Decoding the Rhetoric of Morality in 18th Century India: The Interventionist Nature of the Jaipur State

Abstract

This article focuses on the nature of 18th century Jaipur society through the lens of gender relations. In Jaipur, the Kachchwaha state protected women against domestic abuse, sexual harassment and caste infractions. I argue that the state maintained control by articulating an interventionist role in the day-to-day lives of their subjects, without mediation of caste councils or the Brahmanical authorities. Through the rhetoric of upholding moral order in society, the Jaipur state was successful in legitimising its rule with expediency and minimal aggression. The state closely monitored the social interactions of their subjects and routinely resolved issues arising out of family disputes, domestic abuse, marital problems and inter-caste marriages. Individuals faced fines, ostracism as well as imprisonment as penalties. Men and women were punished according to their crimes, irrespective of their caste status in the Jaipur state.

Keywords

18th century India Jaipur state state intervention in family disputes domestic violence sexual misdemeanour

Introduction

This article examines the strategies of Kachchwaha rulers to legitimise and negotiate sovereignty in the 18th century state of Jaipur. These rulers broadened the conventional definition of kingship (rajadharma), and deployed caste and kinship structures strategically to consolidate power. Kachchwaha rulers delved intrusively into their subjects’ lives at the level of everyday practice. The state’s attempt to regulate social relations transformed local customs regarding marriage, spousal relations, domestic violence, sexual misdemeanours and caste transgressions. The caste councils worked closely with the state to regulate behaviour and impose fines, or to otherwise discipline people. Individuals faced fines, ostracism and imprisonment irrespective of their caste status. By utilising the idioms of morality and controlling the sexuality of women, the Kachchawaha rulers were able to develop a gendered patriarchy that effectively controlled the contentious elements of their society. The study of pre-colonial Indian states has been heavily influenced by theories of Oriental despotism. For a long time, historians were preoccupied with either proving or refuting this concept that Indian states were authoritarian, distant and active only on the level of revenue extraction (Anderson, 1974; Wittfogel, 1957).

These analyses override the question of rulers’ strategies of sovereignty by emphasising the ultimate authority of tradition: caste and religion (Heesterman et al., 1992; Horstsmann, 2006; Inden, 1998; Sinha, 2002). The historiography of 18th century states has been particularly influenced by the notion of coercive and military-minded states (Perlin, 1985; Stein, 1985, pp. 423–433; Wink, 1986). The study of the political agency of rulers has been eclipsed by a focus on the agency of tradition and its ritualistic scripts (Dirks, 1987; Peabody, 2003).¹ These scholars ignore the initiatives of the Indian states to proclaim sovereign authority by propagation of morality, control of judicial process and better modes of governance. More recently, different legitimisation mechanisms have been studied to suggest alternate structures of governance (Chakravarti, 2003; Habib, 2002; Karashima, 1999; Menon, 1999, pp. 1–20; Shulman 1992; Talbot, 2001).²

The archival data available for Jaipur expose the political strategy of this state, which was able to penetrate deep into the lives of its subjects and establish firm control through the ideology of law, benevolence and paternalism (Imam, 2009, pp. 104–144).³ The discourse on penal practices and its accompanying decisions actually veiled a strategy that involved disciplining various communities through these practices. 18th century states were able to control their subjects because the areas under their control were much smaller and could be managed cohesively (Sahai, 2007; Subramanyam and Alam, 1998). Here I concur with the conclusions drawn by Uma Chakravarti on the strategies of the 18th century Peshwa state (Chakravarti, 2003, pp. 105–113). The administration of justice was pragmatic and did not follow the Dharmashastras but preferred customary norms prevalent in Rajasthan in the 18th century.

