1 THE NEPALESE STATE AND GORAKHNATHI YOGIS: THE CASE OF THE FORMER KlNGDOMS OF DANG VALLEY: 18-19TH CENTURIES * Véronique Bouillier Introduction Kings and Yogis, kingdoms and monasteries, were often connected. Temporal and magico-spiritual powers have collaborated through a process of common conquest of new territories and mutual legitimation. This has been the case in several kingdoms in Western Himalaya, in Western and central Nepal (Gorkha and also in the Dang-Deokhuri Valley). The process led to a graduaI Hinduization of remote areas. It had political consequences since fostering Hinduization promoted also the Hindu concept of kingship, allowing political use to be made of the religious status of the monastery. The aim of this article is to examine, thanks to 18th/19th centuries administrative and judicial documents collected by Narharinath Yogi (2022 V.S.), the eventually conflictual relationships between royal powers and monasteries and to show the permanency of this mode of relationship, despite changing political conditions. Prior to its conquest by the Gorkha troops in 1786, the territory of the Dang Valley was divided into small kingdoms: Dang and Chilli in the valley itself, Sallyan and Phalabang in the hills. This valley is situated in the South West part of Nepal, in the Inner Terai, and is bordered by the Mahabharat range on its northern side and by the Siwalik range on its southern. Many rivers, swelling suddenly during the monsoon, run through the valley, which was covered with thick forest until the nineteenth century and infested by malaria up to the mid-twentienth. South of Dang, the valley of Deukhuri is part of the administrative and social unity of Dang. This Deukhuri Valley, although more fertile, has been cleared lately, and documents show that, in this jungle landscape, the limits of alloted tracts of land were never very precise, thus subject to encroachments and contestation. Being thus separated from the hills of central Nepal by the Mahabharat Lekh, Dang, like the whole of Terai, was socially and culturally close to North India, the Tharus, original inhabitants of Dang, living on both sides of the border. However the connection with Hill Nepal slowly strengthened after the annexion of the previously independent Dang valley kingdoms by Prithvi Narayan's successor in 1786. As part of the Indian influence, the Gorakhnathi ascetics settled in the valley and established there temples and monasteries. Among them, the monastery of Caughera, founded by the legendary Siddha Ratannath, grew preeminent. A close link between monastery and king was a dominant feature of the former Dang rajya, as it was also the case for Chilli and Phalabang. It continued after the Gorkha conquest. I will focus on the relationship of the monastery with the political power in the changing conditions of the time. My main points will be: - a brief introduction to the Kanphata Yogi or Gorakhnathi sect, - a summary of the legend of foundation of Dang Caughera monastery in its relation to kingship, - some data on the history of the Dang, Chilli and Phalabang rajyas, mainly from the viewpoint of the monastery, - the relationship between monastery and Nepalese State as implied in the land tenure system known as guthi, - the guthi as the delegation by the king of a part of his sovereignty, - the conflicts with collectors or with State regarding fiscal matters, - the conflicts regarding traditions: problems of purity, - the State as an arbitrator. The Gorakhnathis or Kanphata Yogis The sect of the Kanphata Yogis appeared within the tradition of the last Shaiva tantricised movements. To its founder, Gorakhnath, was attributed the organisation of this sect of celibate ascetics. Their aim was to attain immortality through the practise of Hatha Yoga. The liberation, moksa, was less the attainment of an undifferentiated state and unqualified absolute than the state of Shivahood, understood as a state of bodily perfection, mastership over natural processes, and control over the universe. Thus the quest of siddhis (powers), which in "purer", more brahmanized conceptions of asceticism were subordinate to the ultimate goal of liberation, became among the 2 Yogis their main goal (cf. Dasgupta 1976; Briggs 1938; Banerjee 1962). The Yogis were soon well known for their magical abilities. As I have shown in previous articles (Bouillier 1986, 1989, 1991), this magical orientation made the Yogis the best auxiliaries to a conquering power, and many legends, especially in Himalayan kingdoms, associated them to the foundation of new princely states. These legendary foundations justified many Shaiva cults for which the Kanphatas were the officiating priests in the palace temples dedicated to Gorakhnath or a local Nath, to Bhairav and to the Devi. However many of these Yogis married and there is now an important community of gharbari, householder Yogis, who remain more or less related to the ascetic community. Most of the pujaris of temples linked with royal palaces, such as the Gorakhnath cave temple in Gorkha, are married and members of the Yogi caste. This is not the case in Dang-Caughera. The monastery and the seva, the service of the temple, are restricted to the celibate and fully initiated, kan cereko or Kanphata, Yogis (i. e., "ear-splitted," the last level of initiation consisting in splitting the cartilage of the ear to insert large earrings). Caughera and Mrigasthali in Kathmandu Valley are the only two monasteries in Nepal, following this rule; but nowadays Caughera is far more important than Mrigasthali, where there are only a few ascetics with the mahant. Approximately thirty ascetics live permanently in Caughera, and many more spend a few days there on their way to Muktinath or Pasupatinath. Usually the residents are Nepalese and the itinerant Indian. Foundation Legends of Caughera There are different versions of the legend describing the foundation of the Caughera monastery1 but all of them link this foundation with kingship. The common background of the different versions deals with the jungle. "In the beginning, there was the jungle," all the narratives start this way. The jungle, as a thick and humid forest, at the same time expresses the physical reality of the Dang valley in the past and, at a metaphorical level, the meeting point of the three characters of our story. The wilderness of the jungle is a place common to the ascetic, the hunting king and the local, "savage", jungali inhabitant, here the Tharu. And the focal point in their relationship is the hunt; both the ascetic and the king argue about the violence, the himsa, of the hunting king and the ahimsa professed by the ascetic; what is at stake is the sovereignty upon the third party, the inhabitants of this wild country, this sava lakh jhar khanda (“one lakh and a quarter of bushy territory”) as Dang is defined and called. The legend tells us of a king who went hunting in the jungle. He saw a deer, a beautiful mriga, and shot an arrow. The wounded deer went deep into the forest, and the king followed it. Then suddenly, in the middle of the forest, he met a radiant ascetic, seated in samadhi. The arrow was in front of him. The king understood his mistake and apologized. The Siddha forgave him and granted him a boon 2. He showed him, through yogic power, all the land between the East and the West and offered him its