The Dispute over the Deshkulkarni Watan of Chiplun in the 17th Century: Text and Context

Avanish Patil

Chhratrapati Shivaji College, Satara, Maharashtra

Introduction

In 1913-14 the eminent historian of the Marathas Vishvanath Kasinath Rajwade published a historical essay on the social history of Chitpavan Brahmins of Konkan.1 Rajwade appended a number of documents he had found in Konkan region to his essay. One of these documents was a karina of chitpavan deshkulkarnis of Chiplun, a document which narrates in some detail the story of the efforts of a woman called Gotmai and later her heirs to retain the deshkulkarni watan of Chiplun in the face of six disputes.2 The case is interesting not because it is representative, but because it is unique. First, the dispute over the Chiplun deshkulkarni watan took place in the later half of the 17th Century, a period straddling the Adilshahi , Maratha and Mughal rules in Konkan. Secondly, the protagonists of the dispute- Gotmai and her heirs- were seemingly helpless to defend their watan against the aggressive efforts of other individuals scheming to usurp their watan. Since they were accountants or record keepers of the pargana, they did not have martial traditions as the deshmukhs and therefore there is no recourse to violence to settle the disputes over their watan.

The genre of historical literature called karina is derived

1 V. K. Rajwade, Chitpavananchi Samajik Mulpitika: Madya va Sadya Stiti,

Bharata Itihasa Samshodhana Mandala Dvitiya Sammelan vritta Shake 1836, pp.26-81. The Konkan/Konkan Coast is a rugged section of the western coastline of India. It is a 720 km long coastline2 V.K. Rajwade, op.cit, Appendix II, pp.52-66. Note: There has been a mistake in typesetting of the columns of the last part of the karina. Deshkulkani was a heridatory district level officer and the watan was an land grant given to him for the performance of his duties.

from the arabic word qrn meaning to join or connect. The karinas were mostly narratives of the history of the watans held by Maratha elite – deshmukhs, deshkulkarnis (despandhes), patils and kulkarnis; “an explanatory history of how they acquired their lands and held their lands”.3 In his study of the Jedhe Karina D.G. Godse defined karina as a “chronologically consistent account of a story or legal dispute’ and identified some special features of the karina genre. The karinas were mostly written in the 17th century in the Ghatmatha region of the Sayhadris known as the Muraya-Maval region. Unlike the bakhars they did not contain phantasmagoric events, or frequent mention of gods or religious rituals and customs. However, the karinas were a literary form based on historical events and prone to literary flourishes of the writer. Godse even put forward a conjecture based on the literary analysis of the text of the Jedhe Karina that the author of the karina was a non-brahmin.4 Many a times, especially in a karina dealing with a legal dispute the narrative in the karina was attested by people from the local community and therefore formed “common knowledge” of the local people.

This paper uses the device of ‘reducing the scale’ developed by the practitioners of microhistoria to explore the dispute over the deshkulkarni watan as reflected in their karina. It is hoped that investigating of a single case will reveal new information which may have slipped the attention of scholars who were involved in research at the systemic level.5 The paper analyses the karina in a new way, it treats it

3 Sumit Guha, Speaking Historically: Voices of Historical Narration in Western India, 1400-1900, American Historical Review, Oct. 2004, p.1094

4 Dattatreya Ganesh Godse, Samade Talash, Shrividhya Prakashan, Pune,1981, pp.65-795 Giovanni Levi, On Microhistory, in Peter Burke (ed.), New Perspectives on historical writing, 2nd Edition, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992, pp.97-119; Carlo Ginzburg, ‘Preface to the Italian Edition’, in The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller, John and Anne Tedeski (trans.), The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1992, pp.xiii-xxvi

as a “text” subject to multiple interpretations rather than as merely a source of valid or confirmed information or data about events. Moreover, the uncovering of the context in which the protagonists in the case acted, it is hoped, will shed light on not only the process of conceiving legal rules at the local level (local knowledge) but also the method and manner of applying them. I propose that the larger setting of larger setting of the discourse regarding the deshkulkarni watan dispute was the uncertainty of political rule in the 17th Century reflected in the military skirmishes between Adilshahi and the Marathas and later the Mughals and the Marathas. These unsettled conditions encouraged rival claimants to plot to supplant the deshkulkarni’s of Chiplun which in turn prompted the writing of a narrative of the contested past in the form of a karina that justified the holding of the watan with the family of the then existing deshkulkarnis of Chiplun.