Most importantly, the political turmoil of the century had made it imperative for the states to create consensual societies that would enable them to remain in power (Gordon, 1994; Guha, 1995, pp. 101–126). The administration of justice and attempt to codify certain norms and practices was an endeavour on the part of the ruling class and its bureaucracy to maintain a semblance of order and peace in violent and uncertain times.⁴

This article illustrates the interventionist nature of the Jaipur state by focusing on the crimes committed against women. The issues of polygamy, purdah (seclusion), female infanticide, child marriage and sati have been well-researched topics about Rajput societies. However, this article illuminates another dimension, not explored previously; how did societal norms protect women from violence, domestic abuse and sexual crimes? Did the state authorities or caste councils recognise crimes against women? If they did, what actions were taken against the perpetrators? The vast quantitative data on the nature and incidence of crimes against women in 18th century Jaipur suggest a viable defence of women’s rights, specifically against sexual misdemeanours. The article is divided into three sections: The first section (Social Institutions and Gender Relations) focuses on social institutions and gender relations, the state’s views on sanctity of marriage, the measures to curb expenditures on social functions, spousal relations and abortions; the second section (Domestic Violence and the State) deals with cases of domestic disputes and violence where the state intervened to punish culprits without considering caste distinctions and the third section (Crimes on the Bodies of Women: Cham-chori or Sexual Misdemeanour) elaborates on sexual misdemeanours and violent crimes against women, involving nearly all castes living in the state. An investigation usually followed the report, and the males responsible were disciplined, imprisoned or fined for their offences.

Social Institutions and Gender Relations

By claiming to be protectors of dharma (duty) and upholders of the sanctity of caste norms and practices, Jaipur rulers made themselves responsible for interfering even in the domestic issues of their subjects. They did not follow any paradigm of morality, except of course, the customary caste laws of their kingdom. The official discourse clearly indicates that the government had authority to intervene in the familial domain with respect to relationships between husbands and wives, which sometimes also involved relatives by marriage and members of the extended family.⁵ In cases of domestic violence, there was no adherence to caste norms; family disputes were deemed to be within the legal jurisdiction of the state, and the state fined and imprisoned individuals irrespective of their caste status. By becoming the defenders of female virtue and honour, the Kachchwaha rulers developed a gendered conception of power and its legitimisation. I am using Kachchwaha rulers’ records of correspondence with their officials, letters, directives, data on criminal activities and details of fine collection primarily available in the farohi (miscellaneous) section in the Arhsatta (statistical information compiled from 68 sources) documents.

This paternalism was clear in the state’s role, which was to impose the sanctity of marriage, as well as compel subjects to abide by the caste-prescribed procedures of this institution (Singh, 2003, pp. 69–86). The examples cited below reveal that the state played a critical role in structuring familial relationships through the imposition of the sanctity of marriage. These cases shed light on issues of morality, which were defended by the state. More importantly, how were these issues interpreted and contested by the ordinary subjects of this regional kingdom? For example, whenever the authorities discovered that proper marriage rites had not been performed, people were reprimanded and asked to legalise their unions as soon as possible. Numerous incidents of the imposition of fines on individuals who did not conform to caste injunctions indicated that this was a contentious issue between the state and its subjects.

Although marrying outside of one’s caste in the 18th century Jaipur state was against caste rules, there were still reported cases of intercaste marriages (Arhsatta records, 1711, 1713).⁶The individuals who performed inter-caste marriages were charged with violating caste norms; all such unions were usually declared null and void by the state authorities.The state also punished those who had contracted inter-caste marriages, even if one spouse had been misled regarding their partner’s real caste status (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1740).⁷

Jaipur rulers used the endogamous nature of caste-based 18th century Rajput society to control gender relations. Despite its rhetoric on protecting women, the state did not take an interest in their status after its moral authority had been exercised. Women in inter-caste relationships were forced to go back to their parents, while the men were merely acquitted upon paying fines. The sources do not elaborate on the circumstances of women who were involved in inter-caste marriages, but given the state of gender relations in Rajput society, these women would have found it difficult to readjust to both their families and communities. The state, in consultation with caste councils, ignored the plight of women in these types of cases. In inter-caste or extramarital affairs, the protection of women against violence was not the issue. As these issues related to the moral order of society—and the state of Jaipur presented itself unequivocally as the upholder of the existing social order— women’s rights were used as a smokescreen to infiltrate into the affairs of the subjects.

