← The People of India
Chapter 0 of 8
I

Front Matter

Preface

IN an article on “Magic and Religion” published in the Quarterly Review of last July, Mr. Edward Clodd complains that certain observations of mine on the subject of “the impersonal stage of religion” are hidden away under the “prosaic title” of the Report on the Census of India, 1901. The charge is just, and the offence is aggravated by the fact that the Report in question weighs seven pounds and is cumbered with many statistics. Mr. Clodd’s grievance may, however, perhaps be thought to justify me in venturing to reprint, in a more handy form, the less dreary portions of my own contributions to the Report, with such revision and expansion as seemed to be called for. Two new chapters have been added. One of these, Caste in Proverbs and Popular Sayings, is an attempt to give a much-described people the chance of describing themselves in their own direct and homely fashion. It is, in fact, a mosaic of proverbs, selected from the ample material which will be found in Appendix I, and fitted together into a connected whole with the minimum of comment and explanation. In the chapter on Caste and Nationality I have endeavoured to analyse the causes and to forecast the prospects of the Indian nationalist movement of recent years. Being anxious above all things to avoid giving offence, I submitted the proofs to Mr. Nagendra Nath Ghose, Fellow of the Calcutta University, and Editor of the Indian Nation, a sober thinker, who holds that the people of India “should conceive national unity as their chief aim, and the realisation of it as their chief duty.”* Mr. Ghose gives me the comforting assurance—“I have discovered no sentiment with which I am not in agreement.”

For the same reason the chapter on Caste and Religion, which contains a certain amount of new matter, was laid before my friend Mr. Justice Mookerjee, Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University, one of the most learned, and not the least orthodox, of living Hindus. Dr. Mookerjee has been good enough to write to me: “I have very carefully read over the proof which you so kindly sent me. I have never read anything so illuminating on the subject, and I have not come across any statement to which exception may justly be taken.” I trust, therefore, that it may be recognised, even by those who dissent from my views, that these delicate subjects have been approached in a spirit which escapes Darmesteter’s telling criticism “Mais a ces maitres honnetes manque le don supreme, le seul qui fasse pardonner les superiorites ecrasantes : la sympathie.”

I am indebted to Rai Bahadur Lala Baij Nath, Judge of Ghazipur, for the following criticism of my definition of Hinduism, as it appeared in the Census Report:—“The Census Commissioner’s [definition] would have approached nearest to the mark, so far as modern Hindu society is concerned, if he had omitted the word ’two’ both from the sets of ideas and the conceptions of the world and of life.”* The amendment suggested is gratefully accepted and has been duly carried out.

My thanks are also due to Mr. Justice Sarada Charan Mitra, of the Calcutta High Court, for revising the translation of a notable speech of his quoted in the chapter on Caste and Marriage, and to Mr. B. A. Gupte, F.Z.S., Assistant Director of Ethnography, for much assistance in the collection of material and the revision of proofs.

The illustrations require a word of explanation. With the exception of the frontispiece, which was presented to me some years ago by one of the persons there depicted, all of them are taken from the Ethnology of Bengal, by the late Colonel E. T. Dalton, formerly Commissioner of Chutia Nagpur. The book is now a rare one, and I am informed that the entire stock was destroyed by an unfortunate accident some years ago. The lithographs which it contains represent only two out of the seven main types traceable in India, and thus fail to cover the whole of the subject dealt with in the present work. It seemed, however, to my publishers worth while, and to myself as a lover of Chutia Nagpur and its people a pious duty, to preserve from oblivion these fine pictures, one of which, the study of Juang female attire by my friend the late Mr. Tosco Peppe, is, I believe, absolutely unique. I trust that Sir Benjamin Simpson, the sole survivor of the artists who assisted Colonel Dalton, will recognise the excellence of our intentions and will pardon the shortcomings of the process employed.

H. H. RISLEY.

Notes

  • Hindustan Review, Nov. and Dec. 1904.
  • Hinduism: Ancient and Modern. New Edition, 1905, p. 6.