First Dispute- The Papers stolen from the Pillow episode

In 1923, the extract from the karina of the Deshkulkarni watan of Chiplun was published in the Maharashtra Ithihas Manjiri, an anthology of select historical episodes from the history of Maharashtra under the bizarre title Ushetilya Kagadpatranchi Chori or ‘Papers stolen from the Pillow’. The title suitably represented the strange incident which befell Gotmai, the main protagonist of the karina.

V. K. Rajwade traced the geneology of the Chitpavan Deshkulkarnis of Chiplun to Narsihpant Kale ( about 1548) – Vinaji Narsi (1578) – Parshram (1608)- Kalo Parshram (1633) – Antaji Kalo and his mother Gotmai (around 1658).6 Gotmai’s husband Kalo Parshram was killed by davedars (rival claimants or persons bearing a grudge). The son of Gotmai, Antaji Kalo was literate and looked after the watan, however he went to Bijapur for some work and died suddenly. The responsibility of managing the Deshkulkarni watan of Chiplun in Dabhol Subha in Konkan fell on Gotmai, after her son, Antaji Kalo, who looked after the watan died. It was imperative to find a literate person to manage the Watan, as the most important job of the

6 V.K. Rajwade , op. cit., p.36

Deshkulkarni was to keep the accounts of the pargana. Though the husband of Gotmai , Kalo Parshram , had a brother Vinaji Balal , he was illiterate and had left Chiplun. Gotmai was left with no choice but to appoint Harbaji Datir , the father-in- law of her son, Antaji Kalo, as the mutalik of the Deshkulkani watan of Chiplun by taking the permission of the panchayat.7 Harbaji Datir looked after the watan for about 30-40 years. However frequent fights began to take place between him and Gotmai. Gotmai falsely accused Harbaji that ‘her son had died because Harbaji’s daughter had married him’. This slanderous accusation of Gotmai eventually resulted in bitter domestic dispute between her and Harbaji Datir. Fed up with the domestic quarrel , Gotmai decided to change the mutalik of the Deshkulkarni watan. However, she was advised by the people to search for a new mutalik before removing Harbaji Datar. Gotmai began to search for a new mutalik- her choice fell on Timaji Bhaskar Helvagkar and Gangaji Bhaskar Helvagkar, who had come to Chiplun after being ousted as Kulkarnis of another village. Timaji and Gangaji Helvagkar had initiated themselves in the good graces of Gotmai by flattering her (arjavasampadana). After taking the permission of the panchayat Timaji and Gangaji began functioning as the mutalik of the watan.

The newly appointed mutaliks, Timaji and Gangaji, however, harboured an ambition to be masters (khavanda) of the watan. They slowly maneuvered and made all the important people of the area favourable to them. Then they schemed to get a farman (decree) for the watan from the Adilshahi government. Timaji and Gangaji had come to know that Afzul Khan had been appointed to challenge Shivaji. They went to Bijapur and influenced a Adilshahi official named Diyanrau, to grant them a farman of the Deshkulkarni watan in their name by claiming to be descendants (aphalada) of Gotmai. When they returned to Chiplun , they kept the farman secret and began to influence the important local people to get

7 Mutalik – A public officer. He was a deputy and had authority to use the seal of his principal.

the farman converted into a mahazar.8 Keshavseth and Gagseth Sethye informed Gotmai of the efforts of the mutlaliks and advised her to keep the original documents of the watan at a safe place. To safeguard the original documents, Gotmai began to keep them in her pillow. She used to check her pillow everyday to see if the papers were there. Timaji and Gangaji realized that as long as Gotmai had the original papers to the watan, they could not use the farman granted by the Adilshahi officer to get a mahazar of the watan in their name. Timaji eventually found out that the original papers of the watan were kept by Gotmai in her pillow. At an opportune movement he stole the original papers and replaced them by other rough papers (kharada). When Gotmai found out that she had been duped, she was furious and went to the house of Timaji and started wailing in anguish (bomba marne). She screamed at Timaji “You have written in the farman that you are descendant of my daughter. Are you the offspring of my female slave (batika)”

