thul - jat came to acquire land in lieu of holding important
administrative office and by virtue of his immigrant status. With the arrival of
the immigrants and the consolidation of power by the Chandras and the
Parmars, there were three broad status categories based among other things
on the nature of relationship each had with the land. They were: (1) The first
category of proprietors consisted of all officials of the State, both public and»

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
336 I HC: Proceedings , 74th Session , 20/5
private, who received on their appointment a grant of land foť the support and
establishment of their families. They were the immigrant garkha comprising
a relatively small number of immigrant Brahmans and Kshatriyas who received
grants of land in payment for their services as officers of state. The grants
were essentially revenue assignments and were known as naukm i or jaidad
where the grantee had no proprietary rights.5 These grants did not convey
proprietary rights in soil but were only assignments of revenue; the tnost
common were those which were made as remuneration of public offices known
as 'Negicharr, 'Kaminchari', 4 Jaidad', etc. and those made for the endowment
of religious establishments.6 (2) The second category consisted of those original
inhabitants, the Khasi, who derived their right by virtue of their right of original
land occupation. Thé Khasi prior to the arrival of the immigrants, were thatwan
(proprietors by right of original and long occupation), but eventually they
were reduced to khaikar , sirtan or kaini (types of under tenants) by the garkha .
The differenttypes of tenants were collectively known as asami in distinction
to the garkha and thatwan.1

Immigrant Brahmans were not allowed to become tenants. The category

'tenant' was a creation of the politically dominant immigrant class and mainly
arose due to the latter 's pre-occupation with political /religious matters along
with ritual prohibitions with regard to cultivation of soil. It also served to
maintain the latter's claim to status superiority. Compared to the conquered
Khasi, the immigrant grantees enjoyed in view of their status, greater freedom
in matters involving alienation of land though such rights were always
subordinate to those of the sovereign. (3) The Doms were invariably the
property of the landholders. They were accorded the status of the village menial
(persons of low and uncertain birth) whose relationship with the land evolved
from their roles of agricultural menials and artisans to a body of cultivators
and landowners. Though attached to the land they were normally not permitted
to engage in actual cultivation of the soil except in the case of the haliya.
The rise of dynastic power coupled with monopoly of politico-economic
resources by the immigrant garkha not only virtually destroyed the autonomy
of the Khasi clans but it upheld their claim by right of conquest and immigrant,
status, ownership of basic economic resources Within the kingdom. The claim
was not only theoretical but was exercised in the grant of rent free lands,
revenue assignments, and gifts. Since all officers of the State were paid through
land assignments and learned Brahmans and temples were made revenue free
grants of land, a considerable proportion of land had to be set aside for the
grant of: (a) presumable fiefs and grants held by prices of the royal house and
officers of state, (b) vriti and vishnupreet made to Brahmans and temples
dedicated to worship of important deities. Learned Brahmans were given land
grants in the form of vriti (gift) which was an act aimed at acquiring religious
merit. Such land assignments to individuals who were mainly Brahmans were
known as muafi. In Kumaon most of the grants of muafi were held by the

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Medieval India 337

Joshis, Pants, Pandes, Tiwaris and Upretis.' T

and villages that were held as grants by tem
were under the defacto control of the imm
allowed to remain under the native thatwan
sovereign at his will.
From the above, delineation of the variou
say that there was a four tier socio-econo
consisted of the menial Doms who were sub
which they sometimes received land and som
consisted of the asami or tenąnt cultivators
sirthan. Above the asami were the immigran
former occupying a higher status and included
kingdom who received land-grants. On top of
set up was the King himself who was consid
land.