sovereignty. The king felt unable to reign upon such a huge kingdom. Then the ascetic showed him a smaller territory, a thousand yogana. The king again refused and finally accepted to reign over the Dang Valley. Then the Siddha, whose name was Ratannath, took the arrow and gave it to the king, saying "as long as you keep the arrow, you will keep your kingdom firm." The king then started to worship Ratannath, and since then the king's lineage continued the worship and kept the arrow for six months. The other six months the Yogis worshipped the arrow and the king had to give them half of the revenue that he got from his kingdom" (summarized from Narharinath 2022: 516). The legend manifests the relationship between a protective deified Siddha and a protected king through the gift of an object emblematic of the king's condition. And this founding relationship 1 See a summary of the different legends in Unbescheid (1980: 21-24). The version presented here is adapted from Narharinath (2022: 516-17) and from the booklets published by the monastery. The legends linked to Ratannath are also the themes of wall paintings on the assembly hall. For a well documented comparison between Hindu and Sufi versions of the legend of Ratannath or Baba Ratan, see Horovitz (1914). 2 The motive of the hunt of a magical deer is quite common in Hindu tradition, but the context of the Ratannath’s legend seems more related to the Buddhist Tibetan tradition of Milarepa (cf. "The huntsman and the deer" in the Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa), and especially the moralistic discourse on ahimsa told by the Siddha to the king (not quoted here). It was striking to find a similar story in a popular version of Milarepa's legend (Mumford 1989: 74). 3 continued in the sharing out between the king and the Yogis as the successors of Siddha Ratannath. The transitiveness of this relationship transcends all historical changes. It is between Yogis and kings, whoever is the king. And even though in the real world the revenue sharing is not as favourable to the Yogis as in the legend, there is, through gifts of land and privileges from the king, a sharing of sovereignty. This relationship revolves around a central place, Ratannath temple, and further around the monastic centre where the worshippers of the Siddha live, and the territory given as guthi to ensure its proper maintenance. Ratannath temples in the History of the Dang Valley Palaces and Temples The spatial proximity between temples and palaces gives some clues on the former history of Dang Valley, divided at that time among various small kingdoms. In all these kingdoms Ratannath was worshipped in a palatial cult. Even though today we know very little about these rajyas (even the palaces have disappeared), we still see the Ratannath temples, in a more or less decayed state, which were previously related to the palaces. Three kingdoms share a mythical as well as ritual connection with Ratannath: Dang, Chilli (both in the Dang Valley) and Phalabang higher on the ridge. All the three are connected with one legend, based on the same structure as the one related before. This story, written at the foot of one of the paintings of Caughera Monastery, is ambiguous regarding precise locations and dates, but it shows clearly the connection between the king's sovereignty and the territorial presence of Ratannath. The Siddha's blood marks the main points of a journey through a ritually defined realm. “The king of Phalabang saw one day a huge bandel, wild boar, in his garden. He shot an arrow, which wounded the boar on its right side. The boar ran away, following a precise path. He arrived at the Tharkot ridge, and because of the pain stopped there; a pool of blood appeared. The king followed him. Seeing the king, the boar ran away and arrived in the Dang Tulsipur forest and stayed hidden there. The king arrived. The boar ran away again and reached Chilli village where he rested under a bush: another pool of blood appeared. The king followed. The boar ran away to a bush near Pacurka village. And there, when the king arrived, he saw a young Yogi in front of him, wearing all the distinctive marks and having an arrow in his right side, blood dripping on the ground. The king was terrified and apologized: ‘I am a king, I am used to hunting’. And Ratannath said: ‘At each place where my blood was shed, build a temple dedicated to me and establish a guthi. Build a temple in Tharkot, another in Tulsipur, give them the name of Thangaun. In Chilli erect a temple and give it the name of Chillithangaun. In Pacurka once a year during Patanyatra3 give an arrow […] With your friend Nawal Sen, king of Caughera, collect alms from every house in Deukhuri and give them to the Yogis for my journey to Patan. If they are satisfied, you will have many descendants’. Having said, he sent the king back to his palace and blessed him”. Ratannath temples are still in place in Chilli-Thangau and Dang-Tulsipur; Tharkot is probably linked to Phalabang. It is noteworthy that, in all three cases, there is not only a close spatial relationship between the palace and Ratannath temple, but also a duplication of this relationship, following the move of the king and his court between winter and summer capitals. Like the Gorkhalis4, the kings of Dang, Chilli and Phalabang used to have a winter capital in the valley and a summer one on the ridge on the northern side. This move was made even more necessary due to the presence of malaria in the Terai during the monsoon. Thus there were winter palaces and winter Ratannath temples and summer palaces and temples. The move between the two places was 3 The Yogis of Caughera undertake every year a pilgrimage to Devi Patan, a Devi sanctuary near the Indian town of Tulsipur (BaIrampur District). They leave for one month, walking only during the night and staying fifteen days in Deokhuri. They arrive in Devi Patan for Chaitya Dasain and celebrate there the worship of Ratannath and Patesvari Devi. It seems that this ritual journey through their territory was anterior to the exile of the former king of Dang in Tulsipur after the Gorkha conquest (cf. passim), since an edict dated from three years after this event (1789 A.D.) mentions the Yogi pilgrimage like something customary (Narharinath 2022: 486). 4 Cf. Burghart (1984: 111) quoting Vajracharya: "The movement of the court between seasonal capitals has been a Gorkhali custom since the founding of the kingdom by Dravya Sah". 