Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:53:49.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Asceticising’ Monastic Families: Ascetic Genealogies, Property Feuds and Anglo-Hindu Law in Late Colonial India*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

MALAVIKA KASTURI
MALAVIKA KASTURI*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines a fundamental premise of Anglo-Hindu law on succession between 1860 and 1940, that kinship was emblematic of secular modes of living, to analyse its implications for the assertion of masculinity within ascetic orders in northern India. Legal discourses engaged with rights to succession within ascetic orders, by functioning on the assumption that the renunciatory life of ascetics was antithetical to sexuality and domesticity. This institutionalization of law, that defined asceticism and fixed ascetic masculinities within a legal frame, occurred with the consent of ascetic orders concerned with the ownership and distribution of property, even though sexuality and gender played a central role in shaping relationships within sacred spaces. Myriad ties embracing the language of kinship shaped ascetic orders. Bonds of sentiment and sexual attachment over-lapped with, sustained, and produced the bonds tying spiritual preceptors to their disciples. Relationships within ascetic families, consisting of men, their female companions, children and relatives, along with their attendant obligations were validated through rights of ownership and inheritance to property. Taking advantage of Anglo-Hindu law by the early twentieth century, ascetic orders sought to ‘purify’ their genealogies through the medium of property disputes fought in colonial courts. By manipulating the legal meanings ascribed to asceticism, masculinity and renunciation, these orders effaced unwanted members from their orders with varying degrees of success, especially women and children.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 5 , September 2009 , pp. 1039 - 1083
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Communiqué, 9 March 1915, in General Administration Department (hereafter GAD), F/751/1915, Box 289, Uttar Pradesh State Archives (hereafter UPSA).

2 Notes and Orders, Serial One, 19 November 1907, in GAD, F/751/1915, Box 289, UPSA. For information on Musumat Phuljaria, see the ‘Claims of the Dasnamis’ attached to Notes and Orders, 19 August 1908, in GAD, F/751/1915, Box 289, UPSA.

3 The generic term gosain is used when discussing ascetics belonging to various sampradayas. While the term bairagi has been used to refer specifically to members of Vaishnava orders, as William Pinch points out, from the nineteenth century both Shaiva and Vaishnava sampradayas often defined themselves as gosains. Pinch, W., Peasants and Monks in British India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 43–7Google Scholar.

4 Chatterjee, P., The Nation and Its Fragments, Colonial and Post-colonial Histories (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 16–34, 74Google Scholar.

5 Chatterjee, I., ‘Introduction’, in Chatterjee, I. (ed.), Unfamiliar Relations, Family and History in South Asia (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2004), pp. 1–36Google Scholar. For general discussions of kinship and belonging see Strathern, M., Reproducing the Future, Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies (Manchester University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Karsten, J., Cultures of Relatedness, New Approaches to the Study of Kinship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Franklin, S. and Mackinnon, S. (eds.), Relative Values, Reconsidering Kinship Studies (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

6 Indrani Chatterjee points out that by paying attention to the semantic aspects of family in court records, oral kin narratives or archival texts, we may understand the micro-politics of the family. Chatterjee, ‘Introduction’, in I. Chatterjee (ed.), Unfamiliar Relations, pp. 13–14. Also see I. Chatterjee, ‘Gossip, Taboo and Writing Family History’, in Chatterjee (ed.), Unfamiliar Relations, pp. 222–60.

7 Pinch, W., Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 158Google Scholar. For a discussion of the begums and ranis associated with the Dasnami akharas, see pp. 148–93.

8 Ibid., p. 259.

9 Ibid., pp. 188–9.

10 Turner, V., Dramas, Fields and Metaphors, Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), p. 33Google Scholar. The idea of legal social dramas is borrowed from Appadurai, A., Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule, A South Asian Case (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the ways in which the different meanings of family were manipulated by courts and litigants, see S. Vatuk, ‘Family as a Contested Concept in Early Nineteenth Century Madras’, in Chatterjee (ed.), Unfamiliar Relations, pp. 161–84.

11 For the new ‘rule’ of property in colonial India, see Guha, R., A Rule of Property for Bengal, An Essay on the Idea of Permanent Settlement (Paris: Mouton, 1963)Google Scholar.

12 See Appadurai, Worship and Conflict, pp. 63–104. Also see Koslowski, G., Muslim Endowments and Society in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Banerjee-Dube, I., Divine Affairs, Religion, Pilgrimage and the State in Colonial and Postcolonial India (Shimla: Indian Institute for Advanced Study, 2001)Google Scholar. For the relationship between rulers and temples before British rule, see Guha, S., ‘Wrongs and Rights in the Maratha Country, Antiquity, Custom and Power in Eighteenth Century India’, in Guha, S. and Anderson, M. (eds.), Rights and Justice in South Asia (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 14–29Google Scholar; Chakravarti, U., Rewriting History, The Life and Times of Pandita Ramabai (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1998)Google Scholar.