The efforts of Gotmai

Gotmai made efforts to get back the control over the watan. She met her relatives like Krishnaji Somnath and Konhere Raghunath Turumkar who were well placed government officials, but to no avail. Realizing that her efforts were not bearing any fruit she started staying in the Parsharam temple near Chiplun. When the priest of temple Naranbhat asked her the reason for staying in the temple she replied “ I have no home to stay , wherever I go bad luck follows me, therefore I have come to God to die”. The news of this incident reached Antaji Bavaji Saswadkar, who was in charge of the Chiplun pargana. When Antaji met Gotmai he advised her to change the mutalik of watan as he would inherit it in case she died. He also gave her a letter of reference to his son Mahadaji Anant who was in charge of Dabhol Subha. Gotmai met Mahadaji Anant and narrated her efforts to get justice as well as the deeds of Timaji. Mahadaji Anant asked her if she had any relative who could accept the Deshkulkarni watan. Gotmai

8 Mahazar is a written statement of a suit or case and of the award upon it.

replied that she had a nephew , Krishaji Somnath. Mahadaji called Krishnaji Somnath and asked him to accept the watan. At this moment Vinaji Balal, brother of Gotmai’s husband, who had left Chiplun, reappeared. However, Vinaji Balal was illiterate, therefore he could not be made the deshkulkarni. Later Mahadaji was successful in convincing Krishnaji Somnath to take up the management of the Watan but he was not ready to put his name in the papers. A compromise was reached in which it was decided that Krishnaji Somnath would be the mutalik but the watan should be in the names of Haripant, son of Krishnaji Somnath and Vinaji Balal in the official papers. Moreover, in future, the sons of Vijaji Balal would inherit the watan of the Deshkulkarni. The official papers were drawn by Mahadaji to reflect this compromise. In the meanwhile, Timaji had died and Gangaji had taken over the mutaliki of the Deshkulkarni. Gangaji was ousted and Krishnaji Somnath began to look after the Deshkulkarni watan. Later, Gotmai put forward her wish to adopt one of the three sons of Krishnaji Somnath. However, the Pandits who knew the Sastras ruled that this could not be done as Gotmai belonged to the Jamdagni gotra and Krishnaji belonged to the Vaisistha gotra. Since Gotmai could not adopt the son of Krishnaji, she requested permission of the Pandits to allow Vinaji Balal to adopt the son. As a result, Krishaji’s middle son, Janardan, was adopted by Vinaji Balal. Vinaji Balal gave it in writing that Haripant will along with his two sons inherit the Deshkulkarni watan of Chiplun.9 A number of important persons – government officials and local community members- were present on the occasion.

The Second Dispute (Reign of Chhtrapati Sambhaji)

Annaji Datto, had procured the Deshkulkarni watan of Sangmeshwar as it had no master (Khavand) from Chh. Sambhaji. Another important official Raghuji Somnath also demanded a watan of Deshkulkarni in the neighbourhood of Sangmeshwar. At that time Vekaji Gangadhar Helvagkar, the nephew of Timaji who had been ousted from the mutaliki by

9 Vinanji Balal had two sons who were alive- Janardhan (adopted) and Bapu

Gotmai had gone to Raigad. He gave the information that the Deshkulkarni watan of Chiplun did not have a master. Therefore, the Deshkulkarni watan was granted to Raghuji Somnath by Chh. Sambhaji. Krishnaji protested against this decision for about six months, but the government officials did not heed his complaint. Once when Kabjeebaba (Kavi Kalash) had come to the Parshuram temple on his way to Raigad, Krishnaji advised Vinaji and his sons to throw themselves on his feet and ask for redressal of the injustice done to them. Kavi Kalash asked the Karbhari, Konherepant to do the needful in the matter. One day when Kavi Kalash was discussing the principles of justice with some Sastris- the principle that it was a grave sin to take something from one and give it to another was discussed. Konherepant took the opportunity and told Kavi Kalash that the Chiplun deshkulkarni watan rightfully belonged to Krishnaji and the brahmin had been unrightfully deprived of it by the state. The discussion of the principle of justice and the story told by Konherepant had their impact. Kavi Kalash resolved to return the deshkulkarni watan to its rightful heirs.