The enforcement of caste norms was done primarily through the imposition of fines and attempted reconciliations with caste councils. In that era, different sections of the population lived in close proximity to each other and inter-caste relationships developed as a result of the interaction between communities. At the same time, the authorities intervened to maintain the moral order, so as to fulfil one of the primary duties of Indian kings (Buhler, 1886, Chapter 10, Clauses 118 and 119).

The Kachchwaha rulers showed no discrimination on the basis of caste or class in cases of domestic violence. Everyone was punished on the same basis: a way of proceeding that was contradictory to caste norms, but essential in maintaining a semblance of morality and order in the society as a whole (Imam, 2009, pp. 109–144). In most circumstances, couples were simply ordered to pay fines or perform the marriage rites as soon as possible (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1740, 1761).⁸ If people of different castes were involved in a relationship, then the woman/girl had to return to her parents’ house. It should be noted that dealing with moral issues such as marriage, adultery and extramarital affairs, the state enforced caste norms by intervening on behalf of individual caste members.

Another dimension of the state’s intervention in familial affairs was the effort to make everyone responsible and respectful of the laws in the matter of relationships. Individuals were obliged to report engagements and marriages to the state authorities. The Kotwal (police magistrate) of the city of Jaipur reported to the Maharaja on reprimanding several individuals for breaking off the engagements of their children without their consent and marrying them off to others. There are other examples from the Parganas of Malpura, Mauzabad, Toda Bhim, Hindaun and Bahatri of fines collected by state authorities, when people did not honour their prior commitments in arranging marriages (Arhsatta Pargana Malpura, 1773; Arhsatta Pargana Toda Bhim, 1747; Arhsatta Pargana Hindon, 1742).

In addition to controlling the sexuality of women, the state also exercised moral authority by limiting extravagant expenses on social occasions. It was customary, and still is in South Asian societies, to spend lavishly on all social occasions, especially weddings (Yaddasht daily reports, 1734). The reason behind setting a specific amount as the limit is vague in the sources; however, the implementation of these measures made it clear that rulers of Jaipur would always be remembered as social reformers, ‘Jai Singh was a social reformer, in spite of his many defects, Jey Singh’s name is destined to descend to posterity as one of the most remarkable men of his age and nation… the sumptuary laws which he endeavoured to establish throughout Rajpootana for the regulation of marriages, in order to check those lavish expenses that led to infanticide and sati’ (Tod, 1920, p. 1355). These measures also ensured that everyone, whether rich or poor, could get married with appropriate rituals, and not be compelled to make non-ritualised alliances due to a lack of resources.

The sources record fines collected from individuals who spent more than ₹ 2,000 on weddings. There were restrictions (this is culled from data on fines) on the number of people that could be invited to attend weddings, social functions or funerals at anyone’s house (Parwana of Sawai Jai Singh, 1734). Although there is no evidence of the success of these measures, the Arhsatta documents mentioned fines imposed by the Jaipur state for these offences throughout the 18th century. The fines were invariably collected from both the upper and lower castes, and from members of the mercantile classes. Mahajans (moneylenders), sunars (goldsmiths), khatris (merchants) and agarwals (traders) paid the highest fines. In one instance, Vaji Sunar of the city of Jaipur was fined ₹ 700 because of extra expenses on his daughter’s wedding (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1740). In spite of the imposition of fines for extravagance on social occasions, people did not cease to spend. For instance, Ram Chand Agarwal was fined ₹ 9 for the expenditure on his first daughter’s wedding and ₹ 75 on his second daughter’s wedding.⁹ Collection of fines from these communities in these cases again implies that state directives were not followed without resistance.

