PRACHI DESHPANDE:
Hello, everyone.
This is my first time conducting
such a hands-on workshop
on something as grand and gaudy
as paleography and codicology.
I'm grateful to
Tyler and [INAUDIBLE]
for the opportunity.
But I've been very much a
content person, the kind
that we're trying to
move away from as we
saw in the first session.
I've been working with printed
texts, printed editions
of older manuscript texts.
And it's only in recent years
as part of a long-suffering book
project that I have finally
moved to actual Modi script
manuscripts in Marathi.
So this is very much
an opportunity for me
to share what I have
learned, what I am learning,
and air some of my ideas,
arguments in front of you.
I see this not so much as me
teaching you how to read these,
but working together
with all of you.
So and I'm not walking
on literally texts
or the kinds of
beautiful manuscripts
that we saw in the morning.
I mean, I would be very happy
to actually sing some of this,
but these are not texts
that lend themselves.
This is not material
that lends itself
to any kind of musical
performance, unfortunately.
This has to do with documents
of state, documentary forms
to do with property,
distribution
of rights, record
keeping, which started
in Marathi in the 15th century.
Really deepens in the
16th and 17th century.
So what I'll be speaking
about is a particular form
called the Kaulnama.
But through the Kaulnama
what I hope to do
is also raise some general
questions about the Modi script
archive over the early
modern, as we might call it,
and think about some
challenges that we have
when approaching such
documents, such materials, how
we might approach them,
what kinds of arguments
they might lend themselves to.
So this is perhaps a
bit more historical
than just manuscript or logical
because a lot of this material
has not really been looked at.
So what I'll do is,
first, I'll place these
in historical
context, the Kaulnama,
and look at how they've been
treated by historians and so
on, and then think
about how looking
at the actual manuscripts
might actually
move us towards new ways of
thinking about them, right?
So let's just quickly
look at the Kaulnama
to get a sense of what it
is we are talking about.
It's basically an
assurance, a document
which [INAUDIBLE] assurance.
Now the original
Arabic meaning of kaul
is word or utterance, also in
the sense of giving one's word.
And in Persian, or the bilingual
and bi-scriptural [INAUDIBLE]
Kaulnama that proliferates
in northern India
during the modern times,
during the modern state,
is what [INAUDIBLE]
has described
as a declarative document.
It specified a promise, one's
word, to potential allies.
It spelt out clauses of treaties
concluding between powers,
as well as
contractual agreements
between the state and ruler
gentry regarding agrarian
settlements and taxes owed.
I'll speak about the Persian
dimension of this a bit later.
Here, let me just say that
the Marathi Kaulnama draws
on this Persian form.
And the word kaul has also
expanded in Marathi usage.
As we can see, this is from the
famous [INAUDIBLE] dictionary
of the early 20th century.
The kaul is defined as
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
So it's a promise and assurance,
a document of various kinds,
which signifies an assurance
or agreement between the state
and parties,
traders, or peasants
about cultivation or trade
and the terms of revenue,
and so on.
Now, there's also different ways
in which the Kaulnama is talked
about in Marathi diplomatic
letters and so on where there
seems to be a relationship
between the [NON-ENGLISH],,
or [NON-ENGLISH] as it is called
in Marathi, and the Kaulnama,
which is a kind of document
produced by both parties
specifying what the terms
regarding the [NON-ENGLISH]
or the agreement between them.
There are certain
differences between the way
it appears in the Mughal
and Marathi forms.
But I was pointed up by
somebody at a presentation where
they told me that
I'm not pronouncing
the Kaulnama correctly.
I should be saying "kull-nama".
And I think that's also one of
the things in Marathi, which
is one of the reasons
why I also wrote
the diacritical form here.
It really is
pronounced as Kaulnama.
There's no "kull" in Marathi.
So the Marathi form is very
much a simple Kaulnama,
even though it comes from
an Arabic original word.
Now, this is a Kaulnama given by
Shivaji [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE]
from 1674.
This is from 1670, '71.
This has his seal over there.
And it's a document.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] And so on.
It goes on.
It's a document, and I'll talk
about the form a little later.
It's an assurance
given by Shivaji
from the department
from Shivaji's office
to the Brahmins and
mendicants of Trimbak,
near Nashik, who have complained
that his people, his officials,
are harassing them.
The details of the
harassment are not mentioned,
but they are harassing them.
And he has given them a Kaulnama
saying that, henceforth, they
will not harass you.
So this is an assurance to you.
This document specifies
that my officials will not
harass you anymore.
And then it has his seal
at the bottom which says
[NON-ENGLISH],, which also I'll
come back to a little later.
So this is a very
skeleton Kaulnama.
There are many, many
such forms which
proliferated over the later
17th and over the 18th century.
The word kaul actually has also
proliferated in Marathi usage
more broadly as also something
that the deity gives.
So you ask the deity
about a dilemma.
And if the flower
falls or something,
it means that the deity has
given the [NON-ENGLISH]..
It has given a sort of decision
about which way you should go,
if you happen to be on
the horns of a dilemma.
It's also a more general tone
for forgiveness and so on.
So let me just ask.
Are there any people who
are Modi-literate here?
Has anybody had any lessons
in Modi script at all?
Does anybody have any
experience with reading
printed [INAUDIBLE]
transcribed Modi documents?
OK.
OK.
No, so that's fine.
That gives me an
idea of how basic
I need to make this as
well, so not to worry.
So like I said, the Kaulnama
is usually granted in response
to news, a request,
or a petition
from someone, usually
a local official who
is also named in the document.
He is not named in this one,
but obviously-- oh, he is.
See?
It says [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] So
[NON-ENGLISH] came and informed
[NON-ENGLISH] that these
people are being harassed
by the officials.
And in response to his news,
this document was given.
A large number of what we
might call agrarian Kaulnamas,
which I will also
discuss in detail below,
granted permission to
people to bring fresh land
under cultivation.
And that's really how people
understand the [INAUDIBLE]
Kaulnama also, because
that's the largest kind
that we have in the archive.
It's mostly given to people
for extending cultivation.
Now sometimes--
here, the harassment
is not mentioned-- but a
couple of formulaic statements
about such harassment
will also identify
a document as a Kaulnama.
And sometimes, when the
background to the assurance
or the agreement that is
arrived at in the document is
extensively described, the
narrative structure is not
unlike other more narrative
forms that we have in Marathi,
such as the [NON-ENGLISH],,
the [NON-ENGLISH],, and so on.
Any people familiar with the
[NON-ENGLISH] or [NON-ENGLISH]
which are different kinds of
narrative genres in Marathi
from the 17th century onwards
used in judicial disputes
and so on?
[NON-ENGLISH] has written
about these as well,
where two parties would
present their background
or their testimonies, which
would be narrativized,
bringing different contexts,
local contexts and events
into the story.
And this formed the basis
for the emergence of Marathi
history writing as well.
So sometimes, that kind of
historical narrativization you
will also find in the Kaulnama,
but not as extensively as you
do in the [NON-ENGLISH],, or
the [NON-ENGLISH],, and so on.
These are much more
focused documents.
Now, this is the first
document that I will discuss.
And I have it over here.
This is the entire
one, just to give you
a sense of its visual nature.
Like the earlier session, we saw
that these are scrolls, right?
Sometimes, these are
maintained as scrolls.