The different types of land ownership under the Chandras and Parmars
are expressed in terms of land tenures, the important ones being: ( I ) Naukari
or Jaidad tenure which were revenue assignments with no proprietory rights
and which were monopolised by the garkha. (2) Thatwan tenure applied to
the native Khasi (3) Asaami or tenant cultivators who were mainly the Khasi
reduced to the position of khaikars or cultivators, i.e. those who eat khana or
the produce of the land, sirthans who paid in cash, and the kainis or tenants
including the choyras or household slaves.9 Gunth and Muafi tenures. Gunth
was an assignment of the land made for the maintenance of temples. Such
assignments already existed under the Parmars and Chandras and upheld by
the Gurkhas and the British.10 The lands assigned as religious endowments
and attached to temples were of considerable extent and importance in the
hills, the chief assignments being the Badarinath and Kedarnath establishments.
Out of the twenty copper plate grants of Kalyana Chandra that are prevalent
in the Almora records, most of them are land grants to temples such as Briddha
Kedar temple in 1731 A.D., Badarinath temple in 1744 A.D., Kedarnath
Temple in 1 745 A.D., Kshetra Pal Temple in Borarau in 1 734 A.D., etc." The
gunth and muafi tenures seem to have constituted quite a sizeable proportion
of land that was under cultivation and the category which was most impacted
by the state policy of granting land as revenue assignments and gifts was the
Khasi, most of whom lost their thatwan status and subsequently reduced to
asami. A study of the list of copper-plate grants of the Chandra rulers and the
■Parmar rulers gives us an idea of the large number of revenue free grants that
were accorded to temples and Brahmans from time to time. It also reflects the
State patronage to brahmanical religion and to its parons. (5) Suhadart: An
endowment provided by land revenue of assigned villages, originally for
providing food to pilgrims visiting the shrines of Kedarnath and
Badarinath.The sudadart villages were founded throughout Kumaon and

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 338 IHC: Proceedings , 74th Session, 2013
Garhwal.12 (6) Haliya and Sajhi: The Brahmans and other principal landed
proprietors who were restricted by custom from personal labour in the field
appointed haliyas to cultivate their land. They were invariably from the Dom
category and were provided food and housing by their masters.13 The system
is still prevalent in the hills especially in Kumaon. Haliyas are employed by
the Thakur and Brahman farmers for ploughing and are given remuneration
. in cash which was earlier in kind. Sajhi was actually a farmer who took a land
on lease and paid half of the harvest as adhiya or one third as tikuta . (7)
Sanjait Zamin : Undivided, measured, common land either common to the
whole community, 4 gaon sanjait ' or common to certain families or co-sharers
only. 14 In Garhwal it was not an uncommon practice where gaon sanjait waslet
out to tenants and rents were kept by the padhan to meet the village expenses. ,5)

Economic distinctions as regards the right to land, basically corresponded

to the basic and social distinction between Bith and Dom, and between
immigrant and indigenous. The Bith had rights of various kinds on land while
the Dom had none, being merely attached to it. Further among the Bith
themselves, the distinction between Thul jat and Khasi-Jimdar was clearly
reflected in titles to the land. The superior tenures were invariably held by the
Thul jat whereas the Khasi, were in general, under-tenants. In fact, distinctions
in tenurial status served to underline the distinctions between Thul-jat, Khasi
and Dom. The Thul jat who were holders of superior tenures, did not themselves
work on the land, the Khasi were under - tenants who actually tilled the land,
and the Dom, devoid of rights in land, were assigned the menial tasks. The
KhasH imdar also occupied the lowest status position within the Bith category
in view of the pollution content of their occupations. As thatwan and asami
agriculturists, the Khasi were required to engage in physical labour and to
handle tools and articles containing animal hide. Such activities were
considered polluting and avoided by the immigrant castes. The practice of
granting land to Brahmans and Kshatriyas who held important administrative
offices ^nd all of whom were immigrants, and rent - free lands to some
Brahmans was mainly responsible for creating status distinctions within the
polity.