Also reported are cases of individuals who were fined either for sending out invitations to members of other castes or for inviting more than the permitted number of people to their homes. Even the highest officials were required not to invite too many people to a wedding. Diwan Ram Chand sent invitations to his son’s marriage and demanded ₹ 5 from the invitees; this was reported to the Maharaja, Sawai Jai Singh, who demanded a full inquiry into this matter.¹⁰ Purohit Jewan Ram spent around ₹ 4,000 on his son’s marriage; he was required to provide a list of invitees to the court and to also pay a fine (letter from Das to Singh, 1693).

It is clear also from the evidence provided below that the demand for proper moral behaviour by the state was continuously challenged by various communities. The officials intervened continuously to enforce the jati norms and assert their authority over social and cultural matters. A few examples of individuals’ defiance of these norms that required government intervention are as follows: Tillu Mali of Jaipur kept Dala Mali’s daughter-in-law without the consent of his caste members. The faujdar summoned Tillu Mali for questioning and ordered him to perform proper marriage rites in front of his community members. In another example, Setaram Bhujjar started living together with his sister-in-law without obtaining permission from his caste members. He was ordered to properly marry her and was also fined ₹ 11. Ghasiram Gujjar of Tappa Haveli Pargana, Jaipur, had kept a vidbha (widow) in his home without informing his caste members. When the authorities found out, he was fined ₹ 5, which was the charge for the investigation (Arhsatta, Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1743).

Generally, non-adherence to prescribed customs, rituals and forced inter-caste marriages were considered within the jurisdiction of caste councils and the state. The state also responded to direct appeals from individuals and caste councils that requested the resolution of such matters, as per caste regulations (Singh, 2003, pp. 36–37). The involvement of the state in the social sphere of their subjects’ lives is also evident in the collection of fines from people who got married or formalised their unions. The officials of Pargana Jaipur, Lalsot and Bahatri mention the names and castes of individuals who had not registered their marriages with the state authorities. Different castes such as the Minas, Lohars (blacksmiths), Gujars, Telis and Balahis were mentioned as offenders, and were charged fines for this offence, ranging from ₹ 1 to ₹ 100.¹¹

Although one lagan or sadi (marriage) was the norm of the society, the middle and lower castes followed the practice of remarriage, and even the remarriage of widows (Chakravarti, 1995, pp. 3–21; Kadam, pp. 341–370; Kumar, 2003, pp. 40–54; Sahai, 2007, pp. 36–58; Singh, 2005, pp. 235–252; Wagle, 1998, pp. 15–60). The archival data from the states of Jodhpur, Kota and Pune (Maharashtra) corroborate data from Jaipur.¹² These marriages were sanctioned by caste councils, and approved by the state. The documents use different terms such as nata, gharvasa, gharijana or gharecha for second marriages. Both men and women were allowed to remarry; however, it is implied in the sources that individuals were required to follow caste regulations and obtain state permission to remarry. In the 18th century, out of 86 castes living in Pune, 76 allowed remarriages and second marriages (Wagle, 1998, pp. 15–59). The second marriages in the Kota state referred to contracts primarily within the same caste, and only few cases of upper-caste men who had relations with lower-caste women (Sethia, 2003, p. 184). Widowhood did not force women to lead an ascetic life, unless they were members of upper castes, which were the Brahmans or the Rajputs in Rajasthan. They were not subjected to as harsh and celibate lives as their counterparts in Maharashtra (Kadam, 1998, pp. 355–356). A lower-caste woman could remarry, after obtaining a kagad (written document) signed by her previous husband’s family.¹³

In the Jaipur records, there are more documented cases of illicit relations, than of adultery, than I have noticed in the research produced on other 18th century states. The following cases were reported in the vicinity of the Jaipur city, which was controlled by the Kotwal. From 1740 to 1763 CE, there were about 20 cases of illicit affairs. The most common course of action taken by authorities in consultation with the village councils was to fine male partners involved in the crime, while the women were usually sent back to their families. In most cases, the individuals were intercepted by officials with the help of informants, who were probably neighbours or members of the family. The cases illustrate that an individual who kept mistresses had to pay heavy fines, which ranged anywhere from ₹ 5 to ₹ 25. People from all castes, from Brahmans to Telis, were involved and were fined for these types of relationships.¹⁴