13 Appadurai, Worship and Conflict, pp. 63–104; Koslowski, Muslim Endowments. For a useful reassessment and analysis of the distinctions between public and private charities seen through the lens of the Charitable Endowments Acts, see R. Birla, ‘Hedging Bets, The Politics of Commercial Ethics in Late Colonial India’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1999).

14 Washbrook, D., ‘Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial India’, Modern Asian Studies (hereafter MAS), 15:3, 649–721, 1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Families in spaces viewed as sacred and secular struggled to accommodate a variety of attachments, rights and obligations under British rule. For an example of property feuds within elite lineages in colonial India, see Kasturi, M., Embattled Identities, Rajput Lineages and the Colonial State in Nineteenth Century North India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 137–71Google Scholar; Sturman, R., ‘Property and Attachments, Defining Autonomy and the Claims of Family in Nineteenth Century India’, Comparative Studies in Society and History (hereafter CSSH), 47:3, 611–37, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 M. Kasturi, ‘All Gifting is Sacred, The Social History of Dana in Late Colonial India’ (unpublished seminar paper, History Department Seminar, University of Delhi, September 2006) gives a fuller exposition of the unstable and shifting values of gifts and the contexts in which they were given meaning in late colonial India.

17 Property mediated relationships between people, separated them or brought them together, especially when land was bought, sold, inherited, or disputed. Strathern, M., Property, Substance and Effect, Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things (London and New Brunswick: Athlone, 1999), pp. 16–21Google Scholar; Judy-Bellini, M. and Juillerat, B. (eds.), People and Things, Social Mediations in Oceania (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2002), pp. 12–23Google Scholar.

18 The literature on renunciation, and its connections with the asramas (and asceticism), is vast and only a few authors are quoted on the permeable boundaries between ‘asceticism and the world of domesticity and sexuality’. Examples include, Olivelle, P., Renunciation in Hinduism, A Medieval Debate, The Debate and Advaita Argument, Vol. 1 (Vienna: Institut für Indologie der Universität Wien, 1989), pp. 17–29Google Scholar; Van der Veer, P., Gods on Earth, Religious Experience and Identity in Ayodhya (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 66–182Google Scholar; Lorenzen, D., ‘Introduction’, in Lorenzen, D. (ed.), Religious Movements in South Asia, 600–1800 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 7–9Google Scholar; R. Bughart, ‘The Founding of the Ramanandi Sect, in Lorenzen (ed.), Religious Movements, pp. 227–50; Openshaw, J., Seeking Bauls of Bengal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 125–39Google Scholar. For a discussion of the ways in which asceticism was incorporated within the lives of lay worshippers and householders, see Laidlaw, J., Riches and Renunciation, Religion, Economy and Society Among the Jains (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 151–89Google Scholar; Sarkar, S., ‘Kaliyuga, Chakri and Bhakti, Ramakrishna and His Times’, in S. Sarkar, Writing Social History (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 282–357Google Scholar.

19 Van der Veer, Gods on Earth, pp. 154–71.

20 In his study of the Ramanandis of Ayodhya, Van der Veer shows how the language of kinship is used for expressing the relationships within ascetic orders. See Van der Veer, Gods on Earth, pp. 72–75.

21 For distinctions between official and practical kinship see Bourdieu, P., Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bourdieu differentiated between ‘official’ and ‘practical’ kinship within genealogically linked groups. While official kinship consists of the official definition of social reality presented by the group, practical relationships are continuously kept up and cultivated. Bourdieu likens the genealogical tree to a ‘spatial diagram’ in which the various permutations and combinations of kinship relations exist in totality as a theoretical construct. Bourdieu, Outline, pp. 39–43.

22 For an analysis of the relationship between asceticism and women, see Guha, R., ‘Chandra's Death’, in Guha, R. (ed.), A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1985–95 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 51–55Google Scholar. On the history of courtesans, see Oldenburg, V., ‘Lifestyle as Resistance, The Case of the Courtesans of Lucknow’, in Prakash, G. and Haynes, D. (eds.), Contesting Power, Resistance and Everyday Social Relations in South Asia (University of California Press, 1992), pp. 23–55Google Scholar; Sarkar, T., ‘Talking About Scandals, Religion, Law and Love in Late Nineteenth Century Bengal’, in T. Sarkar, Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation, Community, Religion and Cultural Nationalism (New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001), pp. 53–94Google Scholar; Pinch, Warrior Ascetics, pp. 185–7.

23 Pinch has shown that the members of wealthy akharas in late colonial India were able to fall back on the substantial endowments, largely land, acquired during the eighteenth century, Pinch, Peasants and Monks, p. 29.

24 On popular religiosity, see Bayly, C. A., Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars, North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Freitag, S., Culture and Power in Banaras, Community, Performance and Environment, 1800–1980 (University of California Press, 1989)Google Scholar; K. Prior, The British Administration of Hinduism in North India, 1780–1900 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1990); Lutgendorf, P., The Life of a Text, Performing the Ramcaritmanas of Tulsidas (University of California Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Kaur, R., Performative Politics and the Cultures of Hinduism, Public Uses of Religion in Western India (New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003)Google Scholar.

