صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

during Hindu times. The Lokaprakāśa, it is true, tells us of the division of Kaśmir into twenty-seven Vișayas and enumerates some nineteen of the latter. But several of the names are so corrupt as to be beyond recognition, while others bear a distinctly modern look. In any case it is impossible to fix the date to which this notice may belong or to judge of its authenticity.

Abu-l-Fazil's account is the first which presents us with a systematic statement of Kasmir Pargaņas. It is of special interest because it shows us how their list could be increased or re-adjusted within certain limits according to fiscal requirements or administrative fancies. The return of Asaf Khān reproduced by Abū-l-Fażl shows thirty-eight Pargaņas, while the earlier one of Qāzi ‘Ali contained forty-one. The difference is accounted for by the amalgamation of some and the splittingup of other Pargaņas. The Pargaņas varied greatly in size, as shown by the striking contrasts in the revenue-assessments. Thus, e.g, Patan was assessed at circ. 5300 Kharwārs, while the revenue from 'Kamrāj' amounted to 446,500 Kharwārs.

The number of Pargaņas bad changed but little during Mughal and Pathān times. For the Sikhs on their conquest of the Valley seem to have found thirty-six as the accepted traditional number. But there had been various changes in the names and extent of these Parganas. These changes became still more frequent under the Sikh administration, as is seen by a comparison of the lists given by Moorecroft (1823), Baron Hügel (1835) and Vigne (circ. 1840). They all show a total of thirty-six Pargaņas but vary among themselves in the names of individual Parganas.

These frequent changes and redistributions of the Pargaņas continued during Dogrā Rule. The most accurate list I am able to refer to for this most recent period, is that given by Major Bates. It shows a total of forty-three Pargaņas for the year 1865. Subsequent reforms introduced Tahsils after the fashion of British provinces with a view to reducing the number of sub-divisions. The latest list shows eleven Tahsils. In their constitution little regard was paid to the historical divisions of the country. Fortunately, however, Kaśmirīs are as con

1 Of the Lokaprakāśa's Visayas Khoyāsramī, Samālā, Laharī, Aulađiya, Nilāśa, Khadivīya correspond clearly to the Khīyāśrama, Samālā, Lahara, Holaďā, Nīlāśva, Khadūvi of the Rājatarangiņi. Ekena, Devasūvi may possibly be corruptions for Evenaka and Devasarasa. Krodhana, Dvāvim sati, Bhrnga, Phägvā probably represent the modern Pargaņas of Krahin, Dūnts, Bring, Phākh. Cālana, Vitasthā, Satrava, Svanavāri, Nilä, Härī, Jalahadiya, are quite uncertain,

% See Gazetteer, p. 2 899.
8 Compare the sketch-map attached to MR. LAWRENCE's Valley.

servative in their topographical nomenclature as in many other matters. The old Pargana names are hence still in ordinary use and likely to remain so for some time to come.l

The absence of a complete list of Pargaņas for an earlier period and the changes in their constitution during more recent times make a systematic exposition of the ancient territorial divisions impracticable. In a separate note I have given a comparative table of the Pargaņa lists we possess since Akbar's time. There too I have indicated the ancient equivalents of the Pargana names, as far as they can be traced in the Sanskrit Chronicles.% We shall have occasion to refer to these names and their history in the course of our detailed survey of ancient localities in the Valley. 87. The large number of administrative sub-divisions which as

we have seen goes back to an early date, may Density of popula

be taken as an indication of the dense popu. tion in old Kasmir.

lation then occupying the Valley. We have no means of forming any accurate estimate as to the number of the population which the country contained in Hindu times. But there is every reason to believe that even at a later period it was far larger than at the present day. The existence of a very great number of deserted village sites, in all parts of the country, the remains already alluded to of a far more extended system of irrigation, the number of great temple ruins, and the uniform tradition of the people,-all point to the same conclusion.

The present century has witnessed in Kaśmir a series of appalling famines and epidemics, which wrought terrible havoc in the mass of the rural population particularly. The last famine, 1878–79, alone is supposed to have removed three-fifth of the population from the Valley. The political vicissitudes of the first half of the century had a baneful influence on the economical condition of Kaśmir and brought about an extepsive emigration both among the industrial and agriculturist classes. Notwithstanding all these trials the population which in 1835 was estimated at about 200,000 souls, had risen to 814,000 according to the census of 1891.

These figures indicate great powers of recuperation. Yet it is held by competent judges that the present agricultural population is by no means sufficient even for the land actually nnder cultivation. It would hence manifestly be hazardous to make any guess as to the numbers

1 The Survey of India maps indicates the approximate extent of the Parganas recognized in the fifties.

% See Supplementary Note BB.

Compare for this and other statistical details Mr. LAWRENCE's Valley, p. 223 899. which the country might have supported in the most prosperous times of Hindu lule.

The fact of Kaśmir having possessed a far greater population in ancient times helps to explain the curious traditional verse which puts the number of villages of Kaśmir at 66,063. The verse is found twice in the Lokaprakāśa and still lives in the oral tradition of the Brahmans throughout the Valley. It has been reproduced from the latter in Paņdit Sāhibrām’s Tirthasamgraha. That it can claim some antiquity is evident from the allusion made to the number in Joparāja's Chronicle.*

Though that figure must have at all times implied a considerable exaggeration, it is nevertheless characteristic of the popular notion on the subject. Even Sharifu-d-din whose information, collected about A.D. 1400, is generally accurate and matter-of-fact, records : “ It is popularly believed that in the whole of the province-plains and mountains together - are comprised 100,000 villages. The land is thickly inhabit. ed." 8 It is curious that Mirzā Haidar who had ruled Kasmir himself copies this statement without modification or dissent.


88. The ancient divisions of Kramarājya and Madavarājya are separated by a line drawn through Srinagar. This fact as well as the great historical interest attaching to Srinagar as the capital of the country make it the convenient starting-point for our survey. The history of Kaśmir has always been reflected as it were in that of its capital. The site of the latter has not changed for more than thirteen centuries. It is thus easy to account for the ample historical data which enable us to restore in great part the ancient topography of Srinagar and to trace back the city's history to the time of its foundation. Hiuen Tsiang who visited the Kaśmir capital about A.D. 631, and

whose record is the earliest we possess, found Srīnagara in the

it already in the position of the present SriHiuen Tsiang's time.

nagar. He describes it as situated along the

1 şastir gråmasahasrani sastir gråmasatäni cal gaştir grāmis trayo gråmå hyetat Kasmiramandalam Il; comp. Lokaprakāśa, Ind. Studien, xviii. p. 375.

% See Jonar. (Bo. ed.), 153.

8 See Tärikh---Rashidi, p. 430. RITTER who reproduces the passage of the Zafarnāma from De la Croix’s translation, shows the number of villages as 10,000; see Asien, ii. p. 1123. It may be noted in passing that according to the Censas of 1891 the number of villages in Kaśmir was then reckoned at 2870.

J. 1. 18

east bank of a great river, i.e. the Vitastā, 12 or 13 li long from north to south and 4 or 5 li broad from east to west. About 10 li to the south-east of this, "the new city,” the pilgrim notices a Buddhist convent which lay between a high mountain on the north and the site of “the old city' on the south.

It is the merit of General Cunningham to have first recognized that the situation here indicated for the new capital of Hiven Tsiang's time corresponds exactly to that of the modern Srinagar.! A glance at the map shows that the position and dimensions ascribed by Hiuen Tsiang to the new city apply closely to that part of Srinagar which occupies the right or eastern riverbank, and which, as we shall see, forms the older portion of the city. The two and a half miles represented by the 12 or 33 li of the Chinse measure

urement, agree accurately with the length of the city within its ancient limits along the eastern bank of the Vitastā. The estimate of its breadth at somewhat less than one mile (4 or 5 li) is equally correct. 89. The position of 'the old city' is marked by the present village

of Pāndrēthan which derives its name from Purāņādhişthāna.

the appellation PURĀŅĀDHISTRĀNA, meaning the Old Capital.' It lies to the south-east of Srinagar just as Hiuen Tsiang says, at the south foot of a mountain spur which rises with bold slopes to a height of about 3000 feet above the village. Measured from the nearest point of old Srinagar, the distance to the presumptive site of the monastery between Pāndrēțhan and the steep hill-side is exactly two miles or 10 li.

The history of the Old Capital' is so closely connected with that of Srinagara that it will be useful to acquaint ourselves first with the data bearing upon it. The name of PurĀŅĀDAIŞTHĀNA meets us first in Kalhaņa's account of the reign of King Pravarasena I. (or Sreşthasena) who is said to have erected there a shrine known as that of Siva Pravareśvara.2 At the beginning of the tenth century the minister Meruvardhana built at Purāņādbişthāna a Vişņu temple called after his own name. This has been rightly identified by General Cunningham with the well-preserved little temple which still stands in the village of Pāndrēthan and has often been described by European travellers.3 Even in Kalhaņa's own time pious foundations are recorded at this ancient site.

1 Gen. CUNNINGHAM's identification was first indicated in his paper on the architecture of Kasınīr temples, J. A. S. B., 1848, p. 283. For a fuller account, see Anc. Geogr., pp. 93 sqq.

9 See Räjat. iii. 99 note, where detailed references have been given regarding the site.

3 See v. 267 note, also for descriptions of the temple.

The identity of Pāndrēthan with the site named in the Chronicle as the Old Capital' is proved by ample evidence. It is indicated in the old gloss on Rājat. v. 267 and is still known to Paņạit tradition. Srivara in describing the flight of some troops which had been defeated in Srinagar and were retiring along the Vitastā to the east, speaks of the road from the Samudrāmatha (Sudarmar on the right bank of the river near the second bridge) to Pūrvādhisthāna as covered with the corpses of the slain. It is clear that by the latter designation which also means the Old Capital,' he refers to our present Pāndrệthan. This name itself is the direct phonetic derivative of Purāņādhişthāna.* 90. General Cunningham has assumed that the Old Capital'

marked by the site of Pāndréthan was in Asoka's Srīnagarī.

reality the ancient S'RINAGARĪ which Kalhaņa mentions as the capital founded by the great Aśoka.3 His assumption was based on another passage of the Chronicle which mentions the foundation of the shrine of Jyeștharudra at Srinagari by Jalauka, the son of Asoka. General Cunningham thought he could recognize this shrine in the extant temple on the top of the Takht-i Sulaimān hill, below which at a distance of about one and a half miles Pāndrěthan is situated.

I have shown in my note on the passage that no reliance can be placed on the alleged tradition which General Cunningham had adduced as the sole proof of his location of the shrine. Yet at the same time the evidence recorded by me proves that Jyeştharudra must have been worshipped either on the hill itself or in its close vicinity. Accordingly Asoka's Srinagari may safely be looked for in the same neighbourhood. Our present data do not allow us to decide with absolute certainty whether its site was at Pāndrēthan or elsewhere. But there are at least sufficient indications to make General Cunningham's view appear very tempting and probable.

1 See Sriv. iv. 290.

% The Kś, derivative of Skr. Purāņa is prònt 'old'; this forms, with assimilation of the initial double consonant, the first part, Pān., of the modern name. The eligion of the second à in the assumed intermediary form * P[u]rān[a]dėthan is accounted for by the influence of the stress accent which lies on the second syllable of the modern name. The development of the combination nd into ndr is paralleled by similar cases in other Indo-Aryan Vernaculars; comp. Dr. GRIERSON, Phonology of Indo-Aryan Vernaculars, Z.D.M.G., 1. p. 37, § 115. The nazalisation of ē may be of recent date, as the old gloss of A, on Rājat, v. 267 shows the name as Pāmydsthan, i. e. Pânidrethan.

3 See Note C, i. 124.

« السابقةمتابعة »