The state officials punished individuals found committing adultery with severe fines and warnings. As soon as the state authorities became involved—after a complaint was lodged by a woman’s parents or her husband—the first step was to send the woman in question back to her home. The man involved was ordered to pay all the charges for the investigation and also the fines for having an illicit relationship (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1743). These out-of-wedlock alliances also led to unwelcome pregnancies and abortions. The Kachchwaha rulers also dealt with issues on the termination of pregnancies quite sternly. The different terms used for abortions in the documents are adhura-nakha and gharba-khatya.¹⁵_{All kinds of abortion cases—from unwelcome pregnancies to those with the consent of spouses, and by alleged rape victims—were penalised by the state. Anyone involved in aiding or facilitating abortions, including spouses, family members or outside helpers was held responsible for this act. In some cases, people were ordered to leave town after the relationship was publicised.¹⁶}

The above-mentioned cases illustrate the volatile relationships in a society where adultery, extramarital affairs and sexual relationships were quite common. The sanctity of marriage and lawful unions was regulated through the direct intervention and cooperation of the state with caste and village councils.

The rulers of Jaipur supported the notion that the husband had to make adequate provision, and a wife could report her spouse to the authorities for not affording her proper maintenance. Officials routinely heard complaints from wives about alleged neglect by their husbands. Behaviour that was regarded as an offence included failing to provide for the spouse’s material needs or causing mental stress (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1745). More importantly, the act of leaving a pregnant wife without any support was penalised by a higher than usual fine; in some cases, caste councils monitored activities of the husband to ensure safety and the continuation of economic support for their spouse (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1734). Government authorities continuously intervened to safeguard the sanctity of marriage. In one case, Rupla Sunar of Jaipur sent his wife back to her parents’ house for no reason. The wife complained to the Kotwal about being mistreated by her husband. Rupla was ordered to call his wife back and to pay a heavy fine of ₹ 404 (Arhsatta Pargana Malpur, 1766). Men were also required to take care of their wives, and be responsible for their safety and welfare. An incident of negligence was reported in relation to Lakhait Gujjar of Jaipur. His wife was detained in Kotwali (police station) after she got lost at a fair. Lakhait was summoned for questioning and after paying a fine he was able to take his wife home (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1744).

There were cases when women were found guilty of not respecting the sanctity of marriage; for example, a wife could not simply leave her husband without reason or a proper agreement (divorce). Manna Telini of Tapa Haveli had left her husband without any explanation. The village council was convened to settle the matter and Manna, found to be at fault, was ordered to return to her husband. The expenditure incurred for calling the council was ₹ 7; this was paid by Manna (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1744).

Married women had to have permission from their husbands to go to the houses of their parents or other relatives. In one case, Nanag Jat’s wife of Pargana Jaipur went to her sister’s house without taking her husband’s permission. Nanag complained to the authorities about her action. When she came back from her sister’s house, Nanag took her to the Kotwal’s office, where she was found to be at fault, and fined ₹ 50 (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1740).

In issues relating to criminal activity, the directives of caste councils were often overridden; but in issues relating to marriages, their social norms were enforced. Subjects may have been treated uniformly in criminal cases, but hierarchies of gender and caste were reproduced in social issues.

Domestic Violence and the State

Issues of domestic violence became an arena for the contestation of power between the state and its subjects. The state had to adjudicate in all cases of domestic violence occurring in various sections of the population. The identification of culprits and subsequent penalties in these cases, where family members were usually involved, also signifies how the state wanted to share responsibility with kinship groups for upholding the moral order.