4 solemnized by a procession in which the Yogis carried the emblem of the deity from one temple to the other. In the case of Dang, the winter Ratannath temple and the king's palace were situated close to each other in Caughera. There was also a smaller Ratannath temple, probably inside the palace and under the responsibility of a rajguru Yogi. But nowadays nothing remains of the palace except a large maidan and some walls. The summer residence was in Sawarikot where a monastery was built according to the same rules as in Caughera. But the last twenty-five years of neglect have left nothing of the Sawarikot palace nor of the monastery, except a few stones and a pipal tree surrounded by tridents. The procession used to leave Caughera for Sawarikot in Asadh (June-July); it was already raining as it can be seen on a wall painting depicting the procession. According to this painting, two Damai came first leading the Yogis and playing flute and drum; following them, came the main Yogis carrying flags, fly-swatters, torches and silver clubs; then came the head of the monastery, the pir, wearing the strange conical red cap, which is the sign of his office, and carrying the emblem of the monastery, the patradevata5, hidden under cloths and flowers. After him followed the ordinary Yogis, then the Tharus carrying the goods for them. After a few months in Sawarikot, at the end of which the Yogis celebrated the Dasain festival, the same procession returned back to Caughera. The Yogis maintained this tradition until the eradication of malaria, twenty years ago. 5 The patradev or "divine recipient" is the ritual centre of the temple. Supposedly given to Ratannath by Gorakhnath, it is the svarup, the essential form of the deity. Resting on a high altar, covered with clothes and flowers, it is worshipped exclusively by the pir, the spiritual head of the monastery. Contrary to the duplication in some temples between utsava and mula murti, the patradev icon,carried from one residence to another, embodies the totality of the deity. 5 In Chilli, we find also this divison in two residential places: used during winter, in the valley, were a Ratannath temple in Thangau and probably a palace in Bijauri nearby, and during summer a palace and a temple on the ridge in Chillikot. The memory of this seasonal movement remains, but few other traces. In Bijauri, there is just a huge ancient wall around the present Sanskrit college, and in Thangau there is a Ratannath temple cloe to a dilapidated Bhairav temple. A Yogi pujari officiates there; he calls himself rajguru and is paid by the Guthi Samsthan since 1942 AD. In Chillikot, only two temples remain, both dedicated to the Devis Kalika and Malika and worshipped by a Kunwar6 Yogi. A procession is led from Thangau to the higher temples for both Dasain festivals. The tradition is much more alive in Phalabang. The summer residence of the raja was in Phalabang but the valley winter residence was situated in Tulsipur, now an important bazaar in the northwest of the Dang Valley. The palace in Tulsipur was built in the style of a Rana house and is now the residence of the zonal Commissioner. Close by is the Ratannath temple, recently rebuilt in concrete. There is also a sikhara temple dedicated to Ratannath's disciple, Balaknath, which was built with a private donation, and close to it the house of the pujaris. This Yogi family has been in charge of the temple for six or seven generations, and, until 1927, was also managing an important guthi. Three brothers share now the responsibility. The worship is celebrated in winter in Tulsipur, then in summer in Phalabang. One Tuesday in Baisakh (April-May) two of the pujaris go up the hill, carrying the emblem of Ratannath (in this case a plate with his foot-prints) called also patradev. They walk for six hours, accompanied by Damai musicians, then arrive in Phalabang and stay there all summer until a Tuesday in Mangsir (November-December), when they retum to Tulsipur. In Phalabang there are two palaces, an old one in Newar style and a new one in Rana style, both quite impressive. In the old palace, there are the Ratannath temple (a small pagoda in brick) and altars to Bhairav. The pujaris place Ratannath's emblem in this temple for six months and perform there the Dasain celebration. There is a striking similarity between the past division in the three kingdoms of Dang, Chilli and Tulsipur-Phalabang (with their kot, their fortresses of the ridge, and the protection of Ratannath) and the nineteenth century division of the valley into parganas, the chiefs of which were the Tharus caudharis (cf. Krauskopff 1989:47, 1990). The connection is also found in rituals, since Ratannath is considered by the Tharus as their supreme deity, as a form of Shiva worshipped as guru, his disciples being the divine ancestors of the Tharus and the masters of the soil. And it was the tradition until thirty years ago that, when the Yogis took Ratannath in procession to the goddess sanctuary of Devi Patan (Balrampur District), the caudhari would publicly worship his ancestor deity and renew his own power that he had inherited from the divine sovereign of the soil (Krauskopff 1989: 49,52). History Prior to the Gorkha conquest, in the Light of the Documents of the Caughera Monastery. Dang Rajya Inhabited by the Tharus who, according to their traditions, believe in the existence of a former Tharu kingdom, Dang has probably been in the past under Jumla domination. There is one mention in a 1336 A. D. inscription of orders given by Punya Malla to his subordinate mahatam in Dang (Rajaure 1981:157). Later the tradition tells that the kingdom was conquered by a would-be Rajput king, and it is tempting to imagine a joint arrival of the rajputized kings together with the Yogis (as was the case in the legend of western kingdoms, after the Malla downfall), but we have no sure data7. According to Nevill's Gazetter of Bahreich (1922:124), in 1485 Dangdun was in the possession of a hill raja named Udat Singh, of the Chauhan dynasty. All we know is that the last independant king ruled from Caughera and was called Nawal Singh (in the documents of Caughera, but "Newal Singh" for Nevill [1921:79], "Nawab Singh" for Hamilton [1819, 1971: 277] and Nawal Sen on the wall paintings of the monastery). His relationship with the monastery is well established, as known from the mention of an edict 8, unfortunately not fully dated (14 clear fortnight of Phagun, but no year mentioned), a stithipatra, a "letter about customs," concerning a special tax, the kar kathala. Its revenue is still now given to the monastery. 6 Kunwar is the name given to Yogis, mainly householders, who have not performed the last initiation rites and thus who do not wear the earrings. 7 8 On the antiquity of Gorakhnathi influence and its traces in the Dang valley, see D.R. Sharma (1988). Narharinath gives, in Nariharinath (2022: 486-491), a list of 120 documents related to Caughera and publishes the text of about half of them. Unfortunately, the edict mentioned here appears only in the list, under No. 13. 6 This letter had been written in the assembly hall (dalaica of Sawari kot) in the presence of the king Nawal Singh of Dang and of the barapanthi (authorities of the sect) and among them Bhagavantanath. The mention of this Yogi is interesting, as he is linked to the Sallyan kingdom and was given land in the Dang Valley (in the western portion which was part of the Sallyan kingdom) in 1780. The king Nawal Singh is also mentioned in the Yogi vamsavali in relation to one of his rajgurus, whose name appears in the list of the various charges in the Caughera Monastery in 1776 (Narharinath n.d.: 48). But at this time the Dang rajya had already been allocated, on paper, to Krsna Shah, the king of Sallyan, as dowry, for the marriage in 1763 of his son, Ranabhim Shah, with Prithvi Narayan's daughter. King Krsna Shah received this Dang rajya thanks to his benevolent neutrality during the Gorkha conquest. The Dang territory is described also as a desa (cf. Krauskopff 1990: 3637), and its borders are the Madi river on the eastern side, the former border with Balrampur on the southern side, and the former borders with Sallyan on the western and northern sides (tamapatra from 1804 