25 For analyses highlighting the role of property disputes for transforming power and gender hierarchies, see Price, P., Kingship and Political Practice in Colonial India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Chakravarthy, U., Rewriting History, The Life and Times of Pandita Ramabai (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1998)Google Scholar; R. Sturman, ‘Family Values, Refashioning Property and Family in Colonial Bombay Presidency, 1880–1937’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis, 2001); Kasturi, Embattled Identities, pp. 137–71.

26 Pinch, Peasants and Monks, pp. 43–5.

27 For a discussion of the manipulation of spiritual genealogies, see R. Bughart, ‘The Founding of the Ramanandi Sect’, in Lorenzen (ed.), Religious Movements, pp. 234–45.

28 Pinch, Peasants and Monks, p. 24.

29 Cohn, B. H., ‘The Role of Gosains in the Economy of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Upper India’, Indian Economic and Social History Review (hereafter IESHR), 1: 175–82, 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kolff, D. A., ‘Sannyasi Trader-Soldiers’, IESHR, 8: 213–20, 1971Google Scholar.

30 Note by Mr Barlow ‘Deputed to Enquire into the Trade and Coinage of Banaras’, to Governor General in Council, Commissioners Office, Banaras, 24 August 1787, in Duncan's Records, August 1787, Vol. 7, Basta 2, Uttar Pradesh Regional Archives, Allahabad (hereafter UPRAA).

31 Petition of Hindus and Mussalmans of all Classes, 21 January 1811, in Banaras Collectorate Pre-Mutiny Records Register 8, Letters Issued and Received, 1800–1820, Basta 2, UPRAA.

32 Francis Buchanan Hamilton, ‘Account of Behar and Patna’, Mss. Eur. D/85, Oriental and India Office Records (hereafter OIOC), pp. 255–6.

33 Pinch, Peasants and Monks, p. 31.

34 Secretary to Government, North Western Provinces (hereafter NWP) and Awadh, from Commissioner, Meerut Division, 8 February 1893, in GAD, F/432B, Box 12, UPSA.

35 Cohn,‘Gosains in the Economy’, IESHR, p. 181.

36 Witness depositions suggest that the income of the Madhavi gosains drew heavily from their disciples, and other pilgrims. Deposition of Radha Rawa Das, Gosain, Brindavan, 15 September 1884; Deposition of Babu Madho Das, son of Manak Charan Agarwala, Rais of Banaras, both printed among the papers attached to Krishna Das versus Gosain Tole Ram and Others, First Appeal 44/1885, 7 March 1885, First Appeal Basta/1885, Allahabad High Court Decided Civil Cases Record Room (hereafter AHCDCCRR). The lay disciples all stressed that to cultivate purity, honesty and thoughtfulness, their forefathers not only became chelas, but dedicated goods of every description and landed properties to the temple.

37 Deposition of Bunsee Lal, Plaintiff's Witness, 27 November 1875, Gomastha, in Gosain Peri Narain Gir, versus Mussumat Lall Monee (no case number), Regular Appeal, 61/1873, First Appeal Basta/1874, AHCDCCRR. Also see Sale Deed Executed by Bhageenitee and Others, 6 May 1862, Gosain Peri Narain Gir versus Mussumat Lall Monee, AHCDCCRR.

38 Wajib-ul-arz of Mahal Dungurpur Khas and of Mahal Reotpur, Zamania Pargana, Ghazipur District, 21 October 1927, in Secretary of State for India in Council versus Sat Narain Rai and Others, First Appeal 265/1928, First Appeal Basta/1922, AHCDCCRR.

39 Hamilton, ‘Account of Behar and Patna’, Mss. Eur. D/85, pp. 204–7, OIOC.

40 Judgement of Sub-Judge of Agra, 14 September 1884, in Krishna Das versus Gosain Tola Ram, First Appeal 44/1885, AHCDCCRR.

41 Agreement Executed by Gosain Tole Ram, 11 March 1880: Judgement of the Sub-Judge of Agra, 14 September 1884, both in Krishna Das versus Gosain Tole Ram, First Appeal 44/1885, AHCDCCRR. By the 1880s, the bhandar of the Madhavi Gosains expanded to include temples, land and pilgrims’ offerings in Mathura, Brindavan and Agra, in addition to houses, shops, jewellery, cash, silver, gold plates and clothes.

42 Agreement Executed by Gosain Tole Ram, 11 March 1880, in Krishna Das versus Gosain Tole Ram, First Appeal 44/1885, AHCDCCRR.

43 Deposition of Baba Mahima Chandra Juardar, 5 September 1884, in Krishna Das versus Gosain Tole Ram and Others, First Appeal 44/1885, AHCDCRR.

44 Pir Chet Nath and Pir Puran Nath versus Dwarka Nath, First Appeal 65/1907, Basta/1906–7, AHCDCCRR.

45 Agreement Executed by Gosain Tole Ram, 11 March 1880 in Krishna Das versus Gosain Tole Ram and Others, First Appeal 44/1885, AHCDCCRR.