So important was the nature of relationship with land as a status criterion

that all cultivators except domestic slaves were assigned Khasi status. The
Khasi consequently came to include tribal groups such as the Rajis, Shaukas,
Saun-agaris,Bhoxas, etc. Atkinson mentions that during the reign of Raja Dip
Chandra the principal cultivators were the Tharus and Bhoksas.16 While on
the one hand arrival of immigrants and their occupation of political and
administrative positions of power strengthened their control over land, which
was the basic economic resource, on the other hand it divested the indigenous
Khasi of their proprietorship over land. The alienation of the Khasi from
ownership of the basic economic resource was created by the policy of granting
land as assignments and gifts. Since all officers of State were paid through

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Medieval India 339

land assignments and learned Brahmins and

grants of land, a considerable portion of th
the grant of: (a) Resumable fiefs and grants
and officers of state and (b) Vriti and Vish
temples dédicated to orthodox brahmanical
Raja Jagat Chandra clearly states that the ca
would be severely punished if they are fo
negligence of duties. In all ninety three
maintenance of the Jageshwar temple.17 Th
de facto control of the immigrant Brahmans
ceremonies at süch temples. The remaining
sovereign through revenue officers. A part
to remain under the occupation of the nativ
to leave or transfer the land they cultivated
Distinction between thé immigrant Thul
over the nature of relationship with land and
through the usage of different terms. The
under which they held the called themselve
was reserved for the Khasi.18 A Khasi even
overlord, could not style himself as garkh
land under royal writ. In cases where a gar
Was further distinguished as sirtan, khaikar
Pauw19 who refers to the proprietors as tha
were the beneficiaries of land grants and alth
over land, they usually did riot expel the p
territory given to them. The peasants who h
as khaikars. So long as the khaikar paid reve
could not be removed from the land tilled
made to present various gifts to the thatw
The land which the thatwan cultivated him
there and they new settlers were known as kh
could categories certain families as tempora
known as sirthans.20

The type of land grants held by differe

perpetuated further distinctions withirt th
For instance within the immigrant Brahma
the Chauthani and Pachbiri were based to a
of the relationship each had with land. Th
immigrant Brahmans who did not mange
and were relegated to the traditional occup
held a lower status because they earned thei
to offer their ritual services and accepting sm
Thé Chauthani category never took up prie

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 I HC : Proceedings , 74th Session, 2013
their status and power were the administrative offices which they held such as
those of advisors, provincial governors, army commanders, treasurers, etc. In
lieu of their services the Chauthani held royal grants from the sovereign in the
form of rent-free jagirs as well as rent free vriti. Securing a jagir was one of
the means by which a Pachbiri could rise to Chauthani status. Many Pachbiri
who managed to get political office managed to rise to the ranks of the
Chauthani. Gairola has noticed a similar phenomenon in Garhwal.21
The practice of assigning land grants to Brahmans and officers of the
State not only dispossessed the Khasi Jimdar of their proprietary rights over
land but also reduced them to the status of tenants or field servants to the
immigrant garkha. A thatwan was inevitably reduced to a tenant whenever
the State gave a vriti to a Brahman; or in raut to the heirs of an officer or in
jagir to officials. The Copper-Plate Grant of Raja Dip Chandra (1748-1777
C.E.)22 bestowed upon the Mahara brothers Hariram Joshi and Sib Deb Joshi,
records the grant of twenty bisis of land (a bisi is equal to 20 nalis of land. In
one nali two seers of seed of wheat can be sown) in Gangolakikotuli23 as that
in jagir, a village named Malukakotanda in Kota pargana and another village
called Thuli Dehari in Mudiya pargana, which are in the districts of Nainital
but they are not in the possession of the descendants of the grantees. The
grant conferred upon them rights over streams, flour-mills, khaikar , tenants,
slaves and hill tops belonging to these villages. Thus from the grant we can
infer that whenever a village was granted, the khaikars and chyoras belonging
to the village were also given to the grantee. Further the above-mentioned
grantees were also exempted from the payment of all dues and taxes. The
grant also mentions that the descendants of Raja Dip Chandra would protect
the rights and the descendants of Hariram and Sib Deb Joshi and they would
continue to enjoy their rights over the jagir.
The political and economic subordination of the Khasis in areas of Thul-
jat dominance was also responsible for reducing the status of a Khasi- Jimdar
which sometimes led to his enslavement. For inability to repay debt, a Khasi-
Jimdar could be enslaved and his property confiscated by the ruler and such
slaves were made to work on the royal lands.24 The Khasi-Jimdar could
however seek release from debt by giving away his children in debt. Khasi
society gave the male head of family, rights of disposable property in his wife
and children with the provision that such rights lapsed as soon as the children
married and lived independently. These property rights were not absolute and
irreversible and applied to physical labour. This right of sale was recognized
by the government and in the immediate pre-British period even a tax on
slavery was levied on the export of slaves from the kingdom.25
The thatwan khasi who was reduced to the status of a tenant as a result of
the garkha 's claim to rights over land usually preferred to stay on and cultivate
his ancestral lands rather than find another village. H. Ramsay the British
administrator observed that the khaikars enjoyed a hereditary though not