You have these vertically
rectangular pieces of paper
that are joined to each
other sequentially.
But rather than
rolled into a scroll,
these are kind of
folded accordions-type,
so you can open
them up like that.
They make for very difficult
scanning into a folder
or [INAUDIBLE] for
our purposes today,
but they formed a different
kind of archiving practice.
So across the
Medieval [? decant ?]
Kaulnamas like these to
bring waste or fallow
land under cultivation were
given on behalf of the ruler.
These were issued from
the [NON-ENGLISH],,
being the kind of
office of the state,
usually to the level
of the [NON-ENGLISH],,
who was really the of
[? nodal ?] point of revenue
collection-- local chiefs
with a lot of power who were
the interface between the
peasantry and the larger
revenue-collecting
state apparatus.
These documents often specified
the precise terms of revenue.
Some of them had
[NON-ENGLISH] clauses.
What are [NON-ENGLISH] clauses?
These are time-bound,
graduated increases of revenue
over five or seven years, as
an incentive to poorer lands.
So you are given a Kaulnama
to bring a wasteland that
is outside the village,
has never been cultivated,
is in very poor condition,
you are given the incentive
to bring it under cultivation.
But because you have to put
in a lot of effort initially,
there won't be any revenue,
say, for the first three years.
Right?
In the fourth year, it
will be at one fourth
of what the usual revenue is.
In the fifth year,
it might be half.
And then from the
seventh year, you
will be charged at the
actual rate, and so on.
So these [NON-ENGLISH] clauses
vary, depending on the context.
And similar such [? kauls ?]
were granted to individual
[NON-ENGLISH] and [NON-ENGLISH],,
merchants and moneylenders,
for the settlement and
improvement of [NON-ENGLISH]
and [NON-ENGLISH],, market
towns, and exhorted cultivators
to stay and cultivate
existing land,
providing assurance and
protection in difficult times.
So this is also
a situation where
frequent warfare,
frequent forays into areas
by different armies
for revenue and so on,
makes cultivation unstable.
Populations are apt to flee.
And Kaulnamas are given to
enterprising chiefs or bands
of people who can then
make people come and settle
in areas with the assurance
of no harassment, no worry
and so on, so that they
can actually bring the land
under cultivation for a
stable period of time.
So this is one such, which I'll
look at a little bit later.
What I also want to emphasize
is that the Kaulnamas is not
just issued by the
state as something
that's like high up there.
But at the level of
the [NON-ENGLISH] also,
we have Kaulnamas
that are issued.
This is one that we will look
at, which is issued by one
quite well-known [NON-ENGLISH],,
the [NON-ENGLISH] family based
in the village of [NON-ENGLISH]
in the [NON-ENGLISH] about 90
kilometers south of
[NON-ENGLISH] and about 20
kilometers from where I grew up,
which held the [NON-ENGLISH],,
meaning hereditary office,
as well as the related one
of [NON-ENGLISH],, meaning the
[INAUDIBLE] level accountant.
This Kaulnama is
issued by two brothers,
[NON-ENGLISH] and [NON-ENGLISH]
and given to a village headman
and various people in
their jurisdiction.
I was able to get five Kaulnamas
that these two brothers,
these cousins, issued in the
year of 1698 from another
[NON-ENGLISH] at
the [NON-ENGLISH]..
And some of them are due to
appear in the next volume
of the [NON-ENGLISH].
So the [NON-ENGLISH] is a
long-running kind of set
of volumes that have collected
materials that are relevant
to a history of Shivaji
and Shivaji's times.
And it's an extensive,
wide-ranging sort
of collection of documents
from various families
and a variety of documents
and so on which are in print.
So what kind of Kaulnamas do the
[NON-ENGLISH] brothers issue?
So one day, [NON-ENGLISH],,
a trader of [NON-ENGLISH]
granting the trader a
piece of land measuring one
[NON-ENGLISH] for settling
the area with cultivators
and building new houses.
It instructed him to settle
this piece carefully,
enjoy his rights and privileges,
and also specified that
[NON-ENGLISH],, meaning a
kind of separate order from
the [NON-ENGLISH] had also
been issued accordingly.
They issued another Kaulnama
to the headman of a village
granting him permission to
settle a barren village.
For doing so, he was
granted an [NON-ENGLISH],,
meaning rent free land nearby.
A third Kaulnama was issued
to [NON-ENGLISH] granting his
request for the allotment of
some part of his [NON-ENGLISH]
to the mosque.
So there are many such that
are issued regularly from
the office of the [NON-ENGLISH].
This one-- wait.
Well, which one is this?
OK, this is the one
from [NON-ENGLISH],,
which we will look at again.
Now, an earlier generation of
scholars who used and wrote
about such
administrative materials
had a very functionalist
approach to them and to state
an administration in general.
So the scholarships are to
describe how things were
intended to function, like
in your civics textbook--
we did this in civics class--
the rules of different
offices, the rights and duties,
and the limits on their power.
Civics textbook doesn't tell
you how bureaucracy actually
functions.
And so also, that kind of
off administrative history
doesn't really tell you what
actually the administration
was like.
The scholarship focused
on organizing principles
and inherent properties
of various institutions
and offices with the
implicit assumption
being that this is how
they normally function.
And any variations are then
treated as either aberrations,
or as decline.
So within such a
framework, the Kaulnama
appears primarily as evidence
of centralized agrarian
improvement and interest
by Medieval rulers
in people's welfare.
So because you have a lot
of statements regarding
stay in your place, there
will be no harassment,
extend the
cultivation, be happy,
and so on, this is seen
as a kind of articulation
of a Medieval or early
modern welfare state which,
in the colonial period, was also
used by nationalist historians
to tell colonial historians
that, no, no, no, see?
The state had a kind
of theory of welfare.
It was for the people.
It was good.
And in this light, if
we look at the documents
of the [NON-ENGLISH] cousins,
they are exemplary officials.
They perform their
bureaucratic job in discretion.
They produce the paperwork--
all this paperwork which ended
up as archives for scholars
like us.
And through them, we get a sense
of what the [NON-ENGLISH] job
was.
Now, this approach
is really what
the article by
Frank [INAUDIBLE],,
which I had sent you, which
I don't want to ask how many
of you read.
[LAUGHS] But working on the
assumption that at least some
of you did, or if you're
familiar with his work,
he's critiquing this kind
of functionalist approach.
He and many others are
arguing that these states--
like we look at them, the
Mughals, the Marathis,
[NON-ENGLISH], and so on--
if we treat them
functionally like this,
we get the impression, a false
impression, that they were all
stable, very separate, easily
compartmentalized entities
which, in a sense, they were
not when we look at bureaucracy
or administration as process.
So he argues-- he was one of
the earlier ones to argue this,
and many others
have said so too--
that when you look at it
as these separate entities,
it prevents us from actually
understanding the messiness
of Medieval state formation.
The positions of headmen,
tax collectors, and so on,
ought not to be seen
as simply roles that
are fulfilled by people
in a larger system,
but as active positions
that are inhabited by people
whose working of
those offices affects
the very process of
state formation itself.
So [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
there's a white scholarship
on the Marathis,
particularly of this,
that the Marathis state was
made up of several co-sharers
of power in the kingdom--
power at different levels.