46 Hamilton, ‘Account of Behar and Patna, Mss. Eur. D/85, p. 207, OIOC.

47 Petition of Mahant Prag Das, Bishnu Bairagi, 19 July 1884; Decree of the Chief Justice, High Court, 15 January 1885, both in Ram Narain Pandey and Jagat Narain Pandey versus Mahant Prag Das, First Appeal 15/1885, AHCDCCRR.

48 Deposition of Sukhdeo Lal, Bhumihar, 9 December 1924, in Mahadeo Bharti versus Madho Rai and Others, First Appeal 133/1929, Basta /1929, AHCDCCRR.

49 Judgement of Niamut Ullah, High Court Judge, Allahabad, 6 March 1929, in Mahadeo Bharti versus Madho Rai and Others, First Appeal 133/1929, AHCDCCRR. For further details of math affairs, see the printed version of the court proceedings of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur, in Mahadeo Bharti versus Madho Rai and Others, First Appeal 133/1929, AHCDCCRR.

50 See the Judgement of Judge Mukherjee, High Court Judge, Allahabad, 6 March 1929 and Judgement of Niamut Ullah, High Court Judge, Allahabad, 6 March 1929, both in Mahadeo Bharti versus Madho Rai and Others, First Appeal 133/1929, AHCDCCRR. For a similar discussion, see Som Giri versus Ram Ratan Giri, Allahabad Law Journal Report (hereafter ALJR), 1941, pp. 660–667.

51 Codicil of the will of Saraswati Gir, 6 December 1895 Filed by Mussumat Sitla Gir, Applicant in Case 50/1898 versus Jagannath, in Banaras Collectorate Records (hereafter BCR), List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, Uttar Pradesh Regional Archives Baranas (hereafter UPRAB).

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Thus, Mahant Shankaranand Giri of Gaddi Shankar Ashram of Bhimgodda in Saharanpur asserted in 1924 that his successor ‘shall be in every way, the owner of the entire moveable and immoveable property and cash given below in my possession at present or which I might acquire in the future’. Som Giri versus Ram Ratan Giri et al., High Court, ALJR, 1941, p. 662.

57 Kartar Singh Bedi versus Dayal Das et al., Privy Council, ALJR, 1939, p. 810.

58 Political Agent, Bharatpur Agency, to Resident, Delhi, 9 April 1831, in Foreign Department, Political Consultations, 27 May 1831, No. 30, National Archives of India (hereafter NAI).

59 Kuar Lachman Singh remarked that ‘the term bairagi is applied indiscriminately to all sorts of mendicants, who generally lead a vagrant life. . .. There is no distinction of caste among them, but the sectarian sub-divisions are many’. Kuar Lachman Singh, The Historical and Statistical Memoir of Bulandshahr, 1874 (Allahabad, Government Press, 1874), p. 187. For a fuller discussion of the meanings of the terms gosain and bairagi, see Pinch, Peasants and Monks, pp. 27–47.

60 Report of the Administration of the Police of North-Western Provinces and Oudh, 1888 (Allahabad: Government Press, 1888), p. 21.

61 Baba Jagtanand Brahmachari versus Brahmdeo and Others, High Court, 22 September 1939, ALJR, p. 992.

62 Amongst Dasnami orders, the ‘tantra-shakta constellation of meanings’ posited that women ‘may well have resided at the core of gosain asceticism as the font from which all military success and political power, and war booty flowed’, Pinch, Warrior Ascetics, pp. 210–11.

63 Hamilton, ‘Account of Behar and Patna’, Mss. Eur. D/85, p. 223, OIOC.

64 Deposition of Tulsi Das, 1 August 1874, in Saligram Das versus Musssumat Sujanio, Regular Appeal 8/1875, First Appeal Basta/1874–5, AHCDCCRR.

65 Crooke, W., Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Vol. 4 (Allahabad: Office of Superintendent of Government Printing, 1892Google Scholar; reprinted, Asian Educational Services, 1999), p. 426.

66 Mohan Lalji and Another versus Gordhan Lalji Maharaj and Others, Privy Council, 11 February 1913, ALRJ, 1913, Vol. 35, p. 285.

67 See case of Saraswati Gir and Narain Gir, cited below.

68 Crooke, Tribes and Castes, Vol. 2, p. 471.

69 Ibid., p. 472.

70 A visitor to Chaitanya maths in Bengal in 1928 observed that in most akharas and maths, female ascetics, or bairagins lived quite openly with the Mahants as wives. The Chaitainya Matt, A Study of Vaishnavism in Bengal (Mysore, 1925), pp. 170–1.

71 The Report of the Police of the North Western Provinces and Oudh, Year Ending June 1893 (Allahabad: Government Press, 1894), p. 59.

72 The Bengal District Gazetteer, Saran (Calcutta: Government Press, 1908), pp. 45–7.

73 Deposition of Dewa Das, Bairagi, 1 August 1874, in Saligram Das versus Mussumat Sujano, First Appeal 8/1875, AHCDCCRR.

