"تقرير لجنة التحقيق في بارودا، ١٨٧٤" [و‎‎١‎٩‎٢] (٥٠٢/٣٨٨)

///
mt:
yad No. 2029 of 26th of September last, regarding this girl, and the statement
made by the Durbar before the Commission concerning her, cannot be true.
Her case as presented to Government in October is as follows:—
On the 18th of September, notwithstanding all that had taken place
with the Durbar regarding loundis about a month previously, I received a
petition from Kasi, the mother of Chandra Bhaga, stating that her daughter
had been described to the Maharaj as good looking and fit to be a loundi,
whereupon some Government sepoys came to one Ganpatrao's house where
she was at work and forcibly.carried off her daughter to be made a loundi.
I forwarded this petition with yad No. 2211 of the same date, 18th Sep
tember, to His Highness saying, that when I wrote to the Durbar a short time
previously about girls being retained as loundi's against their will, the fact
had been denied by the Durbar, and I requested
trite the girl might be released, and the offenders punished.
No reply having come by the 22nd idem, the old woman Kasi wrote
another petition to the effect that the Durbar people were trying to pollute
her daughter by giving her food cooked by a low caste woman in order to
unfit her for any other service but that of loundi.
This petition was also referred to the Durbar on the 22nd of September.
On the 25th of September the girl herself appeared at the Residency
accompanied by her mother, and stated how she had been seized by Govern
ment peons and taken before the Maharaja himself,
Gememan. who gave orders that I should be made a loundi.
" I represented that I was the daughter of a ' Grahasth' and was not willing to
"be made a loundi. Notwithstanding this the Maharaj directed me to go
" to the Rani. I wept bitterly and was sent against my will, &c., &c."
" Next day Durbar yad No. 2029 of 26th September was received stating
" that as Kasibae's daughter has expressed her unwillingness to work, she
" has been sent back* to her mother. The statement made in the accompani-
. Not he, husband nor .word " to the Residency yad of 22nd September that
about him. " they are trying to pollute her daughter is false.'
Thus it is clear that the actual grounds upon which this girl Chandra Bhaga
was seized and released in September according to the evidence just quoted,
are entirely different from those adopted by the Durbar before the Commis
sion, a few days ago, viz., that it was " at the request of her husband " who it
appeared had cast her off 16 or 17 years ago when she was a child. In short
before the Commission the Durbar flatly deny that she was ever made a
loundi at all!! whereas the yad of September the 26th above quoted admits
the fact and releases her on the plea of unwillingness to serve.
1th Case.— On the 19th of December a respectable woman named Ujan,
the wife of Partap, of the Bharot caste, appeared before the Commission and
stated that in August last she had been seized by
Seizure. Government sepoys, one of whom told her that he
had orders from the Maharaj to take her to the palace. They gave no expla
nation whatever as to the reason for seizing her. Amidst the remonstrances
of her parents and many of her caste people, she was taken to the palace,
before entering which the sepoys were persuaded to let her go on payment
of a bribe of 60 Rupees. Her father corroborated this evidence.
The following evidence of Saku, wife of Ganpatrao Vithoba Halkara,
(witness No. 2 examined by the Commission in the Loundi case and now in
prison), was offered by the Resident to the Commission, but not taken.
The Resident considers it to be entirely reliable, and therefore of great import
ance as auxiliary to the other evidence recorded.