Preface to the New Edition

SOON after the death of her husband, Lady Risley entrusted to me a large collection of papers connected with Anthropology, which he had brought with him from India. He intended to prepare new editions of the present work and of his Tribes and Castes of Bengal, and to write an account of the people of Eastern Bengal. But his health failed soon after his retirement from the Indian Civil Service, and he was unable to do any work in connection with these projects. It was therefore decided to issue a memorial edition of The People of India, the preparation of which was entrusted to me. On examining his papers nothing in the shape of notes for this revised edition could be discovered. Under these circumstances it was decided to reprint the text as it stood in the first edition, which was issued in limited numbers and had fallen out of print soon after publication. Accordingly, no attempt has been made to revise the text, except by bringing the statistics up to date, securing uniformity in the transliteration of vernacular terms, and adding, in square brackets, some notes and references mainly collected from the Reports of the Census of India and its Provinces which was carried out in 1911 by Mr. E. A. Gait, C.S.I., C.I.E. The publication of this edition has therefore been postponed until the arrival in England of a full set of the Census Reports.

I have also added an Introduction containing a short memoir of Sir H. Risley, confined to his official life and his work in Anthropology, with some remarks on questions connected with this book which have been raised since its publication, and a bibliography of his Anthropological writings, so far as I have been able to trace them.

The illustrations of the original edition consisted of reproductions from the late Colonel E. T. Dalton’s Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal. These were confined to the tribes of Bengal and Assam. In order to render the book more interesting and useful to Anthropologists, in the present edition these have been supplemented by a collection of photographs, some of which were procured by the publishers in India, and a few others for which I am indebted to Messrs. E. Thurston, E. H. Mann, Major Nicolas, B. A. Gupte, and Pandit Giraj Kishor Dutt, Rai Bahadur.

In preparing this edition I beg to acknowledge assistance from Messrs. J. Kennedy and V. A. Smith, late of the Indian Civil Service. The memoir of Sir H. Risley is to a great extent based on that contributed to Man (vol. xii) by Mr. J. D. Anderson, supplemented by notes from Mr. Keith Jopp, the Warden of New College, and the Headmaster of Winchester College. Mr. B. A. Gupte, who acted as Personal Assistant to Sir H. Risley while he was Director of Ethnography for India, has kindly aided in the preparation of the bibliography of his writings. Miss Ethel E. Risley has contributed the photograph from which the frontispiece is taken, and has read the memoir of her brother in proof.

W. CROOKE.

Introduction

HERBERT HOPE RISLEY, only son of Rev. John Holford Risley, Rector of Akeley, Bucks, and Fanny Elton, his wife, daughter of John Hope, late of the Bengal Medical Service, was born on 4th January, 1851. He belonged to one of the “Founder’s Kin” families of Winchester. Most of his family, including his father, were, during the last two or three centuries, educated at Winchester, which he entered in 1864. He had a distinguished school career, winning the Goddard Scholarship and the Moore Stevens Divinity Prize in 1868, and the King’s Gold Medal for the Latin Essay in 1869.

On 15th October, 1869, he entered New College, Oxford; took a Second Class in the School of Law and Modern History, Michaelmas Term, 1872, and received his B.A. degree in January, 1873. He had been selected for an appointment in the Civil Service of India in April, 1871. As the Warden, Rev. W. A. Spooner, D.D., writes: “This early selection to the Indian Civil Service partly explains and partly accounts for his comparative failure in the Schools. His great friends in College were Mr. Keith Jopp, who also entered the Indian Civil Service, and Dr. G. B. Longstaff. All three of them, if my memory does not play me false, were very keen members of the University Volunteer Corps.” Mr. Keith Jopp confirms the accuracy of the Warden’s recollections, and adds that “even then he had charming manners and great powers of writing.”