74 Agreement executed by Gosain Tole Ram, 11 March 1880, in Krishna Das versus Gosain Tole Ram and Others, First Appeal 44/1885, AHCDCCRR.

75 See case studies cited below.

76 Bengal District Gazetteer, pp. 45–7.

77 Babu Jyotish Swarup, Pleader, Dehra Dun, to Rai Bahadur Pandit Keshavanand Mumgain, Third Member of Council of Regency, Tehri Darbar, 14 May 1915, in Political Department, F/185/1915, Box 360, UPSA.

78 High Court Judgement, 8 August 1875, in Saligram Das versus Musssumat Sujanio, Regular Appeal 8/1875, AHCDCCRR.

79 Award Received by Panches in a Committee Composed of Bairagis Regarding the Management of the Temple of Mahant Janki Das in Mohulla Karoli, Moradabad, 11 December, 1862, in Saligram Das versus Musssumat Sujanio, Regular Appeal 8/1875, AHCDCCRR.

80 Deposition of Tulsi Das, 1 August 1874; Deposition of Jairam Das Bairagi, 1 August 1874, both in Saligram Das versus Musssumat Sujanio, Regular Appeal 8/1875, AHCDCCRR. Jairam Das, a member of the panchayat that had removed Salig Ram as Mahant, deposed that Raman Bai was a Kayasth, and had been ‘kept’ by Janki Das. The latter, he averred, had contracted a gandharva marriage with her, as per the custom of the bairagis.

81 Deposition of Gurg Das, Bairagi; Judgement of the Sub-Judge of Moradabad, 8 August 1874; High Court Judgement, 27 August 1875, all in Saligram Das versus Musssumat Sujanio (Alias Raman Bai), Regular Appeal 8/1875, AHCDCCRR.

82 Deposition of Dewa Das, 1 August 1874, in Saligram Das versus Musssumat Sujanio, Regular Appeal 8/1875, AHCDCCRR.

83 Written Statement Filed by Mussumat Raman Bai, 17 January 1874, in Ahmed Baksh versus Mussumat Sujano, First Appeal 124/1874, AHCDCCRR.

84 Allahabad High Court Judgement, 27 August 1875, in Saligram Das versus Musssumat Sujanio, Regular Appeal 8/1875, AHCDCCRR.

85 Officiating Commissioner, Banaras Division, to Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, 12 October 1900, in Banaras Commissioners Records (hereafter BCMR), List 2, File 95, Department 10, Box 6, UPRAB. Also see will of Saraswati Gir, 6 December 1895, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

86 Translation of a Deed of Release Executed by Mussumat Sital Girin, 6 December 1895, in BCMR, List 2, File 95, Department 10, Box 6, UPRAB.

87 Ibid.

88 Mussumat Sitla Gir versus Gosain Jagannath Gir, High Court of Judicature for NWP and Awadh, 18 February 1899, in BCMR, List 2, File 95, Department 10, Box 6, UPRAB.

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid.

91 Officiating Commissioner, Banaras Division, to Secretary, Board of Revenue, NWP and Awadh, 22 August 1890, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

92 Report of the Administration of Police of North Western Provinces and Oudh, Year Ending June 1875 (Allahabad: Government Press, 1875), Appendix 4 B. The police report of 1877 suggested such kidnappings often took place with the connivance of parents. Report of the Secretary to Government, NWP, to Inspector General of Police, NWP and Awadh, 11 October 1878, Report of Administration of Police of North Western Provinces and Oudh, Year Ending June 1878 (Allahabad: Government Press, 1878), p. 5.

93 Petition of Manoharlal, Banaras, to Collector, Banaras (undated), in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

94 Ibid.

95 Ram Dulari Gir, to Collector, Banaras, 16 July 1913, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

96 Kartar Singh Bedi versus Dayal Das and Others, Privy Council, 15 June 1939, ALJR, 1939, pp. 810–14.

97 Stokes, E., The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969)Google Scholar; and Guha, Rule of Property.

98 Singha, R., A Despotism of Law, Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. xiGoogle Scholar.

99 The literature on the codification of personal law is vast. See, Bhattacharya, N., ‘Remaking Custom, The Discourse and Practice of Colonial Codification’, in Champakalakshmi, R. and Gopal, S. (eds.), Tradition, Dissent and Ideology, Essays in Honour of Romila Thapar (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 48Google Scholar; Mani, L., ‘Contentious Traditions, The Debate on Sati in Colonial India’, in Sangari, K. and Vaid, S. (eds.), Recasting Women, Essays in Colonial History (New Delhi: Kali For Women, 1989), pp. 88–121Google Scholar; Hasan, Z. (ed.), Forging Identities, Gender, Communities and the State in India (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1994)Google Scholar; Nair, J., Women and Law in Colonial India, A Social History (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1996)Google Scholar; Kasturi, Embattled Identities, pp. 149–54.