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Medieval India 34 ļ

transferable right in. the land they cultivated a

sons generally divided the lands among thems
the share of each so drastically that there kha
other lands as sirtans or tenants at will.26 In
proprietors did not reside on the land grante
interfere in matters related to the land as long
was due to the proprietor. Other than sentimen
land, for the Khasi too it was advantageous to
It secured them the goodwill of the politically
left them considerable freedom as the interes
politics and not agriculture as an occupation.
freedom as long as they rendered the usual serv

The tenant category collectively known as

of the village community. The asami were cl
khaikar, sirthan and kaini. Though minor di
the different types of asami , the fact that th
group gave all of them a uniform identity. T
the thatwan Khasi cultivators whose lands wer
else placed over them by the sovereign due t
their independent control of the land their an
under cultivation.27 A Khasi thatwan could in
that as khaikar but in practice this was norm
great labour and time required in clearing fores
the extent of landholding to a minimum and
did not have extra land to rent out to tenant
Brahmans who had originally come to Kumaon
cultivators on account of occupational redun
to the status of Khaikar by the subsequent r
they cultivated to another grantee by the sov
of the junior members of the Chandra house
Lack of control over political and or econom
to adopt Khasi -Jimdar occupations with thei
a crucial condition under which a Kshettri co
Atkinson's description of the castes of Kuma
the second half of the nineteenth /century clea
status of various sections of the Kshettri who
maintain their ritually sanctioned status.28 In
Atkinson states that ninety percent of the R
were Khasiyas (Khasis) and that all were prim
He points out that the poorer sections of the
the Katyuri and Chandras such as the Rajbars
Suryavanshi Katyuris and the Raotelas of the
in cultivation of the soil, or even in daily labou

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
342 IHC : Proceedings , 74th Session, 20J3
with the 'better class of Khasas.29 The same seems to be true to a greater
degree within the non-princely section of the Rajputs who did not command
the same control over economic resources as was generally exercised by the
princely section.
As occupational requirements compelled the great majority of the Thut-
jat to remain away for long periods of time from the grants, they were seldom
able to assume full control over their grants and the khaikars were left to
assume an effective control of the land on the condition that the latter paid to
the new grantee a quantity of food grain at each harvest in addition to the
payment of rukum (a government assessment on the agricultural land) and
other miscellaneous taxes imposed by the government from time to time. The
quantity of food grain to be paid to the Thul-jat grantee was not fixed. If the
grant was in a fertile and well populated valley where tenants were readily
available, the rates of the over lord's dues in the fonn of bhet, dustoor , and
sirtee were higher, elsewhere on account of lack of competition for the land
they werę lower. The term bhet was applied to the fee levied by the garkha on
the marriage of the tenant's daughter and to unpaid labour which tenants were
required tp give to the overlord;30 dustoor referred to the fees and cesses
collected by the overlord from the tenant. The usual dustoor was some cash
taken from every tenant household; the breast or leg of every goat killed and
quantities of yougurt, edible arum leaves and ghi on every Sankrant festival.31
Sirte was the term applied to the share of agricultural produce collected by
the sovereign in the capacity as ultimate proprietor of land. Though there was
no uniform rate of rent which the khaikar had to pay to thę overlord, the
khaikar as a class of tenants were better of economically than other tenants.
Batten32 points out the khaikar retained three-fourths of the gross produce for
their own consumption in as against the kaini who could retain not more than
two-thrids, The sirthan retained three-fourths but his position was the least
stable as he could be ousted at any time.
The srthan like other tenants was always from the Khasi group. In great
majority of the cases the sirthan were initially thatwan or khaikar cultivators,
who because of shortage of land in their own vi liage, were engaged to cultivate
land in a neighbouring village without taking up residence in the latter. The
sirthan tenure was restricted to areas where there was more agricultural land
than people to cultivate it, i.e. in the outlying regions of the kingdom. It was
primarily for this reason that the sirthan paid a very moderate rent in cash
called sirti which was in fact the state demand on lanJ. The sirtan paid nothing
except the land assessment and was exempt from various other cesses and no
personal services are required by him.33 The garkha thus did not derive any
economic benefit form the sirthan . Unlike the khaikar who claimed hereditary
proprietary interest in the land and who were generally allowed to hold the
land inspite of change of the immigrant lessees, the sirthan had no occupancy
rights, apart from those granted by the garkha.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Medieval India 343

