« السابقةمتابعة »
83. Further to the west and beyond the course of the Vitastā
after its great bend, lay the ancient kingdom Uraśā-Hazāra.
of Uraśā. Its greatest part is comprised in the British district of Hazāra, between the Vitastā and Indus. It is the Očapoa or "Apoa of Ptolemy; its ruler figures as Arsakes in the accounts of Alexander's campaigns. Hiuen Tsiang mentions the territory by the name of Wu-la-shi and found it tributary to Kaśmir. Though this dependence seems soon to have ceased we find Uraśā often referred to in the Rājatarangiņi. The account of Samkaravarman's ill-fated expedition in this direction furnishes us with a clue as to the position of the old capital of Uraśā. It probably lay between the present Mansahra and Abbottabad. Kalhaņa's notice of an expedition undertaken in his own time mentions in Uraśā the town of ATYUGRAPURA.3 I have shown in my note on the passage that this locality is probably represented by the modern Agror, situated on the border of Hazāra towards the ‘Black Mountains. We have an intermediary form of the name in Ptolemy's 'IDáyoupos, given as the designation of a town in Uarsa or Arsa north of Taxila.
In Muhammadan times Uraśā was included in the region known as Pakhli. This is defined by Abū-l-Fażl as comprising the whole of the hill territory between Kaśmir in the east and the Indus on the west.4 To Pakhli belonged also the lower valley of the Kişangangā and the valleys of the streams which flow into the latter from the Kājnāg Range and the mountains to the north-west of Kaśmir. This tract which is now known as Karnau, bore the old name of
KARŅĀHA. Kişangangā Valley.
It seems to have been held by The valley of the Kişangangā above its junction with the Karnau river and as far as Sardi, forms a separate tract known as Drāva. This is possibly the DURĀŅDA mentioned in a passage of Kalhaņa’s Chronicle.? The northernmost portion of the tract seems to have been a dependency of Kaśmir even during the later Hindu reigns. At Sardi we find the shrine of Sāradā, one of the most sacred Tirthas of old Kaśmir. To this as well as an old feudal stronghold in its neighbourhood we shall have occasion to refer thereafter ($ 127).
small chiefs nominally tributary to Kasmir even in later Hindu times. It is but rarely mentioned in the Chronicle. The inhabitants were Kbasas, who are represented by the modern Bomba clans still holding Karnau. Their Rājās were practically independent till the Sikh conquest and often harried the north-western parts of Kasmir.? The last irruption of the Karnau Bombas and their allies, the Khakha chiefs of the Vitastā Valley, occurred as late as 1846.
| For a detailed synopsis of the old notices, see Rājat. v. 217 note.
Through Sardi leads a route to Cilās on the Indus. But this territory as well as the other portions of the Upper Indus Valley lay apparently quite beyond the sphere of Kasmir political influence. Hence we meet nowhere in the Chronicles with their ancient names.
84. Immediately above Sardi the valley of the Kişangangā turns, Darad territory.
as we have seen, into a narrow uninhabited
gorge. At the other end of this gorge we reach the territory of the Darads. Their settlements on the Upper Kişangangā and its tributaries seem to have formed a separate little kingdom, called by a general name DARADDEśA in the Chronicle.? Its inhabitants who bore Hindu names, more than once attempted invasions of Kaśmir. DARATPURī, 'the town of the Darads, which was the capital of their chiefs, may have occupied the position of the modern Gurēz (map Goorais'). The latter is the chief place of the valley where the Nawābs governing it till the Sikh conquest resided. The • Mleccha' chiefs who on two occasions figure as the Darad Rājās' allies from the north, were perhaps rulers of other Darad tribes further towards the Indus who had early been converted to Islām.“ Crossing from the head-waters of the Kişangangā to those of the
Drās River we arrive in high-level valleys Bhauţtas.
inhabited by people of Tibetan race and language, the Bhauttas of the Chronicles. The Rājatarangiņi tells us nothing of the political organization or topography of the Bhauțța territories. It is, however, possible that we have a reference to Leh, the capital of Ladakh, in the "foreign country called Loạ," which Kalhaņa names in iii. 10.
Nor do the later Chronicles supply us with any details in this direction, though the several invasions which Kasmir suffered from this side give Jonarāja and Srivara occasion to refer more frequently to the Bhauțțas and their rulers. It may, however be noted that Srivara
1 See viii. 2709 note. 2 Compare Rajat. vii. 911 ; for other references to the Darads, i. 312 note. 8 See vii. 911 note. 4 See viii, 2762 note.
already knows the terms · Little and Great Bhuţta-land.' They refer to Baltistān (Skardo) and Ladākh which have continued to be known to the present day as 'Little and Great Tibet,' or among Kaśmiris as Lukh Butun and Bud Butun. These terms are in fact of a far older date, as they are found already in the Chinese Annals as Little and Great Poliu.
The eastern frontier of Kaśmir is, as we have seen, formed by a mountain range which runs from the Zoji-Lā almost due south towards Kastavār. Along this range on the east lies a long narrow valley marked as Maru-Wardwan on the map (in Kasmiri Madivādvan). It is drained by a large river which joins the Cināb near the town of Kaşçevăr. Owing to its high elevation and the rigours of its climate it is inhabited only by a scanty population. According to Mr. Drew's race map and other authorities, this consists now chiefly of Kaśmiris. Whether this was already the case in old times, is uncertain. The Valley is nowhere mentioned in our old Kaśmirian texts. It is herce doubtful whether it belonged to Kaśmir territory in Hindu times. Yet Abu-l-Fazl counts it among the Pargaņas of Kaśmir. Beyond it to the east stretches an uninhabited belt of high mountains and glaciers, dividing Mạờivāļvan from the Tibetan tracts of Sāru and Zanskar. To the south we reach once more the territory of Kāşthavāța from which our present survey has started.
i See Sriv. iii. 445 (Sükşmabshadbhutadesau).
8 Butun (conneoted with the ethnic term But! < Bhanțţa; see above, $ 58), is the Kaśmiri term for Tibet in general.
8 Compare A. RÉMUSAT, Nouveaux mélanges asiatiques, i. p. 194 ; and Sir H. YOLE, Cathay, p. lxx.
• The Trisamdhyāmāhātmya which refers to the Valley as Madavātīra, cannot olaim any particular antiquity.
6 See Ain-i-Akb., ii. p. 369.
SECTION II.- ANCIENT POLITICAL DIVIsions.
85. The Valley of Kaśmir to which we may now return has
from early times been divided into two great Kramarājya, Mada- parts, known by their modern varājya.
Kamráz and Marāz. These terms are derived from Skr. KRAMARĀJYA and MADAVARĀJYA, which are found very frequently in the Rājatarangini as well as the later Chronicles. The original form of the modern Kamrāz was known to the tradition of the Srinagar Pandits generally. With the old name Madavarājya, however, I found only those few acquainted who, like the late Pandit Dāmodara and Paņạit Govind Kaul, bad specially studied Kalhaņa's Chronicle.
According to the generally prevailing notion Marāz comprises the districts on both sides of the Vitastā above Srinagar, and Kamrāz those below. The present tradition places the boundary of the two great divi. sions more accurately at the Shērgashi palace. That the boundary was already in old times indicated by a line drawn through the capital is easily proved by an examination of all passages in the Rājatarangiņi and other Chronicles naming Madavarājya and Kramarājya. They invariably show localities situated above Srinagar in the former and those below in the latter division.
We arrive at the same result on a reference to the Ain-i Akbari. Abu-l-Fazl distinctly informs us that “the whole kingdom was divided under its ancient rulers into two divisions, Marāj on the east and Kamrāj on the west." He then proceeds to tabulate the thirty-eight Pargaņas into which Kaśmir was divided under Akbar's administration, separately under the two main-heads of Marāj and Kamrāj. The city of Srinagar is counted with the former, and so are also all Pargaņas above the capital, while those below are shown in Kamrāj.
The term of Kamrāz has in modern times occasionally been used also in a more restricted sense, for the designation of the Parganas to the west and north-west of the Volur lake. This usage probably arose from the fact that at various periods several of the small Pargaņas in this portion of the Valley were for administrative purposes grouped together in one Pargaṇa, to which the name Kamrāz was given. This
See my note on Rajat. ii. 15.
2 Compare Āin-;- Akb., ii. p. 368. of Uttar • Abu-l-Fazl's table seems to show that in Akbar's time the old Parganas
Lolau, Hamal and Mạchipúr were embodied in the large Pargana of • Kamrāj; see Aīn-i Akb., ii. p. 371. In Moorcroft's and Baron Hügel's list the Par. gapa Kamrāj includes Uttar, Hamal and Machipūr. Owing to the frequent changes circumstance explains the different accounts referred to by Prof. Bühler in his note on the term Kramarājya.l
Though the terms Madavarājya and Kramarājya are so often employed in the Chronicles, we have no distinct evidence of the two divisions having in Hindu times formed separate administrative units or provinces. It is possible that this was the case at one or the other period. But Abū-l-Fazl's account as well as the usage traceable from his time to the present day show that the terms in their popular geographical significance could maintain themselves quite independently of actual administrative divisions.% 86. The whole of the Valley has from an early date been sub
divided for administrative purposes into a Administrative
considerable number of small districts known Districts.
in recent times as “Pargaņas.' Their ancient designation was viņaya.3 The number, names and limits of these subdivisions have been subject to considerable variations during the period over which our documents extend.
The great majority of the Pargaņas known in recent times can be safely assumed to have existed already during the Hindu rule. This is proved by the fact that the names of numerous Pargaņas are found in their ancient forms already in the Rājatarangiņi and the other Chronicles. But these texts do not furnish us anywhere with a complete list of the Pargaņas. It is hence impossible for us to restore in full detail the map of the administrative sub-divisions for any particular epoch
of the Pargana divisions (see below) the extent of the 'Pargaņa Kawrāj’ has also varied from time to time.
1 See Report, p. 11.
% The only trace I can find of a general division of Kaśmir other than that into Madavarājya and Kramarājya, is contained in an unfortunately corrupt and fragmen:
ry passage of the Lokaprakāśa, iv. It seems to divide the twenty-seven Visayas or Pargaņas of Kaśmir (see below) into three tracts, viz. (i) Kramarājya from Khôyāśrāmika onwards (Khuyąhõm, the old Khūyāśrama is meant); (ii) Madhyamarājya from the Cānūlā (river ?] to Lahara or Lār; (iii) Maďavarājya from Srivantaka (?).
The text is in a deplorable condition and the explanation of Cānālā and Srīvan. taka quite uncertain. The former may be the river of doubtful name and identity referred to in Rājat. note v. 109. It appears as if at the time to which the Lokaprakāśa's notice goes back, an intermediate slice of territory had been formed between Kramarājya and Maďavarājya and dubbed Madhyamarājya “the middle province. Five thousand villages out of the 66,063 with which the text credits Kaśmir, are attributed to this intermediate division.
3 Compare for the term vişaya Rajat. v. 51; viii. 1260, 1413, 2697.
The expression Pargaņa may have been introduced by the Mughal administration. Its Skr. original * puragaña is not found in the Chronicles.