100 Derrett, J. D. M., Religion, Law and the State in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Kugle, S. A., ‘Framed, Blamed and Renamed, The Recasting of Islamic Jurisprudence in Colonial South Asia’, MAS, 35:2, 257–313, 2001Google Scholar; Koduth, P., ‘Courting Legitimacy or Delegitimising Custom? Sexuality, Sambandhanam, and Marriage Reform in Late Nineteenth Century Malabar’, MAS, 35:2, 349–84, 2001Google Scholar: Sturman, ‘Family Values’; Arunima, G., There Comes Papa, Colonialism and the Transformation of Matriliny in Kerala, Malabar, 1850–1940 (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2003)Google Scholar.

101 Baden-Powell, B. H., Land Systems of British India, Being a Manual of the Land Tenures and the Systems of Land-Revenue Administration Prevalent in the Several Provinces, Vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1892), pp. 98–99Google Scholar. Baden-Powell was influenced by Henry Maine's idea that ancient societies were aggregations of families. Maine, H. S., Ancient Law, Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas, 10th ed. (London: Murray, 1885), pp. 121–7, 256Google Scholar.

102 Sontheimer, D. J. M. G., The Hindu Joint Family, Its Evolution as a Legal Institution (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1977)Google Scholar; Derrett, Religion, Law and the State.

103 H. T. Colebrook (trans.), ‘The Mitakshara’, The Dayabhaga and the Mitakshara, Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Calcutta, 1810; reprint, New Delhi, 1984), pp. 276–7. Also see Mcnaughten, W., Principles of Hindu Law, Being a Compilation of Primary Rules Relative to the Doctrine of Inheritance, Contracts and Miscellaneous Subjects, Together with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory and Preliminary Remarks (Calcutta, 1820)Google Scholar.

104 Kasturi, Embattled Identities, pp. 164–9.

105 Many records of rights illustrated that civil court decisions were ignored. See, for example, the wajib-ul-arz of mahal Reotpur, Zamana Pargana, Ghazipur District, 21 October 1927, in Secretary of State for India in Council versus Sat Narain Rai and Others, First Appeal 265/1928, AHCDCCRR.

106 From the beginning of the twentieth century, the avowed need for law to adapt itself to the ‘habits and customs of every community’ resulted in added emphasis placed upon normative family, caste, and community ‘customs’. For details on customary law, see Derrett, Religion, Law; Sontheimer, Joint Family. Customary usages were selectively interpreted and civil court interpretations of the same were often ignored. For example, see the wajib-ul-arz of mahal Reotpur, Zamana Pargana, Ghazipur District, 21 October 1927, in Secretary of State for India in Council versus Sat Narain Rai and Others, First Appeal 265/1928, First Appeal Basta/1922, AHCDCCRR.

107 Sturman, ‘Property and Attachments’, CSSH, pp. 612–13.

108 Kasturi, Embattled Identities, pp. 143–71.

109 Ibid., pp. 137–71.

110 West, R., A Digest of Hindu Law of Inheritance, Partition and Adoption (Bombay: Education Society, 1884), pp. 636–7Google Scholar.

111 In 1881 land files recording village customs, reiterated that ‘a mistress treated like a wife, and the child of a mistress shall be entitled to transfer property and to obtain and receive property’. See Singh, Bhauni versus Maharaj, Weekly Notes Of Cases Decided by the High Court, North–Western Provinces, 1881 (Allahabad: Government Press, 1881), p. 48Google Scholar. For a recent scholarly examination of legal attitudes towards ‘illegitimacy’ in colonial India, see Chatterjee, Gender, Law and Slavery, pp. 83–5; Chatterjee, ‘Gossip, Taboo and Writing Family History’, in Chatterjee (ed.), Unfamiliar Relations, pp. 222–60.

112 Narain and Another versus Mohar Singh, High Court, 22 December 1936, ALJR, p. 255.

113 Chief Justice Sulaiman, quoted in Jagarnath Gir versus Sher Bahadur Singh, 26 February 1934, High Court, ALJR, 1935, pp. 165–67.

114 Codicil of the will of Saraswati Gir, 6 December 1895, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

115 Pinch, W., ‘Reinventing Ramanand, Caste and History in Gangetic India’, MAS, 30:3, 557, 1996Google Scholar.

116 Pinch, Warrior Ascetics, pp. 148–89.

117 Chhajju Gir et al. versus Diwan, Indian Law Report, Allahabad Series (ILRA), 1906, p. 111.

118 Gosain Sheo Gulam Puri versus Shyam Lal Bhagat, 27 November 1927, ILRA, 1928, pp. 487–488.

119 Gosain Ramdhan Puri versu Gosain Dalmir Puri, ALJR, 1939, p.153.

120 Ibid.

121 C. R. Jayakar, quoted in Kartar Singh Bedi versus Dayal Das et al., Privy Council, 15 June 1939, ALJR, 1939, p. 810.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid.