Cases of domestic violence dominate the fine collection data in many 18th century states, such as Jaipur.¹⁷ It seems that physical violence was widely practiced and suffered by many members of the society, especially women. Complaints have been recorded mainly by women against husbands, relatives by marriage, more specifically, mothers-in-law. In some cases, mothers-in-law were the perpetrators. There were also, however, a number of spouse-related complaints, which involved women as the assaulters, who used violence against their husbands. There is ample proof of conflicts, tensions and emotional harassment within families.

Individuals involved in incidents of violence belonged to different castes, clans and religions (Muslim or Sikh). They were systematically charged and after an investigation fined or detained. Matters of domestic violence were usually brought before the caste councils. The most common way of dealing with these types of cases was the imposition of monetary fines as punishment. If the individuals involved did not obey the councils’ decisions, then government officials dealt with them. Individuals found guilty of assaulting their spouses were usually fined, and the amounts ranged from ₹ 5 to ₹ 40. It seems that mareyu (assault) was a blanket term used for all sorts of violence. However, in assaults where the wives had allegedly used violence, the wife’s role was highlighted during the investigation and the males sometimes provided reasons for her behaviour. The state laid charges against male culprits in domestic violence, even if they were provoked by insanity, alleged use of witchcraft, excessive anger or mismanagement of the household.¹⁸

Women also suffered violence and physical abuse at the hands of other family members, especially their relatives by marriage. In the extended family households of the 18th century Jaipur state, daughters-in-law were often victimised by their husband’s relatives. The strained relationship between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law was the authorities’ main focus of attention, in the event of domestic violence. Most complaints were related to physical attacks or assaults (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1737, 1740). In a few reported instances, domestic problems were so acute that state officials had to physically remove the victim (usually the daughter-in-law) and keep her in custody at the Kotwali (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1740).

Moral rules against violence were imposed by the Jaipur state on all castes, regardless of status. Especially in the cases of violence against women, men had an advantage because they were financially independent. The state’s intervention and its implementation of consistent rules to punish acts of violence indicated how political power was used to control and manage the society’s unruly elements.

Crimes on the Bodies of Women: Cham-chori or Sexual Misdemeanour

In the present context, it should be noted that the treatment of crimes against women is studied as a trajectory that indicated the nature of state authority. Numerous offences in the Arhsatta documents that were punishable by fines were cases of sexual misdemeanour. The Rajasthani term for this offence is ‘cham’ (skin) ‘chori’ (theft). Fines were collected in cases of rape, attempted rape, sexual harassment or any type of indecent behaviour in relation to women. Nearly 50 per cent of the entire farohi (miscellaneous) documents were in the ‘sexual misdemeanours’ category. The sources use the term cham-chori for all types of sexual misconduct. The documents do not comment on how these offences (sexual misconduct, rape, sexual harassment and incest) were perceived by the local people or the victims’ families. In all the cases reported, the state took action against the male perpetrator and held him responsible—regardless of his caste and clan status.¹⁹ The evidence found from the Jaipur state suggests that the caste councils were not rescuers of women; that role was performed by the Kachchwaha rulers.

Most importantly, in cases of rape or sexual misconduct, the male was adjudged as being at fault. These judgments might reflect the inability of women to pay fines. Yet, this inability cannot be considered as an important indicator because upper-caste women, such as Brahmans, Rajputs or members of merchant families could have afforded to pay the fines quite easily. When women complained of sexual misconduct, their names (along with professions) were often cited; but in most cases, the names of male members of the families were recorded and the victims were mentioned as daughters, sisters, wives or daughters-in-law.

Sometimes, respected members of the society such as Brahmans or sanyasis (ascetics) crossed boundaries and acted inappropriately towards women. The state authorities dealt with these types of people sternly, as they were apprehended, fined and even told to move out of the premises of their temples and localities. For example, in 1736, a sanyasi on the outskirts of the city of Jaipur was asked to leave the area after being accused of engaging in cham-chori with a woman in his hut. (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur). Brahmans had easy access to women as they performed religious duties. Khema Brahman of Jaipur paid the highest fine quoted in the Arhsatta records, when he was accused of doing cham-chori with Lakhi Brahmani. He was ordered to pay ₹ 1701 for this offence by the state authorities (Arhsatta Pargana Sawai Jaipur, 1740).

Most of the reported cases of cham-chori (sexual misdemeanour) involved the mercantile communities of Jaipur. They handled businesses as shopkeepers or as merchants, exchanging money or selling jewellery, clothes, perfumes and food grains. The cham-chori fines were generally quite high in the context of other offences and ranged from ₹ 100 to ₹ 500. The archival records show that members of all professional castes such as darji (tailor), mali (gardener), barhi (carpenter), nai (barbers), telis (oil seller), julaha (weaver) and mochi (shoemaker) were fined for acts of cham-chori.

Furthermore, family members committed over 50 per cent of cham-chori offences. Members of extended families lived in close proximity—sometimes in the same house—and women were subjected to sexual violations by their fathers-in-law, brothers-in-law or cousins. Inappropriate behaviours by fathers and brothers were also reported. The manner in which authorities were alerted to these incidents—or who the informants were—is unclear. Once the incident was reported, there would be an investigation, which might or might not result in fines and imprisonment. Offenders who had committed cham-chori against family members belonged to all castes.

There were also documented cases of incest and homosexual affairs (these, however, were very few). For example, in 1740, Khema Mahajan was accused of sexual misconduct with his 12-year-old daughter and was fined ₹ 1,700. This is the only case recorded, in which the term benzari kiyu (sexual assault) was used in the documents.²⁰

Sometimes there were false accusations and also occasions where the accuser was found guilty of inciting a male by her remarks or gestures. In these types of cases, the authorities fined the female accusers. When Tulchini Telini of qasba (town) Jaipur accused Tara Teli of doing cham-chori with her, the investigation determined that the accused was not even present in the city at the time. Tulchini was found at fault and fined ₹ 16.

It should be noted that cham-chori cases were endogenous, and that there were very few exogenous cases in Rajasthan.²¹ This fact is also corroborated by evidence from Kota and Jodhpur sources, as well.²²

Concluding Remarks

This analysis highlights some features of governance of the 18th century Jaipur state, which assumed a paternalistic-cum-protectionist role by dealing with issues of marriage, domestic violence and sexual misdemeanours related to women. This discussion illustrates the interventionist nature of the Jaipur state that was articulated through infringement upon the private lives of the people. The caste infraction fines, more specifically in relation to crimes reported against women, accounted for nearly half of the miscellaneous income of the state. I contend that the Kachchwaha rulers protected women against violence as well as sexual crimes to maintain strict control over their subjects. Lack of evidence impedes historical research that would determine whether women had better protection in the 18th century than in the previous centuries. However, one thing is clearly established: that women had access to redress on issues arising out of familial dissensions or within their communities.

Feminist scholars have to conduct in-depth investigations based on regional sources to create a cohesive picture about the pre-colonial states’ policies regarding the protection of women. The strategies employed by the Jaipur rulers did provide protection to women irrespective of caste status in domestic disputes involving violence and sexual misconduct. During colonial times, these issues were hotly debated to criticise the Indian political regimes that never intervened to rescue the weaker sections of the populations, especially women. One of the most positive features of the 18th century Jaipur society was that women were not held responsible or blamed for crimes against them and male perpetrators were punished in all cases of sexual misconduct. In fact, the past can teach contemporary society how to deal with sexual crimes against women without placing the blame on women or holding them responsible for inciting the violence visited upon them, as is often done today.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Anderson

(1974), Lineages of the absolutist state. London: Verso.

Buhler

(Trans.). (1886). Laws of Manu (Manusmriti) (Chapter 10, Clause Nos. 118 and 119). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Chakravarti

(1995). Wifehood, widowhood, and adultery: Female sexuality, surveillance and the state in 18th century Maharashtra. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 29(1 and 2), 3–21.

Chakravarti

(2003). Pre-colonial structures of caste and gender: An eighteenth century example. In Gendering caste: Through a feminist lens (pp. 105–113). Calcutta: Stree.

Dirks

(1987). The hollow crown: Ethno-history of an Indian kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gordon

(1994). Marathas, marauders and state formation in eighteenth century India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Guha

(1995). An Indian penal regime: Maharashtra in the eighteenth century. Past and Present, 147(May), 101–126. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/i226674 (accessed on 17 June 2014).

Habib

(2002). Confronting colonialism: Resistance and modernisation under Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan. New Delhi: Anthem Press.

Heesterman

J. C.

van den Hoek

A. W.

Oort

M. S.

Kolff

D. H. A.

(Eds) (1992). Ritual, state, and history in South Asia: Essays in honour of J. C. Heesterman. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

10.

Horstsmann

(2006). 13th Gonda Lecture: Visions of kingship in the twilight of Mughal rule. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science.

11.

Imam

(2008). Institutionalizing rajadharma: Strategies of sovereignty in the eighteenth century Jaipur (Unpublished dissertation). University of Toronto, ON, Canada.

12.

Imam

(2009). Law and administrative practices: Institutionalizing sovereignty in eighteenth century India. In Joshi

Singh

(Eds), Culture, polity, and economy (pp. 109–144). Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

13.

Inden

(1998). Ritual, and authority and cyclic time in Hindu kingship. In Richards

J. F.

(Ed.), Kingship and authority in South Asia (pp. 28–73). Delhi: Oxford University Press.

14.

Kadam

V. S.

(1998). The institution of marriage and position of women in eighteenth century Maharashtra. The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 5(3), 341–370.

15.

Karashima

(Ed.). (1999). Kingship in Indian history. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors.

16.

Kumar

(2003). Crime and gender in eighteenth century Rajasthan. Indian Historical Review, 30(1 and 2), 40–54.

17.

Menon

(1999). Houses by the sea: State formation experiments in Malabar 1760–1800. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(29), 1995–2003.

18.

Peabody

(2003). Hindu kingship and polity in pre-colonial India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Perlin

(1985). State formation reconsidered: Part 2. Modern Asian Studies, 19(3), 432–433.

20.

Sahai

(2007). The other culture: Craft societies and widow remarriage in early modern India. Journal of Women’s History, 19(2), 36–58.

21.

Sethia

(2003). Rajput polity, warriors, peasants, and merchants: 1700–1800. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

22.

Shulman

(1992). Symbols of substance: Court and state in Nayaka period Tamilnadu. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

23.

Singh

(2003). Regulating the domestic: Notes on the pre-colonial state and family. Studies in History, 19(1), 69–86.

24.

Singh

(2005). State and society in medieval Rajasthan. In Grewal

J. S.

(Ed.), The state and society in medieval India (pp. 235–252). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

25.

Sinha

(2002). State formation in Rajasthan: Mewar during the seventh-fifteenth centuries. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

26.

Stein

(1985). State formation and economy reconsidered. Modern Asian Studies, 19(3), 387–413.

27.

Subramanyam

Alam

(Eds). (1998). The Mughal empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Talbot

(2001). Pre-colonial India in practice: Society, region and identity in Medieval Andhra. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

29.

Tod

(1920). Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan or the central and western Rajpoot states of India, edited by Crooke

. Oxford: H. Milford Oxford University Press.

30.

Wagle

N. K.

(1998). Women in the kotwal’s papers, Pune, 1767–1791. In Feldhaus

(Ed.), Images of women in Maharashtrian society (pp. 15–60). New York: Suny University Press.

31.

Wink

(1986). ‘Introduction’, Land and sovereignty: Agrarian society and politics under the 18th century Maratha Svaraja. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Wittfogel

(1957). Oriental despotism: A comparative study of total power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.