ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.*

GENERAL J. G. HALLIDAY IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of previous meeting were read and confirmed. ELECTION.-Miss Gwendoline Crewdson was elected Associate.

The following paper was read by the Author :

RESEMBLANCES BETWEEN INDIAN AND JEWISH IDEAS AND CUSTOMS (with lantern slides). By Colonel T. HOLBEIN HENDLEY, C.I.E.

T

HE subject of the present paper is rather of a miscellaneous character. It treats of resemblances between a number of Indian ideas and customs and similar ones which are mentioned in the Bible, whether they relate to the Jewish nation or to the people beyond their borders, with whom the Hebrews were brought in contact, but which are alluded to in the Scriptures. I am aware that many such Biblical ideas and customs have been compared with those of other countries both ancient and modern. Of most of these, however, I do not intend to speak, but I have thought it might be useful, and might lead to interesting discussion if I brought together a few notes upon the subject with special reference to such matters as have come within my own knowledge. It is, perhaps, necessary to state that my own experience was chiefly gained in North India, although my studies, particularly in relation to Indian jewellery, and in connection with the collection of objects for exhibitions and museums, have led me to make researches and inquiries in all parts of the great peninsula, and of the East. I will commence with some remarks upon land.

Love of the land, and especially of hereditary possessions, as well as a keen desire to own it, are common to all agricultural

* Monday, 25th January, 1908.

people. The Jew was no exception to this rule, nor is the Hindu. "Zan, zer, zamin " is a Panjab proverb which means that from "Women, gold, and land" arise all evils. The order of the words should perhaps more correctly be "land, gold, and women." The love of the Rajput for his Bhūm, his earth, his heritage, is not confined to him, but is shared by all classes. Even the shopkeeper clings to his shop and his home. Many years ago, when passing through the town of Sojat in Marwar or Jodhpur, I noticed a number of substantial stone shops and dwellings which were securely fastened up. I was told that some years before, their owners, at the time of a great famine, had gone south into Malwa or Central India in search of food, and that no one would dream of touching their property, because it was certain that, if alive, they would return, or, if not, that news would come of them or proof of death which would enable some near relative to claim the heritage. We are thus reminded of the beautiful story of Boaz and Ruth, and of the right of Elimelich, the father-in-law of the latter, who was driven by famine into Moab, where he and his sons died, yet the right of their heirs to the ownership of the field in Bethlehem was recognized after many years. Hereditary lands and rights are highly prized in India. A Hindu zemindar or landholder, in presence of all his tribe, said to Sir John Malcolm that it preceded his sense of religion. He added, "I would turn Mohamedan twenty times before I would sell my 'Wattan,' or native right," yet it was held to be meritorious to give land in perpetuity to priests, and this was done in such a way that it could not be resumed, for priestcraft is even more powerful in the east than in the west. Villages have been overwhelmed in the savage wars which have prevailed in India, particularly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, or have been abandoned, or the population decimated by famine or disease, yet, even after long periods, have revived once more because the people loved them. I was much struck, when recording the names of a number of unfortunate pilgrims who had been taken out of a train at Jeypore, on account of cholera, which had attacked them at the famous holy lake of Pushkar, near Ajmere, to be told, time after time, that such an one had come from such a village where his forefathers had lived for a thousand years, or, as the lawyers say, beyond the memory of

man.

Just outside my garden wall there was a little shrine with a rude figure inside it, before which, night and day, burned a small oil lamp, which was kept alive by the villagers who dwelt

close by, because it represented a man whom they revered, as he had died in defence of his rights in the land. He was the Bhumia or freeholder, and some thought that if his spirit had not been propitiated it would have haunted the village to the injury of its inhabitants. In one of the outside walls of the ancient Jain temple at Sanganir near Jeypore is a huge block of stone which stands in a niche. It represents the Bhumia or original lord of the soil, who had to be recognized, and his name kept alive by being duly propitiated, before the heretic Jains were allowed to build. Examples of this kind are innumerable. The inviolability of land is illustrated by the pains and penalties which were attached to the removal of landmarks. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance" (Deut. xix, 14) says the Lawgiver. "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark," said the people on Mount Ebal (Deut. xxvii, 17). The Wise Man (Prov. xxiii, 10), says, "Remove not the old landmarks and enter not into the fields of the fatherless," and again," Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set" (Prov. xxii, 28), yet Job asks why some remove landmarks, "seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty" (Job xxiv, 10).

In the British Museum there is a group of boundary stones or landmarks which probably belonged to the period that lies between 1300 B.C. and 850 B.C. The inscriptions on some of these stones record transfers of land, and also, in some cases, battles or wars which resulted in the grant of certain privileges which are duly recorded, but there are particular imprecations, in which the gods are made to curse "him that shall remove or destroy this landmark, or who shall raise any dispute concerning the property of the rightful owners." There are also certain astronomical marks regarding which there is some difference of opinion. Landmarks of this kind exist in India, more usually, however, in connection with temples. Outside the temple of Pataliswar, the Lord of the lower world, or, in other words, of Hell, whose toenail (which projects from the Brihm Kar, a cleft in a huge rock on the floor of the shrine) is the object of worship, there is such a mark, with horrible sculptured figures undergoing indignities to which the person who resumes the soil by which the temple is supported will be subjected in this world and in the next. In the latter, it is added, his soul will spend 60,000 years in Hell as a worm in mire. The Sun and the Moon at the top of the tablet, just as in a Babylonian Boundary stone of King Nebuchadnezzar I.

(about 1120 B.C.), illustrated in the Museum catalogue, are figured as eternal witnesses of the grant and of the horrors attached to a breach of it. Such witnesses are commonly carved on the stones which are the memorials of satis or of the immolations of faithful wives of Rajputs. They are to be found outside the villages or in the Mahasatis or "abodes of bliss," that is, the cemeteries of great chiefs.

Political officers are frequently employed in settling disputes which occur between places on the borders of two states regarding the boundaries of estates or of villages. Crops are sown, it may be, on disputed lands, in consequence of which quarrels arise, ending too often in bloodshed. In former times a raid or a war between the two powers concerned might probably have followed; in these days the Paramount Power steps in and defines the border. The settlement is not always easy. Sometimes the evidence of the village elders suffices. At others, after solemn oaths are taken by such persons, the bounds are walked, but, in whatever way the final conclusions are arrived at, it is necessary to erect boundary stones which from that time are recognized. Removal of such pillars is not unknown, but in these days of accurate maps is not very judicious.

The gate sockets of ancient Babylon, some of which date as far back as 4500 B.C., though not exactly boundary marks, serve as records of the dates of erection of the buildings of which they form part. As a proof of the antiquity of practices in the East, I might note here that some of the doors of the old Garden House of a former Prime Minister, the Nathanika-bagh, in which I resided in Jeypore, moved on such sockets as that which supported the gate of Entemena, Governor of Shirpula or Lagash in ancient Babylonia about 6,400 years ago, and which is now in the British Museum. The most common cases of litigation amongst villagers in Malwa, says Sir John Malcolm, are about boundaries and claims to land. "Oaths, ordeals, and every mode is resorted to, to accommodate or decide these disputes." An account is given of a boundary settlement. Each side in turn had driven cattle to graze over the disputed fields. Each chief had piled up small heaps of stones at the most distant line from his own village to indicate the tract he claimed. It was agreed that each side should produce five men acquainted with the local merits of the case to decide a true line by taking a solemn oath. Each side walked its own line. After this failure the parties agreed to accept as the line that which should be traced by a respectable man wearing the hide

of a newly killed buffalo. He took a new line and this was accepted. That was the most solemn appeal which can be made in such cases. The man, however, is watched, and also his family for several days, and if anything which was healthy at the time dies before the fixed period, the man is disgraced, and the settlement rendered null and invalid. This practice is common in East and West Malwa. In native rule a Panchayet or Council of Elders of the neighbourhood usually settled the matter. In our time Political officers act or supervise. In Rutlam this duty is deemed hereditary, and one principal resident or Mukh was so respected that his house became a sanctuary for criminals.

Land of any kind which will grow anything edible by men or animals is of value, but for permanent habitation a well is almost a necessity, though not absolutely so, because there are many places in the extreme west of Rajputana which depend almost entirely during the dry months upon the water reserved from the rainy season of the year. In such places, even where there are wells, they are some hundreds of feet in depth. Bikanir water, for example, is as much as 300 feet below the surface, but is then abundant in most cases. Wells are, therefore, most valuable possessions, and many are the quarrels which arise in connection with them. The Philistines, envying the prosperity of Isaac, filled up the wells which his father Abraham had excavated, and the new ones which his servants digged were the subject of strife with the herdmen of Gerar, who said, "the water is ours."

In those parts of Rajputana in which the water lies at a great depth, a well is often the property of a number of men, perhaps as many as sixteen and even twice that number, each having his share. It is easy, therefore, to see how readily disputes may arise if one of the partners endeavours to use more than his share for the irrigation of his field. In more favoured countries the value of a well is not so highly appreciated. It is said that one of the great wells in the city of Bikanir may cost as much as a lakh of rupees or £6,666. The water of such a well as this is too expensive to use for irrigation, so that the people must depend for their crops upon the seasonal rains, which are often very scanty. Abraham and Lot were compelled to separate because their herdmen strove when the land was not able to bear them; in other words when there was not enough water. In like manner, the scarcity of water in the regions to which I have referred in the Western tracts of India, drives many young