And there were a whole variety
of nested hereditary rights
of different kinds, rights to
the revenue of different lands,
different crops.
And not just rights to
revenue, but rights also
to make decisions about
what kind of crops
will be grown in
what part of land,
what portion you will get
of a particular office,
whether you can sell part
of your office or not.
That whole panoply of rights is
extremely diverse and complex,
but it was something that was
very, very formally adhered
to and desired by different
actors within the state.
So Medieval [NON-ENGLISH],,
starting with
the [NON-ENGLISH],, and
then the [NON-ENGLISH]
the [NON-ENGLISH],,
the [NON-ENGLISH],,
and so on, had largely adapted
to and incorporated these
hereditary chiefs and officials
and their rights into a more
or less decentralized revenue
and military administration.
Now, Shivaji's
independent Marathi state
in the 17th century
transformed some of that
into a centralized
authority, which
becomes more so over the
course of the early modern.
He displaces some
of this local power
through bureaucratic reforms,
ranging from cash payments
to central
appointments and so on.
So one interesting
thing is to also see
how such documents which grant,
or issue, or protect rights,
also then transform.
Not just the Kaulnama,
but many others as well.
That's part of a
history of bureaucracy.
That's part of a history of
state formation, and so on.
Now, Shivaji's state
was, in a sense,
successful at some
centralization.
But over the 18th century, the
[NON-ENGLISH] and many other
states within the Marathi
complex, nevertheless,
had to continue to deal with
local rights, accommodate,
adapt to local rights and
authority of different kinds.
So what I would say, drawing
on [INAUDIBLE] and the others,
is that to look at such
documents from the level
of the [NON-ENGLISH] onwards
and so on is, in a sense,
to see the state in action.
It's to see power-sharing, to
see the jostling over power
in action, because these
documents are inseparable
from the multiple
claimants to such authority
in the first place.
So the issuing
authority itself is
quite unstable with
internecine conflicts
between family members over
shares of hereditary offices
and privileges.
So it's interesting.
If you just see
this, like I said,
you get the idea that, look,
here are these [INAUDIBLE]..
They're doing their job.
They are helping the state
enact its welfare duty.
But if you place it in the
context of all the documents
that we have about the
[NON-ENGLISH] family,
you realize that these two
were in a bitter conflict over
the 1690s and well into the
early 18th century about trying
to dislodge the other
person from the other half
of the office.
So one is actually
writing to the Marathis.
The other is writing
to [NON-ENGLISH]..
One is still writing to some
chieftain of the [NON-ENGLISH]
state.
Each of them is presenting their
testimony or their position
through different
kinds of documents.
But at the same time,
they are [? sealed, ?]
and their work is going on.
So the document actually
also is about who
then has the authority
to carry such a seal,
maintain such an
authority, and issue
these kinds of
everyday things about,
you can have this
banana plantation,
you go and settle five
houses over there.
You can have 2/3 of this
crop, and that sort of thing.
Right?
So my placing this
in historical context
is then that the fragility
of the Kaulnama's assurances.
Because we have many such
documents where people say
a Kaulnama had been
granted a few years back.
But then there was
another invasion,
and we lost all our
lands and so on.
And so we've come to say
we need more protection.
And therefore, a
fresh Kaulnama is
issued, sometimes in
the name of another king
with a different dating
system and so on,
saying, OK, now, for
the next seven years,
you can have this
relief from revenue.
So in a sense it's
a fragile document
that has to be issued again and
again from different quarters.
And that paradoxically, the
instability of state formation
may have actually
produced the proliferation
of documents like these.
Everyone who could, issued
one when they were able to.
And only power and
posterity could
tell whose assurances endured.
So that's what makes it a
very interesting, in a sense,
document to think
about sovereignty,
to think about
authority and power
in the early modern state.
OK.
So the historiography of
Marathi law and property
has kind of looked at documents
to understand how rights
are distributed and so on.
Historians of [? scribal ?]
practice and language
on the other hand, when
they approach documents
like the Kaulnama, have focused
either on broad conventions
on bilingual training
and so on, or typologies
of documents, minutiae of
seals, and individual words,
and so on.
And I don't want to beat up
on that, because I'm going
to do some of that myself.
But what I want
to say is that we
need to get these
two historiographies
in conversation with each other
when we look at such documents,
also.
What can historians
of [? scribal ?]
practice tell historians of law
and property, and vise versa?
So the Persian language--
maybe what we should do
is just look at the
documents themselves.
And then I'll come back to
the issue of the Persian
in these materials, right?
Now, some Kaulnamas
are bilingual.
And I'm sorry, I don't have a
picture of a bilingual Kaulnama
for you today, but a majority
of them are Marathi--
a very heavily Persianized
Marathi, as we will see--
and always in Modi script.
I said earlier there never was
a [INAUDIBLE] so important.
And the Modi script, with a D,
dot under the D, is a script--
what do you know
about the Modi script?
Anybody?
AUDIENCE: Cursive.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Cursive?
Yes.
Cursive, meaning?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: Running?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Running hand?
OK.
So one letter kind of
merges into the other.
Cursive for?
Let's be functional
for a minute.
For fast writing, right?
So a [? scribal ?]
cursive script.
There are many legends about
the origins of the Modi script,
the most popular one being
that it was brought back
by the [NON-ENGLISH] prime
minister, [NON-ENGLISH],,
from Sri Lanka.
And he is seen as the kind
of patron, kind of saint,
or originally kind of scribe,
in a sense, for Modi--
a lot of scribal manuals
and so on that are ascribed
to [NON-ENGLISH] or
[NON-ENGLISH] as the original
bureaucrat.
Now, it is a variation
on Naguri [INAUDIBLE]
letters are similar.
Many are very, very
different, and so on.
And I don't want to
make any assumptions
about innate ethnic ability to
read any script, or whatever.
It is not as difficult
as it is made out.
Modi is actually--
I mean, if I could, anybody can.
It takes a while.
It's definitely a
specialist skill.
What I want to emphasize is
that it's a specialist skill.
And it was also
something that developed
within family archives, right?
So one of the things that
[NON-ENGLISH] actually develops
in his argument is that the
state emerges out of household
administrations and
household archives, right?
So once you get into
a particular household
[NON-ENGLISH],, or a
household archive,
then you begin to understand
the kind of curly-cues
of a particular style
of writing and so on.
And this was also
a kind of skill
that was guided through
[? venal ?] recruitment,
through family
recruitment for scribes.
Like uncles would teach
nephews, and so on.
And they would be then inducted
into the job, and so on.
And so we have localized
styles of Modi writing.
Generally, scholars have
divided Modi manuscripts
into [NON-ENGLISH],, which is
[NON-ENGLISH],, 17th century,
[NON-ENGLISH],, which is
18th century [NON-ENGLISH],,
and then [NON-ENGLISH],, which
is like anybody who's a Modi
reader of some note will turn
up their noses at [NON-ENGLISH]
because it's very easy to
read, compared to the others.
But it is a distinct
kind of style.
But apart from this
temporal distinction
in Modi styles of
writing, you also
have localized regional style.
The [NON-ENGLISH] is quite
distinctive, actually.
But so is one that
you would find, say,
in [NON-ENGLISH] or one that
you would find in [NON-ENGLISH],,
versus in parts of
Maharashtra and so on.
So this-- yeah?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes, please?