Another category of tenant was termed as

from their earlier status of thatwan Kasi wh
proprietorship by the garkha grantees. They w
on their ancestral land as hereditary servile
attachment towards their ancestral land ma
grantee to grantee along with the land. The
vassal and was bound to the land of his lord
with the land but could not be ousted as lon
Batten defines the kaini 'as a vassal tenant
and paying rent to the heir of the proprietor w
The kaini was obliged to perform a number
extensive scale for the Thul-jat such as per
doing everything which required physical la
The kaini could be punishable by law is he f
duties and could be expelled from his lands.3
It seems that the kaini gradually assum
permanently residing on their lord's estate
occupancy came to be considered like the kh
differ much except for the nature of rent t
kaini was liable to pay rent to the landlord in
it had to be paid in the form of grain instead
comparatively smaller amount of arable lan
landlords were compelled to rent out the land
all occupants of the land, it was perhaps du
treated on par with the khaikar. The quantity
of land. For land in extremely fertile low-lay
to pay adhyay (half the gross produce) and f
(one-third) or even chaukoot (one-fourth
arrangement between the garkha and the kai
state demand.36 The excessively heavy amoun
pay reduced them to a state of complete de
for subsistence. Though the kaini could trans
status to someone who was ritually acceptabl
a kaini to do so because of the economic securi
of permanent hereditary occupancy rights in
closest to the landlord, they received help fr
Though the kaini shared common status an
the former were more subservient to the lan
rent and more extensive obligations to rende
jat garkha. It has been opined by Traill that
course of time.37 But such a such a status tr
impossible because, it was not possible for a
but there was nothing against a khaikar beco

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 344 ¡HC: Proceedings, 74th Session, 2013

easy as the khaikar was under no legal acquirement to continue in the

occupancy and cultivation of land in his ancestral village. As the pressure of
population on the available land increased it became necessary for some of
the cultivators to move out and become sirthan in another village or to take
up the tenancy of land under the khudkast of a landlrod and become the latter 's
kaini.n

The system of assigning land grants to immigrants who also tended to be

assigned administrative functions in the kingdom encouraged the servility of
the agricultural castes and the Doms. Not only was physical labour particularly
that concerned with agriculture and associated activities such as cattle rearing,
considered demeaning by the Thul-jat but with their occupational interests
lying in such fields as administration, priest-craft, astrology, medicines and
soldiering, they never had the time to attend to agricultural chores. Lacking
both the inclination and the time, they had to have others to cultivate their
land for them and to perform menial chares. The administrative power wielded
by the Thul-jat and the control of basic economic resources put them in a
superior position where they could compel the Khasi-Jimdar and the Dom to
perform a wide variety services for them. The whole politico-economic system
tended to be geared towards a feudalistic structure of government. This is
particularly reflected in Traill's observation of how the Kumaon kingdom
was parceled into separate divisions for the payment of troops, payment to
the commanders who were entrusted with the civil administration of the lands
that were assigned to them. The revenues of spme districts were originally
reserved for defraying the expenses of the court, but these had been nearly
absorbed by grants to the junior members of the royal family, to the civil
officers of the government and to attendants of the çourt, all of whom from
were remunerated with land grants. A further alienation of the royart domain
could be seen in the form of frequent donations to the Brahmans and temples
by successive rulers.39 The administrative control of land, which was the basic
subsistence resource, was vested in the Thul-jat immigrant. This placed them
in a position which enabled them to apply pressure on the politically and
economically subservient Khasi-Jimdar to engage as their tenants and servants
and slaves.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