In the meanwhile Rahuji Somnath had come to Chiplun to get the Mahazar granting the deshkulkarni watan to him, attested by eminent persons of the area. Krishnaji advised Vinaji and his son to give out a cry of ‘injustice is being done’ in the sabha where the people had assembled. The people who had assembled thought this to be inauspicious sign and left the sabha. Rahuji Somnath returned to Parshuram temple where he was admonished by Kavi Kalash for trying to usurp a watan belonging to a poor brahman.

Krishnaji did not stop here. He wore saffron clothes, went to Raigad and began to fast. As soon as Chh. Sambhaji came outside he performed mujara. When Chh. Sambhaji had gone to a place called Gangoli, Krishnaji followed him. When Chh. Sambhaji had gone in a lake in a boat, Krishnaji cried out “ Oh Omniscient (sarvadnya) master (saheb), you know the meanings of the Sastras yet why has this punishment (parpatya) befallen on me”. Chh. Sambhaji at last heard the story of Krishnaji and asked Nyayadish Pralhadpant to do

justice in the matter. Pralhadpant said “ Shivaji Maharaj did not, in whatsoever circumstances, take watan from one and give it to the other”. However, injustice had been done to Krishnaji by the state”. Chh. Sambhaji removed Rahuji Somnath from the Deshkulkarni watan and granted it to Krishnaji. He sent a rajpatra to Vekaji Nibdev , the Subhadar of Dabhol.

Third Dispute

The third attempt to expropriate the Deshkulkarni watan was done by Rayaji Hari and Lingoji Hari, daftardars of Chiplun. Rayaji and Lingoji tried to corrupt Vinaji Balal by offering him clothes, good food etc. They influenced Vinaji to remove Krishnaji from the mutaliki of Deshkulkarni watan and appoint them in his place. They made great efforts to get the mutaliki by taking Vinaji to government officials to argue their case. However, Rajashri Raghunath Narayan, an important official who had been a majmudar of Shivaji, was present at that time. Raghunath Narayan realised that the watan belonged (khavand) to Krishnaji. He therefore did not let Rayaji and Lingoji to succeed in their scheme.

Fourth Dispute

The fourth person to lay claim to the Deshkulkarni watan was Pandurang, son of Harbaji Datir, the father in law of Gotmai’s son, Antoji Kalo. Harbaji Datir had been the mutalik of Gotmai’s watan for many years and had been removed by Gotmai due to domestic differences. Pandurang, son of Harbaji Datir, reappeared and questioned Krishnaji’s right to the watan. He argued that it was his right to inherit the deshkulkarni watan as his sister had been married to Gotmai’s son. The people tried to persuade him by saying to him “You should have put forward your claim when the mutaliki of the deshkulkarni watan was given to Krishnaji’. To protest against this stand Pandurang went around the village for three days asking for ‘undressed corn’ as bhiksha (Korann Bhiksha). However, the inhabitants of the village did not entertain him and drove him away from their doors. Finding that he was

fighting for a lost cause, Pandurang ultimately left the village.

Fifth Dispute

After Chh. Sambhaji had censured Annaji Datto and Rahuji Somnath and imprisoned them, the responsibility of managing the affairs fell on Khanderao Pansambhal. He sent two mutaliks to the parganas of Sangmeshwar and Chiplun. To protest against this action Krishnaji went and told the whole story (karina) and argued for four months. After he had narrated the genealogy of the family, an agreement was done and Krishnaji was sent back to Chiplun to his watan.

Sixth Dispute

The sixth dispute which the karina narrates is the effort of the wife and two sons of Rahuji Somnath to obtain a share of the deshkulkarni watan. After the death of Rahuji Somnath , his wife and two sons went to Ramchandrapant Amatya at Vishalgad to ask for a decision on the watan. Ramchandrapant Amatya made a settlement which gave two portions of the watan to the wife and son’s of Rahuji Somnath and one portion to Krishnaji. Krishnaji however did not agree to this. He started a dharna until death to protest against the decision. Ramchandrapant Amatya got angry and sent him outside the Vishalgarh fort. Krishnaji sat with nothing on his head (bodke doke) in a yogic body posture at the door of the fort. Ramchandrapant saw him when he had come to the door to receive his father Naro Nilakanth. Ramchandrapant took pity on him and assured him that he will get him the whole deshkulkarni watan later if he agrees to the settlement put forward to him. Krishnaji reluctantly agreed. However precisely at this time the Mughal army attacked . Sarf Khan attacked Satara and Sheikh Nizam laid seige to the fort of Vishalgad. The whole Konkan fell to the Mughals and the whole watandari system was disturbed.

After a number of days things calmed down and people started returning to their homes. Chh. Rajaram had established his court at Satara. Haripant , son of Krishnaji , went to Satara , to get the documents of the watan in his name. He met Chh.

Rajaram. Rajaram sent him to Nyayadish Konerepant, who heard the story from him. However, Konerepant said that the deshkulkarni watan will be in the name of the sons of Vinaji Balal; his name cannot be written in the papers unless he produced a document which showed his right to the watan. Haripant produced the written letter of Vinaji Balal which said that the watan will be inherited by Haripant along with his two sons. After examining the letter the name of Haripant was written in the papers along with the two sons of Vinaji Balal. At this time, the Maratha state was in acute need of money and therefore Konerepant took 200 rupees from Haripant and gave him the papers for the watan. As Haripant was leaving, the two sons of Rahuji Somnath reached there and pushed him back into the King’s chamber. Son’s of Rahuji claimed in front of Chh. Rajaram that “ Chh. Sambhaji had granted the deshkulkarni watan to them and therefore they should be given the watan”. In his reply Chh. Rajaram said “How did Daji (Chh. Sambhaji) take a watan from one and give it to another”. Chh. Rajaram mentioned clearly that it was not necessary to discuss the deshkulkarni watan and sent Haripant to his watan with the papers.

The End

After narrating the various obstructions to the truth, the karina says that ultimately it is truth that had triumphed. After the death of Krishnaji, it was his son Haripant who managed the watan of the deshkulkarni. At the end of the karina , the writer tells us the story narrated in the karina to have been told by Gotmai and that the writer himself knows that it is true. Only the reality has been written and that the writer has not used his imagination in writing the karina. At the very end it is mentioned that Gotmai, and the family of Vinaji Balal lived along with the family of Haripant.

However, it seems that the happy ending alluded to in the karina did not last for long. After the death of Chh. Rajaram in March 1700, his Pratinidhi Parshuram Trimbak granted the watan of deshkulkarni of Chiplun to the sons of Rahuji Somnath. The letter of Parshuram Trimbak, dated 18th August

1700, tells us that Kashi Rahuji and Trimbak Rahuhji , sons of Rahuji Somnath, approached the government to get the grant of the deshkulkarni watan which was being enjoyed by Hari Krishna Vasisth (son of Krishnaji). Rahuji had been jailed by Chh. Sambhaji and had later died. After the death of their father they had gone to Chinchwad. The possession of their watan was taken over by Hari Krishna Vasisth. After that they had told the story to Ramchandrapant Amatya who had divided the watan. When Chh. Rajaram had come to Satara, Hari Krishna misguided him and told him a false story and continued to enjoy the watan. Therefore, sons of Rahuji Somnath , requested Parshuram Trimbak to give them a adnyapatra which would hand over to them the watan which belonged to them. Parshuram Trimbak cancelled the rajpatra held by Hari Krishna and handed over a adynapatra, which gave the possession of the watan to the sons of Rahuji Somnath.10

It is not certain that the possession of the watan was really transferred to the sons of Rahuji Somnath. V.K. Rajwade mentions in his essay that the present deshkulkarni of Chiplun is a Deshasth Brahmin and not a Chitpawan Brahmin. Therefore, some time later, it is certain that the descendants of Gotmai lost the possession of the watan.