AUDIENCE: Just a question that
has to do with something that I
think remembering [INAUDIBLE]
I personally have a problem
because we find this argument in
[INAUDIBLE] ontext of the idea
that it would be a kind of
cryptograph and something that
as you--
you seem to say that
the difficulty has
to do with the
expertise and the fact
that this is an acquired
skill, not a script that
is designed to
[INAUDIBLE] itself,
which is very different.
Because I think,
if I remember, I
think some people have
emphasized the idea
that it was not
accessible by people
who were not trained in it.
And therefore, it was a
kind of cryptic [INAUDIBLE]..
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
Yeah, I would--
AUDIENCE: I mean,
the parallel here is,
for instance, we see
that [INAUDIBLE],,
which is also derived from
the professional script.
And again, [INAUDIBLE] origin
[INAUDIBLE] secret language.
I think it's secret to people
who don't know it [INAUDIBLE]..
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah.
I mean, this is secret
to you now, right?
AUDIENCE: Yeah, it is
[INAUDIBLE] secret to me.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah.
Yeah.
AUDIENCE: So you would--
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah,
I would definitely
say that this idea about
Modi being a cipher
is very much a kind of colonial
leader anxiety about the Modi
scribe, and the native
scribe, and the records,
which contain so much regarding
revenue and taxable resources
and so on, being opaque
to the colonial state.
And this is something
that I'm working on.
But by in the early 20th century
how the script and the scribe,
in a sense, are lodged in this
colonial imagination where
Naguri then becomes not just the
readable, print-friendly script
that is almost automatically
legible to everybody,
but it is also then seen as
democratic because everybody
has access to it.
Whereas, Modi
becomes the preserver
for a few clerks who will
jealously guard its skills.
So there's a whole
discourse about secrecy
and opacity
surrounding that, which
has to do more with corruption
in the subordinate bureaucracy
and surveillance of
scribes and so on
than it has to do with
the actual script itself.
It has also to do with the fact
that because the script is not
print-friendly and, therefore,
cannot be rendered into print
and reproducible
in the same way.
It is definitely a
jealously guarded skill.
Therefore, there are family
recruitment patterns.
Not everybody is taught Modi
in the 17th and 18th century.
Also, there are scribal
families and so on.
But there is a difference
between that kind
of skill and cryptic--
yeah, yeah.
So this is a mid-19th
century manual of Modi.
I didn't really know what
to bring because I can't--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
That's interesting.
Thanks, for bringing that up.
So it's called a
[NON-ENGLISH],, I think,
because it's also seen as
a degraded form of writing.
So the article that I shared
with you that [INAUDIBLE]
where I've discussed
some manuals which
talk about this difference that
Brahmin scribes particularly
make between writing in
Naguri and writing in Modi.
So devotional sacred
writing is always in Naguri,
or supposed to be in Naguri.
And profane or everyday
business writing
is supposed to be in Modi.
But this scriptural division
also allows Brahmin scribes
in the early modern period to
distinguish their ritual status
as Brahmins from
their profane status,
in a sense every day
status, as employees often
of Muslim chiefs and so on.
So that division also runs
along the ritual division.
And there are many who,
like [NON-ENGLISH],,
some [NON-ENGLISH],, who will
say that this is like the Bible,
as Naguri is called in Marathi,
is really the better script
to write in, you know?
And Modi, by comparison,
becomes like the demonic script.
OK.
So this is just--
I mean, I don't know what
to do with just this thing,
but just to give
you a visual sense
of the letters themselves.
One of the things which makes
Modi writing a matter of skill
and a matter of
experience, in a sense,
is that many letters look alike.
And I'll show you more of those.
And often, especially when
you add [? matras ?] to them
and so on, it is difficult
to tell which letter it is.
Recognizing which letter
it is based on context,
particularly when you're
talking about names
of people or names of
villages and so on,
becomes a matter of skill.
So even today, the place where
even most experienced Modi
readers stumble at is when
the name of a [NON-ENGLISH] is
mentioned.
If you were from that
family archive or something,
you would know probably
all the [NON-ENGLISH]
in your [NON-ENGLISH]
or your [NON-ENGLISH]..
But now, if you're
approaching it afresh,
then knowing the name of a
particular chief, his sons,
his grandsons, or the
village, is something
that is often difficult.
Many Kaulnamas
have Persian seals.
This is a close-up of
the [NON-ENGLISH] seal.
And I have to thank [INAUDIBLE]
for reading this Persian for me
because I'm Persian-illiterate.
And she has-- this
is also kind of like,
you know, sort of split
subjectivity in the model when
we read these languages, right?
I mean, what you might
have been, skills
that were what
embodied in one person,
now after we have been through
the Anglo-vernacular age,
we no longer have those
multilingual skills,
unless we are in a
good graduate program.
So this is the
symbol of the plow.
You can see over there
the [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
And there are two
dates in the seal--
the [NON-ENGLISH],, or
the [INAUDIBLE] year--
I think Professor [INAUDIBLE]
can tell us a bit more about
that--
and a [INAUDIBLE] date as well.
And I'll tell you
about the dates.
OK.
So let's just look at the first
document, the first Kaulnama
that we saw and try to break
down its components, all right?
Am I doing OK for time?
OK.
So what I've done is, the
red ones, not all the words,
but some important red words
that I have put over there--
can everybody see
that in the Naguri?
It's there in your
handout as well.
And for those of you
who don't read Naguri,
Indian or otherwise, there
is also a [NON-ENGLISH]..
AUDIENCE: English transcription.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah,
English transcription
with the critics
over there, right?
So the-- the is kind of
a writing convention--
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
Now there is a certain pattern
for the Marathi epistolary
forms.
And the ones that I have
actually marked in red
are ones that come
again, and again,
and again in the Kaulnama.
And [NON-ENGLISH] was
saying in the morning--
I mean, after a point, the
form is something that you,
having internalized, you
just plug in the names--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes.
Yeah.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] and
correctly, but only the script
is almost changed.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Changed, yeah.
So [INAUDIBLE].
So the earliest Kaulnama
have found is from, I think,
[NON-ENGLISH],,
which was, I think,
the title of [NON-ENGLISH]
of the [NON-ENGLISH] sultan
of the 15th century,
I think, 15th century,
which is given to
the [NON-ENGLISH]
of the [NON-ENGLISH] area,
basically telling them that
they should settle
the area and so on.
And this is pretty
much the form that
is then developed and maintained
over the 17th and 18th
centuries also.
So the [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] So
this is the Kaulnama that is
accordingly being given.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
So the land, [NON-ENGLISH],,
cut up, right?
The land has become dull and
spoiled for for a long time.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
[NON-ENGLISH],, meaning barren.
And then [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
So [NON-ENGLISH],,
is what it says over here,
which means you have to sort
of proliferate it, populate
it, make it prosperous again.
Now, the language in this is
slightly different from what
you would find.
It's slightly more Persianized
than you would find in a later
[NON-ENGLISH] state Kaulnama,
because this one is issued from
[NON-ENGLISH].
[NON-ENGLISH]?
AUDIENCE: [INTERPOSING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH],, ruled by?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: [NON-ENGLISH].
[NON-ENGLISH] were?