V. S., Narharinath 2022: 409). The king Nawal Singh was of course unhappy with these arrangements and he plotted against Sallyan and Kathmandu. He was defeated in 1786. He later sought refuge with the king of Balrampur, who gave him an estate in Tulsipur pargana (cf. Nevill1921:79 ft). We have thus a change in the political sovereignty in the Dang Valley, but the status of the Caughera monastery remained unchanged. In a document unfortunately undated but signed by both King Rana Bahadur Shah and prince Bahadur Shah, consequently during the regency between 1785 and 1794, we find a confirmation of "what has been given as ghar (house), khet (field), gaun (village), to the Ratannath's math by the king of Dang. The Yogis should eat what is theirs and the king what is his. Do not create trouble in the guthi of the Yogis. Let them do the puja according to tradition" (Narharinah 2022:659). Later, the Sallyan king was invested with the sovereignty, and we have many documents concerning the monastery, signed by Krsna Shah and his son Ranabhim Shah. For instance, in 1789: "Sri Krisna Shah, son of Samgramashah, warns not to creat any trouble in the collection of funds for the porterage and the food intended for the Yogis going to Patan Devi for patradev yatra." He sets himself up immediately as the protector of the Caughera tradition and perpetuates the privileges given by the former dynasty. But this Sallyan sovereignty would not last very long. In 1809 Ranabhim Shah was thrown out, following a conflict with Bhimsen Thapa and a forged accusation of treason (cf. Manandhar 1986). The administration of Sallyan was given to a governor, Rudra Vir Shah, who signed many edicts concerning the monastery. After him, Caughera dealt with different administrative officials, but no mention is made of Tej Bahadur Shah, who in 1827 worked as a tax collector for Sallyan, then was appointed as Raja of Phalabang with collection rights on Dang. Apparently, Caughera was outside his jurisdiction and directly responsible to Kathmandu. After the Rana ascendency, we find many documents signed by the different prime ministers. The administrative condition of Caughera followed the common procedure9: on the first level, contacts with the local mal kacahari (tax officer), adalat (law court in Sallyan), guthi kacahari (Guthi office), and then an appeal to the Prime Minister, or a request made directly to the Prime Minister during his sawari (visit), i. e., his hunting expedition in Terai, which was very important for the administration of the region. These expeditions, made every year, gave the people the opportunity of a direct contact with the minister, and thus a special office was in charge of collecting the requests made on these occasions. Many times the manbhau seized the opportunity to claim some monastery rights. Phalabang Regarding the second of the kingdoms associated with Ratannath, Phalabang, historical data are very poor. We know for sure that the newly appointed king Tej Bahadur Shah had the title of king of Phalabang. Accorking to Baburam Acarya (quoted in Manandhar 1986:103), it is in "a place in Salyan called Phalawang" that Vilas Kumari, the wife of the expelled King Ranabhim Sah of Sallyan, and the daughter of Prithvi Narayan, was exiled in 1809. Whether Phalabang was before the Gorkha annexion a part of Sallyan or a separate kingdom, we don't really know. Here are a few clues in favor of the opinion of a separate kingdom: (1) Hamilton ([1819] 1971: 278) mentions that, after the conquest, the rajas of Dang, "had withdrown to Phalabamb, which was not in the plain, but on a hill immediately overhanging it. These town is now (1802) often called Dang [...] New Dang or Phalabamb was protected by the Nawab Vazir." And Hamilton continues, without explaining if Phalabang has been conquered later on: "Nawab Singh, who was deprived of his estates, was reckoned the fortieth chief of his race. He retired to a house [...] 9 About State administration, see B. Hodgson (1880); M.S. Jain (1972); M.C. Regmi (1978, 1988); D.W. Edwards (1975), J.c. Marize (1980). 7 twelve coses north from Tulasipur." But Hamilton does not count Phalabang among the rajyas, among the Baisis, as he does for Dang and Chilli. (2) D. R. Regmi is more affirmative but does not provide evidence for what he says. "Both Phalabang and Sallyana were ruled by different rulers. Phalabang had cooperated with the Gorkhalis and the Raja became the ruler in the other principality after their victory" (1975: 13)10. (3) The tamapatra of 1804 A.D., recalling the dowry given by Prithvi Narayan to his daughter, presents Phalabang as independant from Sallyan: "In 1823 VS (1766 A.D.) the king and the queen gave their daughter in marriage to Ranabhim Shah, the king of Sallyan and together with her, they gave him Chilli, the Phalabang Hills, the Terai of Dang Deukhuri, and all this land in kus birta exempt from taxes." The same patra mentions,"the ancient muluk of Sallyan limited on the eastem side by the ancient border with Phalabang" (Narharinath 2022: 409). Whatever the status of Phalabang, we find mythical and ritual connections between the royal palace and the Siddha Ratannath worshipped by his Yogi priests. I suppose that this connection was anterior to the new rajya status given to Phalabang in 1837. If not, I cannot see why Tej Bahadur Sah and his successors needed to establish such a strong relationship with a deity totally alien to Sallyan and connected with Dang, a vainquished kingdom, outside their dominion. Chilli The political situation is also rather complex but we can rely on more documents. Chilli is listed by Hamilton as one of the Baisi (the twenty-two rajyas), "as a very small territory partly on the plains and partly on the hills; but it produced, as the Raja's share 2.500 rupees a year. The chief's residence was on a hill, the ascent to which may be 1,5 coses in length. There is round his house a small town containing two hundred houses. He is of the Samal tribe, that is, of the Malbum family, and is a branch of the Dang chiefs house. Being nearly connected with the Gorkha family by marriage, when his estates were seized, he went to Kathmandu and procured the whole to be restored without even tribute. If Bhimsen has respected them, he is the only chief from the Tishta to the Yamuna, that has retained his estates of power" ([1819] 1971: 279). It seems that Chilli had supported Gorkha in its conquest and kept its independency, but later on was annexed by Dang. A royal order of King Girban Shah to Maharaja Bir Bhadra Shaha of Chilli (translated in RSS, 21, 12,· 1989: 172) made in 1860 V.S. (1802 A.D.) says: "In recognition of your services during the battle of Argha, our father (Rana Bahadur Shah) has reconfirmed your possession of Chilli. Subsequently Chilli was joined to Dang on the ground that it was a vassal (thapale) of that principality11. However you, Maharaja Bir Bhadra Shah, submitted a petition protesting against that decision. Inquiries revealed that Chilli was not actually under Dang [...] We restore it to you [...] Remain loyal to us, and rule the territory of Chilli from generation to generation." This same Bir Bhadra Shah was already reigning in 1790 A.D. (cf. a letter from V.S. 1847, Narharinath 2022: 608). But he seems to have had a difficult time, since a rukka of 1863 V.S. (1806 A.D.) refers to trouble with moneylenders, which later on will be settled, since, "yesterday the king of Chilli ascended the throne" (Narharinath ibid.). I did not find any document on what happened afterwards or when the Chilli rajya was abolished. Guthi and Sovereignty In all the three places, Caughera, Phalabang-Tulsipur and Chilli, guthi lands were added to the Ratannath temples. I will focus here on the situation in Caughera as it appears from documents mostly from the nineteenth century. The foundation of the monastery seemed related to the gift of land made by the king. The revenue of these lands was intended for the maintenance of the monastery and the performance of its rituals. On this point legend and present observation agree: the centre of Caughera monastery and its raison d'etre are the permanent worship of a symbolic object representing Gorakhnath and, in some versions of the legend, given to Ratannath. The Yogis are considered as the pujaris, the officiating priests of this institution; here temple and monastery are not dissociated. The gifts of land are conditional. They are not made only in consideration of the rituaI status of the recipient, as are the royal gifts to Brahmans, because of the meritorious act of giving to a Brahman (cf. Burghart 1987); they are given to the deity Ratannath. And the Yogis are the 10 D.R. Regmi adds a surprising remark, "In the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah Phalabang rose to rule over a large entity before Gorkha came into the scene" (1975: 13) 11 We have traces of this, in a tamapatra from 1804 V.S. trying to define the borders of Dang and Sallyan: "Some people, claiming that Chilli is a different kingdom from Dang, had obtained a lalmohor. Then, after gathering 52 lakhs (sic) of people, it was established that Chilli had been annexed by Dang" (Narharinath 2022: 408) 8 beneficiaries of usufructuary rights, provided that they perform the "nitya naimitthika puja," maintain and repair the buildings, and feed the Yogis and pilgrims. And as it was explained in the legend of the arrow given to the king by Ratannath, the Yogis get a share (half) of the revenue of the kingdom because they also share in the care of the protective arrow: they collaborate with the king for the welfare of his kingdom. The correct performance of the puja, the functioning of the guthi, are necessary to the well-being of the king, to his success, to his leadership. Many requests made by the monastery's administrative chief, the manbhau, ended with these words: "If there is any trouble on the guthi land, how can we maintain the guthi of Ratannath and praise (jaya manai) the State (Sarkar)" (cf. a letter of 1909 V.S., in Narharinath 2022: 483). And Sarkar answered, "we confirm this guthi, do the puja according to the tradition and praise us -hamro jaya manau-" (2022: 493). 12 The Caughera Ratannath guthi is composed of seven villages, the "sat gaun"; among them five are in the Dang Valley and two in Deukhuri. It seems that these seven villages were given together, as they are always mentioned as a whole in the letters or edicts regarding the guthi (cf. Narharinath 2022: 502, 507, 510, etc.). When were they granted to the monastery? The first mentions that I have found are dated after the Gorkha conquest, but, as they are edicts of confirmation, it means that the guthi was already in existence.13 This guthi is still managed by the Yogis of Caughera. It covers approximately 1,250 bigha, or 850 hectares, and includes: in Dang, in the Sawari pargana where Caughera is situated, the four villages of Uttar and Dakhin Amrai, Jalaura and Caghu; in the Chilli pargana, the village of Dubicaur; in Deukhuri, the village of Ratanpur, where the grass for the elephants of the monastery was collected, and the small town of Lamahi Deupur (a new bazar which was in the beginning of the nineteenth century just a campsite, pal, for the Yogis in their journey to Devi Patan). These villages, plus two or three fields, were listed in a lal mohor (royal edict with read seal) of 1883 V.S. (1826 A.D.) by the king Rajendra who stated that he confirmed a lal mohor made by his father in 1866 V.S. "The land given since the beginning for the dhuni pani of Dang Caughera and all the taxes for the dhupbatti in Dang which have been coIlected till now, we maintain them, plus the kar kathala" (Narharinath 2022: 493). Guthi as Delegation of Sovereignty As R. Burghart has shown, "at the turn of the nineteenth century the king of Nepal saw himself as the autonomous lord or master of his territorial possessions and of the peoples who lives upon his land" (1987: 149). "In making a ritual gift -like in giving guthi land- he irrevocably alienated his pre-eminent right to enjoy and repossess the land" (1927: 250). The land given in guthi to religious institutions or temples was granted forever. The documents stressed an idea of timelessness in referring constantly to a sort of eternity, "since the beginning, since former times, aghidekhi," and regarding the future, in casting an everlasting curse on anyone damaging the guthi. Theoretically, only the king had the right to give land; but what happened is that some birta owners registered part of their birta as guthi (to preserve the lands from being sold by their heirs or requisitioned by the state (M. C. Regmi 1976:53). So in 1806, Bhimsen Thapa initiated a procedure of registration of all guthis, leading to the eviction of many non-royal guthis or guthis without documents (M. C. Regmi 1968, 4: 65-73). But later on, Jang Bahadur attempted to settle the conflicts by restoring some guthis, provided that they were properly managed14. We can see the importance, in this contest, of the lal mohors and sanads registering the donations; indeed, their mention is like a leitmotiv throughout the nineteenth century documents. For instance, at the election of the new head of the monastery, the pirsthapana, it was stated that the former pir had to deposit before the community not only all the goods of the temple but also all the documents, lalmohor, rukka, sanad (Narharinath 2022: 483, 513). And in several occasions, the administrative official summoned the math manbhau (administrative head of the monastery): "Come to our office with your lalmohor, rukka, sanad", and, in the lawsuits, each party claimed that he was in possession of an edict confirming his right. 12 It is quite interesting to find the same type of relationship between the Yogis and the Moghols. Goswami and Grewal (1967) quote many documents on the land granted to the Jogis of Jakhbar (Punjab) as "madad-i-ma'ash" by the Moghol emperors; "Significantly, the grantees were expected to 'remain occupied with praying for the permanene of the Conquering Dynasty' [...] They all belonged to, what Jahangir called, 'the army of prayers'" (1967: 23). 13 Cf. an edict signed by both Rana Bahadur Shah and Bahadur Shah (Narharinath 2022: 659), thus from the period of regency, between 1785 and 1794. This is also the first mention of the term "guthi"; according to Regmi, the use of the term guthi to denote the religious and charitable land endowments, "probably started only after the Gorkhali conquests" (1976: 47). 14 See M.C. Regmi (1967: IV, 71-75) for the complex attitude of Jang Bahadur, desirous to "entrench the sanctity of the Guthi system" and at the same time to appropriate the surplus income of the land endowments (cf. also Regmi Research Series, 1979, 11, No. 5, p. 68). 9 The expropriations did not concern Caughera. Although its guthi lands were given by a vainquished king and confirmed by an expelled king (Ranabhim of Sallyan), they were nevertheless confirmed by the Gorkha kings. And this was in accordance with the policy of conquest of Prihvi Narayan and his successors, who putting forward their Hinduism, take on the spiritual patronage of their enemies’ gods (Burghart 1987:265), all the more in the case of Dang where the main deity Ratannath was the cela, disciple, of their eponymous deity Gorakhnath. In spite of their permanency, the guthis were, in the case of Ratannath, limited by one condition: the aim of their foundation was to maintain the cult. And the king, as a guarantor for the dharma, was the ultimate authority responsible for the right performance of this cult. He was thus entitled to ask for accounts, to make sure that the revenue from the land was really applied to what it was collected for. And, in what appears as a limitation to the monastery' s autonomy, the manbhau, the Yogi in charge of the administration, was appointed by the king (or the prime minister). Let us take, for instance, the rukka of Jang Bahadur ratifying the succession between Bhaktinath Gosain and Hiranath in 1863 A.D.: "Hiranath, we appoint you as manbhau starting from the year 21 harvest which will be used for doing the puja in the Ratannath temple; now do the puja according to Ratannath' s tradition and praise the government" (Narharinath 2022:500). And later on in 1869: "Our greeting to manbhau Harinath of the Ratannath temple of Dang Caughera; as manbhau Hiranath is dead, we issue a rukka to appoint you as manbhau for maintaining the properties of the temple and doing the puja according to the ancient tradition" {2022:484). A strict control was exercised by the State on the administration of the guthi, and I was surprised to find a note, a purji, form the Dang mal kacahari (land revenue office) to the head Yogis of the Ratannath temple, stating in 1886 A.D.: "For everything which has been given (cadhauna), land, gold and silver, jewels and gems, you have to present a report every week; this order came from the Sallyan adalat (justice court). If you fail to do it, you will be punished" (Narharinath 2022: 484). The revenues received by the monastery from the guthi land were of different kinds15. The agricultural rents were the most important. In the case of Caughera, the fields were mainly cultivated by the Tharus, and according to G. Krauskopff (1989: 45), at the beginning of nineteenth century the tenure was in favour of the tiller with the potet system (the tenant kept all the harvest for himself but worked for free on a section of his land-owner's fields). But the situation became increasingly defavourable to the tenant and even worsened under the present system (since the land reform of 1964) of adhiya, sharing the harvest in half. In addition to the rent, the guthi owner was entitled to collect various taxes. The guthi is maphi, free of taxes, which means that the tenants working on the guthi land have to pay these taxes either directly to the guthi owner, here the monastery; or indirectly to collectors or revenue officers who hand these taxes over to the guthiyar. These taxes include economical or commercial duties and judicial fines or fines for adultary or illicit sexual relationships. Thus the king delegates to the monastery, or more precisely to the deity Ratannath, part of his proprietary rights and thus of his rights and duties regarding the people living in his realm. But our documents show that the situation was not always c1ear, as these rights were frequently disputed. The tenurial autonomy of the monastery was actually limited, on one hand, by attempts from collectors or officials to increase their own revenues, on the other hand by the reluctance of the tenants or other villagers to abide by the rights or privileges of the monastery, which was then forced to call on the State to settle the dispute. Conflicts with Collectors or with the State Forced labor: jhara Throughout the nineteenth century, we witness the same protest from Caughera over the imposition by State officials or collectors, of compulsory labor on the people working for the guthi. According to the maphi or exemption status of the guthi, the State had waived its right and given to the Yogi guthiyars the right to exact unpaid labor and goods from their tenants. But several times the order of exemption had to be repeated 16. It seems that there were two cases of forced labor: on one side, the craftsmen (Kamis, Tamautas and Sunars) working for Ratannath and probably in charge of the making and repairing of the cult objects; on the other side, the tenants working on the guthi lands, in other words, the villagers of the seven guthi villages. Let us take two examples: first, an official in a 1845 letter to the soldiers going to Dang to exact goljhara (forced labour on charcoal) wrote: "This year again, do not exact 15 Unfortunately Caughera lalmohors and inscriptions give far less details on the various tenurial privileges than those found by R. Burghart in the Janakpurdham monasteries. See the list of exemptions in his thesis (1978: 171-72). 16 For the many examples of the "rapacity of tax collectors," see M.C. Regmi (1971: 72). 10 goljhara from three Kami houses of Savari Gaun, as they are employed for the Ratannath's puja and have been exempted forever" (Narharinath 2022: 496). Then, in a 1828 letter to the soldiers in charge of imposing compulsory labor for the purpose of gathering wild elephants, Narsingh Thapa wrote: "Do not impose it on the villages of the Ratannath's guthi as they are yearly exempted from tax" (2022: 494).17 Among our documents the number of complaints and orders regarding the jhara and the troubles imposed on people is striking. Generally the order to stop bothering tenants is given to "sipahi" or to some "company" (for instance the "Bhavani company" under the Dafdar Khana Office, Narharinath 2022: 499). M.C. Regmi (1971: 110, 178, 188) mentions the use of military forces to impose jhara but in the present case, I do not know if the term sipahi refers to soldiers or simply to any "piun" or unskilled administrative employee 18. Anyhow, the "compulsory labor" seems to have been imposed with great harshness. Conflict about Taxes The documents collected by Narharinath Yogi give a few examples of the normal procedures. In 1850 the Dittha in charge of collecting the chapaiko rakam (a tax on printing?) wrote: "According to the tradition, the one who has to collect this tax from Ratannath's villages, must order the manufacturing of one object. Therefore we order the making of a bowl in sandal wood which costs 24 roupies 1/2 and we offer it before the assembly" (Narharinath 2022: 497). As M. C. Regmi (1967:46) states: "Where the beneficary was a temple, the proceeds [of State levies and taxes] were usually utilized to make ornaments for the deity." And although it raised many disputes and arguments, it was done in Caughera for what was called the “crown levies”, in other words, the levies used to finance the ritual celebrations in the royal family, i.e. the gadi mubarak for the royal coronation, the goddhuwa for the marriage of the eldest royal princess, the cumawan for the sacred thread ceremony of the crown prince19. In fact, these levies were sometimes used for very different purposes, for instance a cumawan was levied in 1810 to pay the troops in Kumaon (Regmi 1971: 64). In theory everybody had to submit to this taxes, but guthi endowments could be exempted if the "deed has made an express provision to this effect" (Regmi 1967:46). It was not the case for the Ratannath's guthi, which was therefore submitted to these crown levies. A long letter from the Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher (in 1961 V.S.) answered a complaint made by the manbhau Durganath. Apparently until 1853 V.S. the tradition was to collect the levies and dedicate the amount to the making of jewels for Ratannath. However in 1853 V.S. a goddhuva was collected, but not conveyed to the temple. The same happened in 1860 with a cumavan, and the manbhau, to his utmost indignation, was even arrested, "I, a man in ascetic garments, I have been put in jail for twenty days!" (Narharinath 2022: 510). He laid a charge against the mal adda, and after some administrative procedures, Chandra Shamsher decided that half of the amount would be devoted to the making of jewels, and half given in a sealed parcel to the pujari and put in the Ratannath's treasure. This privileged status was not recognized when in 1855-56 A.D. Jang Bahadur decided to levy a special tax for financing the war with Tibet. According to M. C. Regmi (1967:38): "This levy amounted to three manas of grains per muri of land under all tenure form."20. This trikhandi (as it was called) was collected from Caughera, as we know from a receipt: "Trikhandi for the year 11/12 V. S. has been collected from Manbhau Hiranath; its amount is 30 rp. 22 paisa" (Narharinath 2022: 498). But later in 1915 V.S. (1858 A.D.) the monastery seemed reluctant to pay, and the chief of the Bhavani military company threatened Hiranath: "You have not paid yet the trikhandi, we are sending sipahi with the dittha to collect the money" (2022: 499). Social Conflicts 17 Another example of capture of wild elephants through compulsory labor, in Regmi (1971: 69). I am thankful to A. Höfer who drew my attention to the different meanings of the term "sipahi." On the use of this term, as well as the one of Company, for non-soldiers employees, see Edwards (1975: 109-110). 19 gadi mamarakh or mubarakh, gift to "make the throne auspicious," goddhuva ("to wash the feet"), name of a rite in the marriage ceremony during which relatives and guests pay hommage to the young couple and offer them sorne coins; cumavan or cuvan, from cumvan, "to embrace," is, according to Sharma's dictionary (1962: 325), "a fee to be paid for the bratabandha of the king (at this occasion, the people having the darsan of the king embrace his feet and make a gift)." 20 Hence its name of trikhandi. But later on (1988: 48), Regmi writes: "The tax was collected at the flat rate of one-third of the total income, hence it was known as trikhandi"; looking at the amount paid by the monastery and also at the resources of the people, this second interpretation seems overestimated. 18 11 Conflicts with the State took place not only on fiscal matters. We find also in the documents examples of disputes concerning questions of pollution by food or sexual contact and thus concerning purification. This presents also a financial aspect, as the purification certificate was given for a fee paid to dharmadhikar 21. Let us take for example the sarva candrayana. Candrayana applies to series of fasts made according to the lunar fortnight, but here it means a "fine paid to the rajguru by anyone who has conhabited with a woman of lower caste" (Turner [1931] 1980:591). It also means, according to Hodgson, "an expiatory ceremony performed by the whole city or kingdom in atonement for the commission of some heinous sin or uncleanness" (quoted in Marize 1980: 146). But in our context it looks more like a yearly tax. For instance, there is a receipt from a Tharu head of parganas collecting 1942 V.S. sarvacandrayana from 40 Tharu houses; the sexual misconducts were such, perhaps, that there was an agreement to collect the fee at a general level? Anyhow, like the taxes mentioned before, it has always been a tradition "to give the sarva candrayana to Ratannath." Thus, according to a letter from 1947 V.S. (Narharinath 2022: 485), "regarding the villages of the guthi, it will be levied by the manbhau and put in the Ratannath's treasure." But many conflicts had come up in the past, and, in 1951 V.S. the dharmadhikar wrote to the manbhau Hiranath: "We have sent the order to raise sarva candrayana on the Jogis of Kaulya village. The sipahi in charge of this collection came back with your reply that there was an exemption edict for the Yogis of your temple, signed by the guru of Sallyan and stating not to take any payment (dastur) from Sri Nath. Give your proof or you will be punished according to the law" (or precisely "prevent from water" 2022: 499). The question of purification was always troublesome for the relationships between Caughera and the royal authority. We have for instance, in 1851 A.D., the case of a contamination during a feast (bhandara). In this bhandara in Sallyan, the Yogis of Caughera shared food with the Yogis of a village in Malneta. In this village, Mangali, the daughter of Baijanath Yogi had a sexual relationship with an untouchable blacksmith (Kami). The whole of the village, all the Yogis, all the bhandara became polluted. The dharmahikar wrote to Caughera, forbidding the Yogis to make the puja without prayascitta, purification. The Caughera Yogis refused: "We don't have to make prayascitta." The dharmadhikar concluded: "In this affair of prayascitta, you cannot disobey. If you have any proof from Sri Nath, come and show it to me" (Narharinath 2022: 497). Thirty years later, in 1885 A.D., the dharmadhikar agreed to recognize the right of Caughera to carry out the purification itself, or "to be directly purified by Ratannath", as it is said in another case. The dharmadhikar wrote, regarding another sexual misconduct: "Since the beginning, for the Yogis from Ratannath temple, the pani paruva dastur (i.e. the fee for water acceptance), is not given to the dharmadhikar but to the Ratannath temple. Therefore, as Sobhi Jaisyani had hidden her relationship with Karvir Kami and as all people from pure castes have been contaminated by water, the Yogis have to pay the dastur to the Ratannath temple" (Narharinath 2922: 508). This acknowledgment by the dharmadhikar, therefore by the king, of the special rights of Caughera, led to another conflict, but this time among the Yogis themselves. In 1770 A.D. Prithvi Narayan had given to a Sallyan Yogi, Bhagavantanath, and to his heirs, the mandalai, which included among other privileges the right to benefit from the fees for illegal sexual relationships among the whole Yogi caste (cf. Bouillier 1991). Consequently the mandalai and the purificatory rights of Ratannath overlapped (Narharinath, 2022:2,3,311). It shows another mode of relationship between the monastery and the State: the State was requested by the monastery to arbitrate disputes. The Caughera monastery, holding guthi lands, was involved in conflicts, first with other landowers or villagers, secondly with the people living and working on the guthi lands. In these conflicts, the State acted as an arbitrator, as