Conclusion:

The karina throws light on the important question of the relationship between the state and local society. It mentions the sabhas only in one context- when the rival claimants wanted to get the farman granted to them by the political authorities converted into a mahazar. Thus when Timaji Bhaskar procured a farman in his name from an Adilshahi official he tried to get it attested by local worthies. Even a high ranking official like Rahuji Somanth had tried to get approval from important people of the locality to the farman granted by Chh. Sambhaji. Therefore, getting a farman for a watan from a political authority did not automatically guarantee the

10 G.S. Sardesai (ed.), Selections from the Peshwa Daftar, Bombay 1931-34, Vol. 31, Letter No. 79, pp.70-71

possession of the watan. However, at the sametime it must be noted that both Timaji and Rahuji Somnath did make efforts to influence the people to give their attestation to convert the farman into a mahazar. It is only because of the protests of Gotmai and Krishnaji that they did not succeed. This shows that the local bodies like the gotsabha and majalis could be influenced by powerful persons to do their bidding. Moreover, the failure of Rahuji Somnath to get the farman given to him converted into a mahazar, did not prevent Ramchandrapant Amatya to advocate the case of his wife and sons, nor did it prevent Parshuram Trimbak from granting the watan to them.

This brings us to the role of documents in the dispute. Clearly legal documents played an important part in the dispute. Timaji was aware that unless he stole the documents from Gotmai , his farman granted by an Adilshahi official was of no use. When Haripant, son of Krishnaji went to Chh. Rajaram to get the documents of the watan, he was asked by Nyayadish Konerepant to produce papers which showed his right to the watan. However, it should also be noted that in the times of political instability and military skirmishes, the very existence of documents was endangered. A letter of Krishnaji tells us that the documents granting the watan to him which were given to him by Nyayadish Pralhadpant, Nilopanth Peshwa and Chh. Sambhaji were burnt during a raid by the habshis.11

The legal argument invoked throughout the karina to justify the holding of the watan by the descendents of Gotmai is that of ‘antiquity of tenure’.12 Gotmai’s family had a right to the watan because it was genealogically connected with a person who was the acknowledged holder of the watan in the

11 See V. K. Rajwade, Chitpavananchi Samajik Mulpitika: Madya va Sadya Stiti,

Bharata Itihasa Samshodhana Mandala Dvitiya Sammelan vritta Shake 1836, p.6712 For a interesting discussion on the rights of people in 18th Century Maharashtra see Sumit Guha, Wrongs and Rights in the Maratha Country: Antiquity, Custom and Power in Eighteenth- century India, in M.R. Anderson and Sumit Guha (eds.) Changing concepts of rights and justice in South Asia, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000 , pp. 14-29

past and because they had possession of the watan for quite a long time. The karina tries to give credibility to the argument by mentioning its acceptance by political figures like Kavi Kalash, Chh. Sambhaji and Chh. Rajaram. However, there were also rival claimants like Timaji and Rahuji Somnath who made efforts to get hold of the watan by procuring farmans from the persons in power. Thus the principle that ‘ it was wrong to take a watan from one and give it to another’ was clearly a contested principle

It is the unsettled conditions in the Konkan that provided the motive for writing of the karina. The later half of 17th

century was period characterized by changing political boundaries and indefinite jurisdictions due to the Mughal and Maratha contest. Written or unwritten law and customs and practices could be invoked or set aside by the political authorities. It was also a period where documents could be easily destroyed or stolen. These conditions made it imperative to justify the right to the watan by appealing to the past. The past itself was contested, for it is possible that the rival claimants could have had their own versions of the past. The karina of the Deshkulkarnis of Chiplun details the struggle of Gotmai’s family against the rival claimants and interlinks it with locally well-known events happening at the regional level. Below the narrative are mentioned a number of names of important historical persons like Sambhaji Raje, Rajaram, Raghunath Narayan Pandit, Pralhad Pandit, Kabjeebaba (Kavi Kalash) and others. By doing this the karina attempts to provide credibility to its version of the past. The karina emphasizes the struggle against the false intentions of the rival claimants and the ultimate triumph of truth in form of the watan being granted to Gotmai’s kin. It itself becomes the justification for the holding of the watan.