124 Madho Das versus Kamla Das, Second Appeal 936/1877, High Court, ILRA, 1876–78, p. 540.

125 Genda Puri versus Chatur Puri, Privy Council, 8, 9 and 25 June 1886, ILRA, 1886, pp. 1–8.

126 Lahar Puri versus Puran Nath, Privy Council, 1915, ILRA, p. 303.

127 Ibid., p. 308.

128 Ramya Sreeneevasan has convincingly suggested that the definitions of kinship, the meaning of genealogies and the histories of families cannot be separated from the context of the production of such narratives. R. Sreenevasan, ‘Honouring the Family, Narratives and Politics of Kinship in Pre-colonial Rajasthan’, in Chatterjee (ed.), Intimate Relations, pp. 46–72.

129 Deposition of Bhairon Lal Jaga (undated), Case 141/1894 in Thakur Isri Prasad Singh versus Mussumut Lalli Jas Kunwar and Thakur Umrao Singh, First Appeal 127/1899, First Appeal Basta/1900, AHCDCCRR.

130 The inadmissible nature of genealogies represented as oral narratives was upheld in the Judgement of Judge of Mirzapur, 12 November 1887, Case 2/1887, in Bhupinder Singh, Raja of Kankit versus Babu Bijai Bahadur Singh, First Appeal, 31/1889. His conclusion was reiterated by the Privy Council Judgement of 30 March 1895, in Bijai Bahadur Singh versus Bhupinder Bahadur Singh, First Appeal, 31/1889. AHCDCCRR.

131 Hargovind Singh versus Collector, Etah, 15 September 1936, ALJR, 1937, pp. 610–627.

132 Sarvadhikari, J. P., The Principles of Hindu Law of Inheritance, 2nd ed. (Madras: Law Book Depot, 1922), pp. 813–14Google Scholar.

133 District Officer, Banaras, to Commissioner, Banaras Division, 22 September 1910, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

134 Petition of Gosain Triguanand Gir to Collector, Banaras, 6 June 1911, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

135 Ibid.

136 Ibid.

137 District Officer, Banaras, to Commissioner, Banaras Division, 22 September 1910, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

138 Petition of Manoharlal, Banaras, to Collector, Banaras (undated), in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

139 Petition of Gosain Triguanand Gir to Collector, Banaras, 6 June 1911, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

140 District Officer, Banaras, to Commissioner, Banaras Division, 22 September 1910, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

141 Ibid.

142 Report of the Deputy Collector of Banaras, 10 April 1912, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

143 Ibid.

144 District Officer, Banaras, to Commissioner, Banaras Division, 22 September 1910, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

145 Mussumat Sitla Gir versus Gosain Jagannath Gir, Civil Suit 66/1898, 18 January 1899, High Court of Judicature for the NWP, in BCRM, List 2, File 95, Department 10, Box 6, UPRAB.

146 Opinion in the Case of Jagarnnath Gir by the Vakils, High Court, Allahabad, and Government Pleaders, Banaras, to Collector, Banaras, 29 March 1913, Note 260/1913, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB. Also see the Petition of Dwarka Prasad, Banaras, to Board of Revenue, Agra and Awadh, 12 May 1911, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

147 District Officer, Banaras, to Commissioner, Banaras Division, 22 September 1910, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

148 Government Pleader, Banaras, to Collector, Banaras, 29 March 1913, No. 260/1913, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

149 Petition of Dwarka Prasad, Banaras, to Board of Revenue, Agra and Awadh, 12 May 1911, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

150 Petition of Gosain Triguanand Gir, to Collector, Banaras, 6 June 1911, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

151 Report of Deputy Collector of Banaras, 10 April 1912, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB.

152 Commissioner, Banaras Division, to Collector, Banaras, 16 November 1910, in BCR, List 4, File 112, Department 10, Box 40, UPRAB. Also see Report of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Committee, United Provinces (Allahabad: Government Press, 1931), pp. 58–9.

153 Religious Endowments Committee, p. 59.

154 Goswami Deokanandan Acharya, quoted in Mohan Lalji and Another versus Madhusudhan Lala and Others, 28 February 1910, ILRA, 1910, p. 463. Also see Mohan Lalji et al. versus Gordhan Lalji Maharaj, Privy Council, March 1913, ILRA, 1913, pp. 286–90.

155 Mohan Lalji and Another versus Madhusudhan Lala and Others, 28 February 1910, ILRA, 1910, p. 462.

156 Ibid., p. 467.

157 Ibid.

158 Ibid., p. 466.

159 Ibid., p. 463.

160 Ibid., pp. 467–9.

161 Mohan Lalji and Another versus Gordhan Lalji Maharaj and Others, Privy Council, March 1913, ILRA, 1913, pp. 283–90.

162 Chhajju Gir and Another versus Diwan, High Court, ILRA, 1906, p. 110.

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid., p. 118.

165 Ibid., p. 119.

166 Ibid., p. 112.

167 Ibid., pp. 120–22.

168 Jagarnath Gir versus Sher Bahadur Singh, 26 February 1934, High Court, ALJR, 1935, p. 150.

169 Ibid., p. 152.

170 Ibid.

171 Ibid., p. 153.

172 Ibid., pp. 153–4. Janki Das, a witness, and self-defined grihastha gosain asserted that ‘. . .the Mahant who is not married is called a Nihang Mahant, Onkar was married to Murat so I cannot say whether he was grihasth or Nihang’, Janki Das quoted in Jagannath Gir versus Sher Bahadur Singh, 26 February 1934, ALJR, 1934, p.154.