the ultimate authority. Most of the problems with villagers living near the guthi land were water problems. I have seem at least fifteen requests made by the manbhaus to the subbas, subedars and lately to the Rana Prime Ministers during their sawari (their hunting expedition in the Terai), and concerning troubles with irrigation channels (Narharinath 2022:495, 496, 504, 505, 507-9, 513). It looked like people were spending most of their time diverting or even destroying each other’s irrigation pipes. And always, the manbhaus were complaining: "If they take the pipes out, our guthi land becomes dry, we cannot cultivate and there is no income to do the puja, then we cannot bless Sarkar." Other conflicts involved the guthi tenants, who did not want to fulfill their obligations any more. Here again, the manbhau complained to the State authorities. We have for instance a few letters such as this one dated from 1809 A.D., a politically difficult period during which the tenants probably tried to evade their obligations, especially in porterage for the pilgrimage. The same happened in 1951 and we see a letter of commitment signed by the Tharus from the guthi villages: "We, tenants of the guthi recognize that in the beginning, we were doing the necessary work for akhada dhuni, we were 21 One of the Brahman rajguru in charge of the application of the law relating to the purity rules. On this office, see Regmi Research Series, 1979, 11, 5 ff. 12 taking care of the journey to Sawarikot and Patandevi [...] We were not paying rent as it is the case on the raikar land [crown land] but were paying in kind and cash as it is the case on the birta; for the kind, we gave what was necessary for the puja as it was written before. But this year we have eaten the fruit but we have been late to do the work for the journey. Today we recognized the facts and, from now on, we will do the work for Sri as usual, we will do what we are supposed to do in exchange for the land. If we do not, we will abandon the land" (Narharinath 2022: 496). Conclusion We translated and presented here some of the documents which exemplify the relationship between the monastery of Caughera, its guthi tenants and the State. The tenurial autonomy and the sovereignty the guthi system of land tenure implied were, nevertheless, submitted to limitations and to constant reinstatement. But since the foundation, or rather the last period of the Dang autonomous rajya, until now, the monastery, the Yogis and the Ratannath's cult have managed to maintain their spiritual and political preeminence, their outworldly and inworldly success. An earlier version of this paper was presented in a symposium on "Soverignty in the Himalayan region" held in the South Asian Institute of Heidelberg (June 1991), and then summarized for the Sociological and Anthropological Society of Nepal (SASON) conference held in Kathmandu in September 1992. I am grateful to the organizer and all the participants for their interesting and useful comments. * First published in Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vol. 20, N° 1 (January 1993). Slightly modified References Banerjee, A.K. 1962. Philosophy of Gorakhnath. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Bouillier, V. 1986. "La caste sectaire des Kanphata Jogi dans le royaume du Nepal: l'exemple de Gorkha", B.E.F.E.O., LXXV: 125-176. ____. 1989. "Pretres du pouvoir: les Yogis et la fonction royale". In V. Bouillier and G. Toffin (eds), La Pretrise en Himalaya: Pouvoirs et Autorite. Paris: Ed. de l'EHESS (coll. Pususartha n° 12), 193213. ______. 1991 "The king and his Yogi: Prithvi Narayan Sah, Bhagavantanath and the unification of Nepal in the eighteenth century". In J.P. Neelsen (ed), Gender, Caste and Power in South Asia. Delhi: Manohar, 3-21. ____. 1991. "Growth and decay of a Kanphata Yogi monastery in southwest Nepal". The lndian Economic and Social History Review, 28, 2, 151-170. Briggs, G.W. 1938 / 1973. Gorakhnath and the Kanphata Yogis. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Burghart, R. 1978. "The History of Janakpurdham. A Study of Asceticism and the Hindu Polity" . unpublished PhD thesis, University of London; SOAS. ____. 1984. "The Formation of the Concept of Nation-State in Nepal." Journal of Asian Studies, XIV, 1, 101-125 ____. 1987. "Gifts to the Gods: Power, Property and Ceremonial in Nepal." In D. Cannadine and S. Price (eds), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Cambridge University Press, pp. 237-70. Dasgupta, S. D. 1976. Obscure Religious Cults. Calcutta: Firma KLM Edwards, Daniel W. 1975. "Nepal on the Eve of the Rana Ascendancy", Contribution to Nepalese Studies, 2: 1, pp. 99-118. Goswami, B. N. and J.S. Grewal. 1967. The Mughals and the Jogis of Jakhbar. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies. Hamilton, F. Buchanam. (1819) 1971. An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal. Edinburgh: Archibald Constable, New Delhi: Manjusri. Hodgson, Brian H. 1880. Miscellaneous Essays Relating to Indian Subjects. Vol. 2. London: Trubner. 13 Horovitz, J. 1914. "Baba Ratan, the Saint of Bhatinda". Journal of the Panjab Historical Society, II: 2, 97-117. Jain, M. S. 1972. The Emergence of a New Aristocracy in Nepal. Agra: Shri Ram Mehra & Co. Krauskopff, G. 1989. Maitres et Possedes, les rites et l'ordre social chez les Tharu. Paris: Ed. du CNRS. ____ 1990. "Les Tharu et le royaume hindou de Dang". L'Homme, 116, XXX (4), 30-54. Manandhar, T. 1986. "'Raja Ranabhim Shah of Sa1yan". Regmi Research Series, XVIII, 7. Marize, Jean-Clande. 1980. "Les Rana et le pouvoir 1846-1951 (The Ranas and power)". These de troisième cycle. Universite de Rouen, France. Mumford, S. R. 1989. Himalayan Dialogue. Tibetan Lamas and Gurung Shamans in Nepal. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Narharinath Yogi. 2022. V.S. Itihas Prakasma sandhipatrasamgraha. Varanasi: Kalpana Press. ________ N.D. Yogi vamsavali, Kasi, Goraksa Granthmala 87. Nevill, H. R. 1921. Gonda, a Gazetteer, Vol. XLIV. Allahabad: Govemment Press. ___. 1922. Bahreich, a Gazetter, Vol. XLV, Allahabad, Gvt Press. Rajaure, D. 1981 "Tharus of Dang", Kailash, 8, 3-4,155-181. Regmi, D. R. 1975. Modern Nepal. Calcutta: K.L. Mukhopadhyay. Regmi, M. C. 1967. Land Tenure and Taxation in Nepal. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies. ___. 1971. A Study in Nepali Economic History: 1768-1846. Delhi: Manjusri Publishing House. ____. 1976. Landownership in Nepal. Berkeley: University' of Califomia Press. ____. 1978 Thatched Huts and Stucco Palaces. Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. ___. 1988. An Economic History of Nepal: 1846-1901. Varanasi: Nath Publishing House. Sharma, B. C. 1962. Nepali Shabdakosh. (Nepali dictionary) Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy. Sharma, D. R. 1988. "Archaelogical Remains of the Dang Valley". Ancient Nepal, 106, June-July 88,9-12. Turner, Ralph Lilley. (1931) 1991. A Comparative and EtymoIogical Dictionary of the Nepali Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., and New Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Unbescheid, G. 1980. Kanphata. Untersuchungen zu Kult. Mythologie und geschichte Sivaitischer Tantriker in Nepal. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. 14 Maps of the Dang Kingdom in the beginning of the 19th century (from G. Krauskopff 1989: 43)