I . R.D. Sanwal, Social Stratification in Rural Kumaon , OUP, 1976, pp. 87-88; Ajay Raw
Garlmal Himalaya. A Study in Historical Perspective, uidus, New Delhi, 2002, p. 70.
2. B.D. Pniule, Kumaon ka Itihas , Almora, 1937, pp.370-71 ; E.T. Atkinson, The Himalay
Districts of the North-west Provinces of India , Allahabad, 3 Volumes, 1 884-1 886, pp. 5
91.

3. E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., p.576.

4. N.N. Mishra, "Index of Epigraph ical Evidence on Kumani History" in Source Materials
of Kumauni History , Almora Book Depot, Almora, pp. 84-9 1 .

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Medieval India 345

5. G. W. Traill, "Statistical Sketch of Kumaon" in Asi

Op. cit., p.38.
6. E.K. Pauw, Repor t on the Tenth Settlement of Garhwal District , Allahabad, 1 896, pp.32-
33.

7. R.D. Sanwal, op.cit., p.89.

8. G.W. Traill, op.cit., p. 39.
9. E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., pp.455-56.
10. H.G. Walton, British Garhwal, A Gazetteer , Allahabad, 1921, p.85.
11. N.N. Misra, 'index of Hpigraphical Evidence on Kumauni History", op.cit., pp.92 -93.
12. H.G. Walton, op.cit., p. 1 15; E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., pp.104, 187, 188.
13. Ajay Rawat, op.cit., p. 1 74.
14. Ibid., p.7.
15. Ibid., pp.42-43.
16. E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., p.591.
17. N.N. Misra, 'A Note on the Jageswara Temple', in Source Materials on Kumauni History ,
Almora Book Depot, Almora, 1994, pp.4 1-42.
18. Badari Dutt Pande, Kumaun Ka Itihas , Almora 1937, p. 370. British officials such as
Atkinson and Traill have clubbed together all proprietors of land including grantees as
thatwans. Scholars such as B.D. Pande and R.D. Sanwal have drawn a distinction between
the immigrant garkha and Khasi thatwan.
19. E.K. Pauw, op.cit., p.32.
20. Ibid., pp.32-33; V.A. Stowell, op.cit., p.34.
21. T.D. Gairola, The Castes and Sub-Castes in Garhwal' Journal of the U.P. Historical
Society, Vol.15, 1922.
22. N.N. Misra, 'ACopper Plate Grant of Raja Dip Chandra', in Source Materials of Kumauni
History , op.ck., pp. 73 -79.
23. A village in Syunara in the Almora district which is still owned by the descendants of Sib
Deb Joshi.

24. R.D. Sanwal, op.cit., pp.55-56.

25. H.G. Walton, op.cit., pp. 133-134.
26. E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., p.490.
27. R.D. Sanwal, op.cit., p.95.
28. E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., pp.43 1 -438.
29. Ibid., pp.432-433.
30. R.D. Sanwal, op.cit., p. 1 19.
31. The English introduced the term mal i kana (literally proprietary dues) to cover bhet ,
dustoor and all other services exacted from tenants by the landlord.
32. J.H. Batten, 'Extracts from Report on the settlement of the District of Garhwal' in Official
Reports on the Province of Kumaon, Agra , 1 842, pp. 1 39-40.
33. E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., p.49l
34. J.H. Batten, op.cit., 1851, p.465.
35. Morley, 'Slavery in Kumaon', Calcutta Review , Vol.11, 1 836; E.T. Atkinson, op.cit., p.458.
36. G.W. Traill, op.cit., pp.340-341.
37. Ibid., p. 138.
38. R.D. Sanwal, op.cit., p. 102.
39. G.W. Traill, op.cit., pp.26-27.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:03:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms