DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31218#0129
THE SYSTEM OF CASTE GOVERNMENT
duty of purifying outcastes. The custom of official
recognition has lapsed: but outcastes still occasionaily
petition the district authorities to send them to the dhar-
madhikari.
Reports received at the census of 1911 showed that
the offences triable by panchayats varied
from caste to caste. But when a report
11. Scope of a stated that the panchayat of a particular
^misdtcUon caste did not deal with a particular
offence, it was not always possible to de-
cide whether this meant that the panchayat
could not do so, or merely that it had never had occasion
to do so. The information was not derived from a
written code, but from the oral evidence of members of
the caste : and if no instance of the trial of a particular
offence had occurred within the informant’s memory, he
might reasonably assert that such offences were not tri-
able by the panchayat. By comparison, however, of the
offences triable by different panchayats, it is possible to
frame a specimen list, as follows :
(i) Breaches of the commensal law, and of restric-
tions on eating, drinking, and smoking.
(ii) Breaches of the marriage law.
(a) Seduction of a wife, or adultery.
(b) Immorality or concubinage.
(c) Refusal to carry out a marriage after agree-
ment (breach of promise of marriage).
(d) Refusal to carry out the gauna ceremony,
i.e. to send a wife to her husband at the
proper age.
(e) Refusal to maintain a wife (restitution of
conjugal rights).
(/) Marrying a widow without permission
(when permission is necessary).
(iii) Breaches of caste custom in the matter of
feasts.
(iv) Breaches of the trade custom of the caste.
(v) Killing of certain animals—the cow, sometimes
the dog or cat.
duty of purifying outcastes. The custom of official
recognition has lapsed: but outcastes still occasionaily
petition the district authorities to send them to the dhar-
madhikari.
Reports received at the census of 1911 showed that
the offences triable by panchayats varied
from caste to caste. But when a report
11. Scope of a stated that the panchayat of a particular
^misdtcUon caste did not deal with a particular
offence, it was not always possible to de-
cide whether this meant that the panchayat
could not do so, or merely that it had never had occasion
to do so. The information was not derived from a
written code, but from the oral evidence of members of
the caste : and if no instance of the trial of a particular
offence had occurred within the informant’s memory, he
might reasonably assert that such offences were not tri-
able by the panchayat. By comparison, however, of the
offences triable by different panchayats, it is possible to
frame a specimen list, as follows :
(i) Breaches of the commensal law, and of restric-
tions on eating, drinking, and smoking.
(ii) Breaches of the marriage law.
(a) Seduction of a wife, or adultery.
(b) Immorality or concubinage.
(c) Refusal to carry out a marriage after agree-
ment (breach of promise of marriage).
(d) Refusal to carry out the gauna ceremony,
i.e. to send a wife to her husband at the
proper age.
(e) Refusal to maintain a wife (restitution of
conjugal rights).
(/) Marrying a widow without permission
(when permission is necessary).
(iii) Breaches of caste custom in the matter of
feasts.
(iv) Breaches of the trade custom of the caste.
(v) Killing of certain animals—the cow, sometimes
the dog or cat.