AUDIENCE: [INTERPOSING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Descendants of
the Africans who were enslaved
and brought to the [NON-ENGLISH]
sultan that's over the Medieval
period--
famous enslaved
person who is seen
as the father of many state
forms, revenue [INAUDIBLE]..
AUDIENCE: [INTERPOSING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH],, right?
Yeah.
So the [NON-ENGLISH] ruled
from the [NON-ENGLISH],,
as well as the [NON-ENGLISH].
And it's interesting.
The reason why I have included
one of these over here
is because we see that
the language is Marathi,
the form is Persianit.
But it is not just
the more Marathas
who are using the Marathi
form, the language
is also kind of proliferating
in other states as well.
Right?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
PRACHI DESHPANDE: This one is--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah.
What does that come to?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: 1153.
AUDIENCE: 1153.
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
1153, to which--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
PRACHI DESHPANDE: To which--
this is [NON-ENGLISH].
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes.
So the [NON-ENGLISH],, which
is used for most of dating
the Marathi documents, is
when you add 599 or 600 to it,
you get the Christian
year, or the common era.
So over here, what we have
is [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
in yellow over there.
The [NON-ENGLISH] in blue is
the short form for recognizing
the year.
So most Marathi
archives and libraries,
books with documents, and so on,
will have one such cheat sheet
in the beginning, right?
So you you plug in--
what is our date?
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
So [NON-ENGLISH] is 3,
[NON-ENGLISH] is 50.
What was the next one?
[NON-ENGLISH]?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: 100,
AND [NON-ENGLISH]..
So when you add
those, you get 1153,
to which you add 599 or 600.
Now, the year begins
with the-- coincides with
the [NON-ENGLISH],, 24th
of May to 23rd of May.
If you know the date,
the actual date that
might be mentioned at the
bottom with the signature,
you can match it with the
months, with these months,
and figure it out whether it is
later in the year or earlier.
And then accordingly,
add 599 or 600 to it
to get the common era.
Often, the
[NON-ENGLISH],, the dates,
[NON-ENGLISH] [NON-ENGLISH],,
are not mentioned.
Only the month and the year
is there, in which case
you can only date it to
a kind of [? band. ?]
Like the earlier
one, 1670 to '71.
Sometimes, you have the actual
date and the month as well.
So OK, so what are
these things in blue?
AUDIENCE: Short forms?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Short forms.
Can you take a shot at what
the short forms might be?
The [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
[INAUDIBLE] with two lines.
[NON-ENGLISH] or--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH] will come below.
It's [NON-ENGLISH] is mentioned.
[NON-ENGLISH] is
the name of a place.
[NON-ENGLISH] is one of
the towns on the coast,
a bit south of [NON-ENGLISH].
So this is [NON-ENGLISH] right?
Now, this is one of
the major, again,
specialized skills of
learning [NON-ENGLISH],,
not as specialized as knowing
the kind of localized geography
and so on, but nevertheless
to know what these are.
And so you have
[NON-ENGLISH] over here.
It could be this
is [NON-ENGLISH]..
And so with the two,
here, for some reason,
[INAUDIBLE] has helped us out
by writing [NON-ENGLISH] full.
[NON-ENGLISH],, meaning
aforementioned, right?
So this also gives you
the formulaic sense of it.
They're not going
to keep mentioning
the names of the towns and so on
and so forth what came before.
Over here, you
see [NON-ENGLISH]..
And just [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] So
[NON-ENGLISH] has gone and told
that [NON-ENGLISH] is really
a kind of good man to give
the [INAUDIBLE] to
settle a particular area.
Now isn't [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
these two guys?
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: No.
AUDIENCE: Yes.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: [INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH],, meaning--
[INTERP0SING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: [NON-ENGLISH]
is [NON-ENGLISH] father, right?
So son of.
OK?
So now, these short
forms, again, they
stump you the first
or the second time.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: So
this is his full name.
AUDIENCE: Oh.
Oh.
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
And we don't have
other short forms over
here, but we will show you
some others that will--
so the ones in red,
[NON-ENGLISH],, further down,
[NON-ENGLISH]--
now [NON-ENGLISH].
[NON-ENGLISH] is a very classic
of Kaulnama language, right?
So settlement and prosperity, to
bring settlement and prosperity
into an area.
Now, this [INAUDIBLE]
at the bottom--
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
at the very bottom,
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Now,
is that [NON-ENGLISH]??
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: It's
come up [NON-ENGLISH]..
Down there also is it
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]??
[NON-ENGLISH] is
not [NON-ENGLISH]..
So what could that be?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: No.
It is [NON-ENGLISH],,
according to [INAUDIBLE]..
All right?
So we see here--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
The meaning is--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
Meaning is changed, see?
So it says,
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
So two [INAUDIBLE] of land
have been given to him.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: OK.
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
[INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: No.
It is not--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: It
is not [NON-ENGLISH]..
See?
Here, it says,
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
It says that the letter
that has been given--
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH].
So a letter has been given to
the [NON-ENGLISH] accordingly,
[NON-ENGLISH], accordingly.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],, so keeping
your attention and efforts
on extension of cultivation
and efforts, et cetera.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
by smiling upon you too,
because [NON-ENGLISH] has
been given for two years,
[NON-ENGLISH].
So two years, your
revenue has been--
what do you say?
AUDIENCE: Exempted.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Exempted.
Yeah?
AUDIENCE: Pardoned?
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
Pardoned, yeah.
Says, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH].
So this is the thing.
So you get sometimes
confused with what
those short forms are.
And you have to figure out
based on what the surrounding
letters are.
And some knowledge of Persian,
obviously, helps in this.
But again, one of the
frustrating things
is that the way it is in a lot
of actual Persian documents
is not the way it will
always be in the Marathi one.
But this is
something that really
is work that needs to be done.
So how is the--
I don't like this word-- but how
is the Persian vernacularized,
so to speak?
And here again, [NON-ENGLISH]
offers a kind of different way
of thinking about the way
scholars have looked at this
always is that, first,
there was the Mughal.
And then it was sort
of a vernacularized,
regionalized, and so on.
And then, like [NON-ENGLISH]
was saying in the morning,
the Persians always tend to look
at the Indian work ones as some
sort of aberration or a mutation
of, perhaps, a negative kind.
The Marathi ones can tend
to be seen like that.
But if we look at
[NON-ENGLISH] idea of a library
of categories, like a
library of vocabulary,
a city that he says in his
article that was floating high
above all of these emerging
state forms where these things
were up for grabs for everybody
to kind of take, and use,
and adapt to their
local circumstances,
we can understand why there is
so much borrowing on the one
hand, but also why that is
so much variety on the ground
where, from small
[NON-ENGLISH],, to [NON-ENGLISH],,
to [NON-ENGLISH],, there
are both patterns,
but there are also
a lot of variations.
So the skill and
challenge of reading
these kinds of
documents is also then
to know how to match these
two, like these broad trends
and patterns that are emerging
in language, in form, in genre,
and administrative
practice, but also
be attentive to how the scribes
get actually adapting them
to local circumstances.
Does this make sense?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah?
What is that 62 in
the middle over there?
You read it as 62?
And you're wondering
what 62 is suddenly
doing in the middle of this?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH] ?
But there next to it,
it says [NON-ENGLISH]..
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
AUDIENCE: 6 is a [INAUDIBLE].
PRACHI DESHPANDE: So
that's not a 6 at all.
That's a convention
which is to--
like you know, when
we write checks,
when we write an amount, we add
a hyphen like that and a dash
to say that nothing
comes after that.
This signifies nothing
comes before that.
Right?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: So when you
start first reading a Modi
document, you're like, ah, 6.
And it's not 6, it's a kind of
inverted Naguri 1, as it were.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
I will show you--
here.
It does look like a 62, no?
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
OK, now where am I?
[INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: Sorry.
Is this an OK time to
interject one more question?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes.
AUDIENCE: What is the
[NON-ENGLISH] doing?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes.
OK, let me actually just talk
about the [NON-ENGLISH] right
away, then.
So the [NON-ENGLISH] is a
short form for [NON-ENGLISH]..
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: [INAUDIBLE].
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: --she was
then [INAUDIBLE]..
And we are seeing [INAUDIBLE].
Why is the [INAUDIBLE]?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: I
can't tell you why
it is there in every Kaulnama.
And I have not come to a
reasonable argument myself
about why it is there in
documents like the Kaulnama
and not in every
letter, for instance.
It's not even there
in every Kaulnama,
But it's there in many of them.
Now, we have some manuals
from the early 19th century,
many of whom are probably
based on earlier ones which
specify how people of
different social groups
in the hierarchy--
sometimes castes,
but not always--
are supposed to
address each other.
OK.
Now, in other forms
of letters, that
the materiality of the
document itself, you
fold it into columns.
And then how the address
to whom the letter is
and where that is placed in
relation to those columns
is something that
marks social hierarchy.
If somebody from
a lower position
is writing to a higher
position, or vise versa,
how that address is placed on
the paper has some purpose,
or has some importance.
In one manual that I've found
from the 19th century, 1853,
says that when Brahmins write to
people from other communities,
they are supposed to
write [NON-ENGLISH]..
[NON-ENGLISH],,
meaning [NON-ENGLISH],,
also meaning [NON-ENGLISH]--
[NON-ENGLISH].
So Brahmins bless.
And when people from our
communities write to others
further below them, they
write [NON-ENGLISH]..
All right?
Now, this is
[NON-ENGLISH] if you know,
because either of them,
[NON-ENGLISH] or [NON-ENGLISH],,
then the person who is writing
was perhaps writing as somebody
to--
if-- I don't know who the actual
person who wrote this was--
is writing to [NON-ENGLISH],,
maybe he wrote it for the--
but many manuals don't
mention this either.
So right now, I've just
assembled all the different
kind of arguments that seem
to be there for [NON-ENGLISH]
and [NON-ENGLISH].
There is also some
reason to think
that this particular
caste-based thing is
a much later phenomenon
than in the 17th century.
So we certainly don't
have any manuals
from that time
that mention this.
But let's just say for now that
it means, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
before [INAUDIBLE] scribe
was someone else [INAUDIBLE]
someone else [INAUDIBLE]..
So if there [INAUDIBLE] they
both have [INAUDIBLE],, what
[INAUDIBLE]?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Sorry.
Rephrase that.
I can [INAUDIBLE].
AUDIENCE: The scribe
and the owner,
who would want to write
letter from this side.
So if they would have--
so who is the
concept is going on?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: The
name of the addresser,
not the actual scribe himself.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] what
is the meaning of first line,
[INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: So
[NON-ENGLISH] is from
the office.
[NON-ENGLISH] is the
department, you could say.
Right?
Is that--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[INAUDIBLE] OK.
In Marathi, it is rendered
as from the [NON-ENGLISH]
of, or from the office of,
from the department of.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
chancellery [INAUDIBLE]..
PRACHI DESHPANDE: OK.
AUDIENCE: In the
northern [INAUDIBLE],,
you should read from
the [INAUDIBLE] type.
Or the one department
procures the material.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: OK.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
the material [INAUDIBLE]..
PRACHI DESHPANDE: OK.
AUDIENCE: But in this
case, it's chancellery.
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
Chancellery, yeah.
So here you can see
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] So
it's from the office
of [NON-ENGLISH]..
Yeah?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah
AUDIENCE: Because [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
AUDIENCE: Hm?
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah.
I'll speak about
that a little bit--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
OK, so now, if you look
at-- this is the same one.
If you look at
these letters, see,
this is the first letter that
we just spent so much time on.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
the first line.
But if you look at
immediately below it,
you'll think there's another
[NON-ENGLISH],, right?
Because it is almost identical.
This one is an [NON-ENGLISH].
That's [NON-ENGLISH].
So the [NON-ENGLISH],,
[NON-ENGLISH],, [NON-ENGLISH],,
[NON-ENGLISH],, depending one
how the scribe wanted to kind
of write his strokes,
can be quite confusing.
So when reading a Modi
document, figuring out
how these letters are similar.
Now here, you'll see this is
a [NON-ENGLISH],, all right?
This is a [NON-ENGLISH].
[NON-ENGLISH],, and
these are [NON-ENGLISH]..
This is identical to
[NON-ENGLISH],, right?
So when I first read it, I'm
like [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
[NON-ENGLISH] also
appears in [INAUDIBLE]..
[NON-ENGLISH],, meaning strong
or healthy fertile land.
So I thought, what does
[NON-ENGLISH] mean?
But it's not that.
It's the short form
for [NON-ENGLISH]..
And this is not [NON-ENGLISH],,
but it is [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
It's the [? date ?] action.
So now, [NON-ENGLISH] and
[NON-ENGLISH] are the most
frustrating for Modi readers.
At first glance, this
could be [NON-ENGLISH]..
It could be [NON-ENGLISH].
Once you realize that
this is [NON-ENGLISH],,
this can only be [NON-ENGLISH].
And then it just like flow very
fast, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..
And once you come to the
[NON-ENGLISH],, you don't even--
you just move to the next,
because you know it's going
to be [NON-ENGLISH].
So there's a certain
formulaic nature to it.
But there are some blind spots
that can be very difficult.
OK.
So do you want to help me
pick out the formulate phrases
from this one?
I've done the first one--
Kaulnama.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
[NON-ENGLISH].
After that is [NON-ENGLISH],,
meaning the name of the town--
[NON-ENGLISH].
So you know that
is [NON-ENGLISH]..
So the-- oops--
the--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
Kaulnama [NON-ENGLISH]..
OK.
[NON-ENGLISH],, we didn't
have in the earlier one.
What does [NON-ENGLISH] mean?
[NON-ENGLISH],, the short
form is [NON-ENGLISH]----
[? to, ?] right?
Then?
AUDIENCE: [NON-ENGLISH]
AUDIENCE: [NON-ENGLISH].
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
[NON-ENGLISH],, yes.
AUDIENCE: [NON-ENGLISH]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: This
M, two dots, and I,
he couldn't be bothered
to write [NON-ENGLISH],,
let alone write
[NON-ENGLISH] all over again.
So he has it in [NON-ENGLISH],,
two line, two dots,
and [NON-ENGLISH].
So when you come across that,
you know what it means is
the [NON-ENGLISH] that has
been referred to earlier
in the document,
mainly [NON-ENGLISH]..
So the Kaulnama has been
granted by the [NON-ENGLISH]
and [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
What is [NON-ENGLISH]??
[NON-ENGLISH] with two
lines, short form for?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes,
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] 1099.
Now, this is unusual.
You don't have the full
[NON-ENGLISH] mentioned here.
In a lot of these
[INAUDIBLE] documents,
they've actually just
mentioned it in numerals, 1099.
That's not always seen.
It's usually in the
full letter form
that we saw in the earlier one.
So then, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH].
So when you come to these
forms, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
now here's where you know
the document's been divided
into two forms.
All this point is like
from whom to who, where,
it's being placed in
space time, right?
Here's where the actual kind
of letter begins after this.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] So you
enjoyed your [NON-ENGLISH]..
And [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
so all the [INAUDIBLE]----
all of this, you are now going
to enjoy that every year.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
Now this word, [NON-ENGLISH],,
let me show you.
I'll go over here.
Where is [INAUDIBLE].
Here.
I showed this to
another Mode reader
who read it as something else.
It could be-- it looks
like a [NON-ENGLISH]..
Often in Modi, [NON-ENGLISH]
and [NON-ENGLISH] [INAUDIBLE]..
So she thought it
could be [NON-ENGLISH],,
because this is a [NON-ENGLISH].
[NON-ENGLISH] and [NON-ENGLISH]
alike, so is a [NON-ENGLISH]..
So it's [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH].
But the [NON-ENGLISH] is
also written like this.
So [NON-ENGLISH]?
I'm still not sure.
This is my stumbling point
for this document, right?
So people, to come
back to your question,
now this is perhaps
where, as modern readers,
we are also kind of stuck.
Perhaps it meant something
in a local context,
like a skilled
reader at that time
might have been able to
just read very, very easily.
But I'm not sure what it means.
Perhaps it's a Persian word
that I'm not familiar with.
If I trolled the
dictionaries and so on, and I
might finally come
up with something.
It could just be
a scribal error.
Maybe he meant to
write something else.
So [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],, this
is again a formulaic one.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Now, this
is something that is always
stored in a Kaulnama.
Don't worry.
Don't fear for anything.
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
AUDIENCE: That's how
it [? phases ?] out.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: OK.
[INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] ?
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
he could have seen it.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: [NON-ENGLISH]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: [NON-ENGLISH],,
like a present, you know?
AUDIENCE: [NON-ENGLISH] to see
that he would have seen it.
It is saying how
that the person was,
whom he is writing, that
he has shown it to be
[? higher officers. ?]
PRACHI DESHPANDE:
But [NON-ENGLISH],,
what does [NON-ENGLISH] mean?
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: [NON-ENGLISH]
means of the [NON-ENGLISH]..
AUDIENCE: Could be
a [NON-ENGLISH]..
PRACHI DESHPANDE: It doesn't
look like a [NON-ENGLISH]
at all over there.
That's [INAUDIBLE].
So these are all
[INAUDIBLE] now.
So [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] is
like paying the revenue.
[NON-ENGLISH] also means
like [NON-ENGLISH]..
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
AUDIENCE: [NON-ENGLISH]
means to see something.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: It
also means to see, yeah.
But in a lot of documents,
you also have [NON-ENGLISH],,
which means to give
like a present.
AUDIENCE: Just to
mention [INAUDIBLE]
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yes.
AUDIENCE: Where it
comes constantly,
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
could be a misspell.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Could be.
Could be.
Could be.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
constantly is [INAUDIBLE]..
PRACHI DESHPANDE: OK.
It could well be.
That's not a
[NON-ENGLISH],, for sure.
But it could well
be a misspelling.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] could
have been [INAUDIBLE]..
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
Then you can distinguish.
Now it is written
in more descriptive.
We don't know whether
it was [INAUDIBLE],,
or whether to look at.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Look at.
AUDIENCE: But in
the [INAUDIBLE],,
you mostly write there
that the [INAUDIBLE]
thing about [INAUDIBLE].
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: Yeah.
I think it is [? said. ?]
But it's not usually
written like this, so it's a
slight question mark around it.
I'm pointing it
out mainly to show
where, when reading
the manuscript itself,
you can go wrong.
Or if whoever edited this text
before you just took a call
and wrote something without
mentioning that there was
some ambivalence regarding it.
And then you just go with
that person's transcription.
That's happened too in the past.
OK.
So what is this?
Let's just move on.
This is a [INAUDIBLE].
Right?
Now, as Professor
[INAUDIBLE] was saying,
talking about the
[NON-ENGLISH],, now, in 1676,
Shivaji authorizes
the composition
of the [NON-ENGLISH],, which
is really a kind of lexicon
translating version and the
[NON-ENGLISH] vocabulary,
some administrative
and bureaucratic,
but a wide variety of
vocabulary into Sanskrit,
into high Sanskrit, actually.
A lot of it is sort of
neologisms, as well.
And this is also intended to
reduce the Persian content
of these kind of
bureaucratic forms,
replace them with
Sanskritized vocabulary.
Many people are
under the impression
that it translates
them into Marathi.
Does not.
These are the
Sanskritized replacements,
Sanskrit replacements
for the Persian
and [INAUDIBLE] vocabulary.
And we see then, over
the 18th century,
particularly in the late
17th and early 18th century,
that the [NON-ENGLISH] emerges
as a stand-in for the Kaulnama.
So where you might
have found a Kaulnama,
now you'll find
an [NON-ENGLISH]..
Yeah?
Scholars have seen these
two forms as basically
interchangeable.
The [NON-ENGLISH] itself
translates the Kaulnama
as [NON-ENGLISH].
Now, to what extent is
this actually reflected
in actual documents
over the 18th century?
There is definitely a decline
in Persian words in Marathi
bureaucratic documents
over the 18th century,
particularly in the
[NON-ENGLISH] archive.
Certainly in letters that
in private correspondence
of the [NON-ENGLISH] and so on,
there is now a noticeable shift
from this heavily Persianit
language to a much more kind
of Marathi and Sanskrit
replaced Sanskritized language.
But if we see a series
of different forms,
or if we look at
the kind of form
in general, what we
can see is that both
continue to be produced.
So we do have Kaulnamas as
well over the 18th century.
And interestingly, we have
many examples where a document
begins as a [NON-ENGLISH],,
but ends as a Kaulnama
[NON-ENGLISH]
And where it would have
said, [NON-ENGLISH],,
or whatever it would
say, [NON-ENGLISH]..
So some formulaic
phrases remain.
And that kind of ground
level sort of scribal work
is just a scribe who is
used to a particular set
of vocabularies.
Or it's somebody who says, I
can't be bothered, you know?
Don't tell me what
language to use.
I've been doing
this all my life.
I'm going to call it this.
Those kinds of scribal
histories, we still don't have.
We can look at these
documents to glean
that kind of everyday scribal
and writing practice from them.
And the Kaulnama and
[NON-ENGLISH] kind of back
and forth, I think, is a very
productive space from which
to do that.
So [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],,
which is the end--
oh, wait-- [NON-ENGLISH] would
be the end of the writing,
marking the end of the
[INAUDIBLE] over here.
In many Kaulnamas, you have
that as a [INAUDIBLE] as well--
sometime in Persian, sometimes
in Naguri [INAUDIBLE] should,
which in the [NON-ENGLISH] it
becomes [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
or [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH],, which
you saw in the Shivaji one.
Where is the previous slide?
[INAUDIBLE],, we have to go
through all these animations.
Where is it?
Oh, yeah.
Here.
See here?
You can see the
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] thing
at the end.
And you have the seal over here.
OK, where was I?
How much time do I have?
AUDIENCE: I was
just going to say,
you've got a little
under 10 minutes.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: OK, yeah.
That's good.
I was trying to see
what I have left out.
OK.
Now perhaps, we
can at the end just
talk about how
these materials have
come into the public domain
over the last 100 years.
Because as scholars,
I mean, if you're
going to actually look
at these documents,
chances are, if you want
to work on something to do
with Marathi history,
you will start
with the published volumes.
And there are many,
many such volumes.
My first book was really about
this process through which
nationalist historiography
collected and brought
hundreds of thousands of
such early modern materials
into the print sphere.
And it's a very,
very valuable work.
We have a huge printed
archive of Marathi materials.
But how to approach
them is a question,
a methodological question.
In many cases, for
instance, you will see that,
like I showed you,
the [NON-ENGLISH]
and the [NON-ENGLISH]
looks the same, right?
Many early editors
didn't actually write it
as [NON-ENGLISH],, didn't
interpret it as [NON-ENGLISH],,
just used it as [NON-ENGLISH],,
as a kind of writing
convention.
So in early printed
editions of letters,
you will see it as written,
transcribed as [NON-ENGLISH]..
There are many, many
differences over dates.
A lot of Modi is
transcribed differently.
And I mean, that you
can kind of-- as you
go towards the manuscripts,
you can compare the printed
editions and so on.
But sometimes, the actual
documents are not there.
You only have the
printed editions,
particularly for the
early volumes that, say,
we gradually edited upwards
more than 20 volumes of Marathi
and [INAUDIBLE]
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
Now a lot of family
archives that he
got from people
transcribed into Naguri,
printed, and then returned
those papers to the families.
Or maybe they're still
in [NON-ENGLISH],,
un-cataloged in
binders [INAUDIBLE]..
So if you can
actually kind of read
the Modi in its original
thing, then that's great.
But in many cases, you have to
rely on the printed material.
Now, this is a very
good printed version.
This actually is from
[NON-ENGLISH] dot com where
they have actually placed
all of these volumes online,
and all his other
writings, [NON-ENGLISH]..
People familiar
with [NON-ENGLISH]??
AUDIENCE: Yes.
PRACHI DESHPANDE: [NON-ENGLISH],,
we know pioneering nationalist
historian in the
early 20th century,
who did a lot of
this archival work,
but also set many of the terms
for interpreting [NON-ENGLISH]
and Medieval, early modern
history more broadly.
So a lot of the material
that he collected is now up
at [NON-ENGLISH] dot com.
Now, in the later
volumes what they did
was to actually put
these seals up there.
OK?
So you can read the
seals and the text.
Now the text here you can see,
both here and in the printed,
does not actually
follow the dimensions
of the original manuscript text,
which I did over here for you.
I didn't go til the
end of the page.
If you wanted to
compare these two,
you know where that one ends.
But here, it's not like that.
It becomes one kind
of mass of text.
In many cases,
there are no seals.
This is another example.
Now, these are all where
the pages were torn, right?
And most problematically, in
a lot of early Marathi printed
volumes, they just
said, [NON-ENGLISH]..
[LAUGHTER]
Persian material, Persian
writing, Persian seal.
And if you don't have
that actual material,
if you don't have the
actual manuscript,
then you have to just guess what
that Persian might have been.
So to think about
what the Persianit is
in Marathi bureaucratic
writing is a problem
in the archive itself.
Because a lot of the way in
which it has come into print
is also in this way.
Now, some of it
is nationalistic.
Like we are going to
print the Marathi,
and the Persian
was an imposition.
It was an invasion.
We just kind of mention it.
But from the other
side, the Persianit
has been seen
basically as seamlessly
infusing the Marathi.
And wherever it is, it's seen
as somehow similar to the Moghal
as part of this kind of
large Persianit cosmopolitan.
So if one sees it as an
invasive kind of imperialism,
the other sees it as a kind
of seamless cosmopolitan
Persianit.
Now, how these choices are made,
how these Persian and Marathi
kind of vocabularies
suffixes, prefixes,
or like I said between the
[NON-ENGLISH] how these
interchanges happen is, I think,
somewhere in between these two
[? ports. ?] And sometimes, the
printed archive kind of hinders
our understanding of it.
Though, nowadays, for
instance, the later volumes
of the [NON-ENGLISH],, they
have printed the original Modi
alongside the Naguri
transcription.
So that makes it
much easier to--
very useful.
But I thought, alongside
these printed versions,
that I would show you just
at the end some examples.
Maybe next time we have a lot
of Modi readers coming back,
and then we can, like
we did in the morning,
we can work our way
through each line.
But right now, you can
feast your eyes visually
at least on this.
This is from the [NON-ENGLISH]
side of the [NON-ENGLISH]
district today, [NON-ENGLISH],,
also a multi-lingual family
archive that the size were
subdued by the [NON-ENGLISH]..
They were initially
under the [NON-ENGLISH],,
then the [NON-ENGLISH].
And their archive-- though the
family archives of many this
size are today in
the [NON-ENGLISH]..
You can see the Persian seal.
And this is a Kaulnama from
the [NON-ENGLISH] of that.
This is a very badly fragmented
Kaulnama from the [NON-ENGLISH]
era, turn of the 18th
century, [NON-ENGLISH] son.
Now here, you can see in this
one, as well as in this one,
this is--
this one is from another
[NON-ENGLISH] archive,
the [NON-ENGLISH]
in [NON-ENGLISH]..
They too have
digitized everything
in very high-quality scans
and put them up online.
That website is
[NON-ENGLISH] dot com.
It has a wide variety of
materials he collected.
It seems to be offline
the last few days.
I don't know why, but
it's there usually.
In Naguri [INAUDIBLE],,
Modi [NON-ENGLISH],,
Persian materials,
Sanskrit materials,
there's a whole
diversity of stuff there.
There's no [NON-ENGLISH] here.
Can you see?
No [NON-ENGLISH].
And you have the [NON-ENGLISH]
seal at the bottom.
And so it makes
it very difficult.
You can you can figure
out where this is.
This is [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
And you can date the thing.
But many such documents in the
archives also floating around.
They're not attached anymore
to the family archives
from which they came.
So for instance, the
[NON-ENGLISH] family materials,
you can actually place in
an ecology of documents.
You can reconstruct the
history of that family
and how particular documents
then participated in a larger
strategy that they had
vis-a-vis the state,
vis-a-vis other families
like themselves, and so on.
Such documents are-- there
are many, many, many.
And how do you actually
make use of them
is a challenge for historians.
But I mean, you guys
also have to figure out
ways to read these and
make sense of them.
This is the last one I'll show.
This is issued to
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] And there
are a series of
[NON-ENGLISH] names.
This is given to various
brothers of a [NON-ENGLISH]
family regarding
their [NON-ENGLISH]
in the [NON-ENGLISH]
area as well.
So the [NON-ENGLISH] archive
has a lot of documents from this
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]
region, which is about 100,
120 kilometers south
of [NON-ENGLISH]..
But they're not integrated.
They're just kind of
dispersed around over there.
So that's my Kaulnama spiel.
I'll take a few questions,
if I have time, if you have--