173 Ibid., p. 154.

174 Ibid., pp. 165–67.

175 Of the relationship between asceticism, masculinity and nationalism, a substantial number of facets have been researched. Discussing this literature goes beyond the scope of this paper. See, for example, Chowdhury, I., The Frail Hero and Virile History, Gender and the Politics of Culture in Colonial Bengal (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 120–41Google Scholar.

176 Juergensmeyer, M., Radhasoami Reality, Logic of a Modern Faith (Princeton University Press, 1991), pp. 137–8Google Scholar.

177 See the various articles in Radice, W. (ed.), Swami Vivekananda and the Modernisation of Hinduism (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; S. Sarkar, ‘Kaliyuga, Chakri and Bhakti’, in S. Sarkar, Writing Social History, pp. 257–82; Beckerlegge, G., The Ramakrishna Mission, The Making of a Modern Hindu Movement (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 53–112Google Scholar; Basu, S., Religious Revivalism As Nationalist Discourse, Swami Vivekananda and New Hinduism in Nineteenth Century Bengal (New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 67–93Google Scholar.

178 On the Radhasoamis, see M. Juergensmeyer, Radhasoami Reality, pp. 137–8. The literature on the Arya Samaj is vast. For a general history, see Jones, K., Arya Dharm, Hindu Consciousness in 19th Century Punjab (University of California Press, 1976)Google Scholar. On the relationship between asceticism, masculinity and the idea of service, see Fischer-Tiné, H., ‘The Only Hope for Fallen India, The Gurukul Kangri as an Experiment in National Education (1902–22)’, in Kulke, H., Frasch, T. et al. (eds.), Explorations in the History of South Asia (New Delhi: Munshi Manoharlal, 2001), p. 281Google Scholar. Fischer-Tiné shows how the cultivation of will, spiritual culture and masculinity was tied to abstinence, and the observation of brahmacharya, see Ibid., p. 294. For broader discussions of the linkages between service, citizenship and nationalism see Watt, C., Serving the Nation, Cultures of Service, Association and Citizenship in Colonial India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

179 Pinch, Warrior Ascetics, p. 188.

180 Shodhan, A., ‘Women in the Maharaj Libel Case, A Re-Examination’, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 4:3, 123–39, 1997Google ScholarPubMed; T. Sarkar, ‘Talking About Scandals, Religion, Law and Love in Late Nineteenth Century Bengal’, in T. Sarkar, Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation, pp. 53–94. See the discussion of the Tarakeshwar Satyagraha in Kasturi, ‘All Gifting Is Sacred’.

181 Dhar, Shyam Krishna, ‘The Life and Times of Swami Dayananda, Hinduism in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Before Dayananda’, Vedic Magazine and the Gurukula Samachar (Saharanpur: Gurukul Kangri), 1:2, 31Google Scholar, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi (hereafter NMML). For eighteenth century critiques of ascetic sexualities see Pinch, Warrior Ascetics, pp. 211–19.

182 Dhar, ‘Swami Dayananda’, p. 31.

183 Ibid.

184 Jones, Arya Dharm; V. Dalmia, ‘The Modernity of Tradition, Harishchandra of Banaras and the Defence of Hindu Dharma’, in Radice (ed.), Vivekananda, pp. 77–92. On the Sanatana Dharma, see Sen, A., Hindu Revivalism in Bengal, 1875–1905, Some Essays in Interpretation (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Dalmia, V., The Nationalisation of Hindu Tradition, Bharatendu Harischandra and Nineteenth Century Banaras (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Zavos, J., The Emergence of Hindu Nationalism in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; T. Sarkar, Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation.

185 S. Banerjee, ‘Marginalisation of Women's Culture in Nineteenth Century Bengal’, in Sangari and Vaid (eds.), Recasting Women, pp. 127–68. On upper caste Hindu engagements with sexuality in early twentieth century northern India, see Gupta, C., Sexuality, Obscenity and Community, Women, Muslims and the Hindu Public in Colonial India (New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

186 See the discussion of the temple of Nageshwar Nathji, Religious Endowments Committee, pp. 545–93.

187 Pandit Ramdahin Misra, ‘Dhan Ka Sadupyog’, Marwari Sudharak, 1921, p. 25, Reel 1701, NMML.

188 Hardaprasad Jalan, ‘Bharat Ke Sadhu aur Bhikmange’, Marwar Sudharak, April 1921, pp. 71–5, Reel 1701, NMML.

189 Will of Shankaranand Gir of Gaddi, Shankar Ashram, Bhimgoda, 13 March 1924, quoted in Som Gir versus Ram Ratan Giri, High Court, ALJR, 1941, p. 662.

190 Religious Endowments Committee, p. 48.

191 Ibid., p. 50.