On reaching India in 1873 Risley had the good fortune to start his service in the district of Midnapur, part of which fringes on the plateau of Chota Nagpur, a land of hills and forests, situated to the south of the Ganges valley, the home of several interesting tribes whose culture was of a very primitive type. Here he gained his first opportunity for work in Anthropology. His interest in the forest tribes continued during his life, and it was due to his initiative that the late Rev. P. Dehon, S.J., compiled his valuable monograph on the Oraons.*

In 1869 Sir W. W. Hunter had commenced the Statistical Survey of India, the results of which were embodied in the first edition of the Imperial Gazetteer published in 1881. The survey of the Province of Bengal was undertaken by Hunter himself, and the interest displayed by Risley in the anthropology, linguistics, and sociology of India led to his appointment on the staff of the Survey, as Assistant Director of Statistics, early in 1875. The volume on the hill districts of Hazaribagh and Lohardaga was compiled by Risley. His wide knowledge of rural life and the lucidity of his literary style displayed in this book marked him out for further promotion. After little more than three years’ service he began to act as Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bengal, and in 1879 he officiated as Under Secretary in the Home Department of the Government of India. “It was at this period of his career,” writes Mr. Anderson, “that he met and married the accomplished German lady, whose linguistic attainments aided him in his wide reading on anthropology and statistical subjects in foreign languages.” In 1880 he once more returned to district work among his old friends the jungle folk of Chota Nagpur; and after an interval again spent in the Bengal Secretariat, he was placed in charge of an enquiry into the Ghatwali and other primitive forms of land tenure in the district of Manbhum.

In 1885 Sir Rivers Thompson, then Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, decided that it was advisable to collect detailed information on the castes, tribes, and sociology of that Province. Risley was naturally selected as the officer best qualified to undertake the work. At the beginning of this investigation, which extended over some years, he had the good fortune to meet Dr. James Wise, then retired from the Indian Medical Service, who during ten years’ occupancy of the post of Civil Surgeon of Dacca, had collected much valuable information on the people of Eastern Bengal. A summary of this was published privately by him in 1883 under the title of Notes on the Races, Castes, and Trades of Eastern Bengal. On the sudden death of Dr. Wise in 1886, his widow made over his papers to Risley “on the understanding that after testing the data contained in them as far as possible in the manner contemplated by Dr. Wise himself, I should incorporate the results in the ethnographic volumes of the present work, and by dedicating these volumes to Dr. Wise, should endeavour to preserve some record, however imperfect, of the admirable work done by him during his service in India.” *

To complete this work Risley was placed on special duty. For the description of the jungle tribes of Chota Nagpur and Assam the materials collected by Colonel E. T. Dalton and published in 1872 under the title of The Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal were available. The papers of Dr. Wise were used for the accounts of the people of Eastern Bengal, and for the remaining parts of the Province a large staff of correspondents, including Government officials, missionaries, planters, and native gentlemen, supplied ample information. The results of the Ethnographic Survey of Bengal were published in a preliminary edition in 1891 under the title of The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, consisting of two volumes of the “Ethnographical Glossary,” and two of “Anthropometric Data,” the latter prepared under the advice of Sir W. H. Flower, Director of the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, and Sir W. Turner, the eminent Edinburgh anthropologist. The Introductory Essay prefixed to this work was the first attempt to apply, in a systematic way, the methods of anthropometry to the analysis of the people of an Indian Province. The most important result of the inquiry was that there appears to be, from the physical point of view, no difference between the so-called “Dravidian” and “Kolarian” races occupying the hill country to the south of Bengal. The newer learning has now identified the Austro-Asiatic group of languages, with Munda as one of its sub-branches. With this new position Risley was not spared to deal.

Among other anthropological work done during this period was the Introduction to the Gazetteer of Sikkim published in 1894, and a monograph on “Widow and Infant Marriage,” which formed the basis of the views expressed on these subjects in the following pages.

About this time financial difficulties, the result of a succession of disastrous famines, impeded the prosecution of the Ethnological Survey of the Indian Empire, and it was not till the Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon that Risley was appointed Honorary Director of the Survey, the general principles of which were described in his paper entitled “The Study of Ethnology in India.”* “What he thought of the administrative and political value of ethnological enquiries,” writes Mr. Anderson, “may be gathered from a charming discourse on ‘India and Anthropology’ delivered to the boys at Winchester in 1910 [vide Man, vol. x., p. 163 et seq.], in which he paid a kindly tribute to his friend Dr. Jackson. He quoted, too, the words of another old friend, Sir Bamfylde Fuller, that ’nothing wins the regard of an Indian so easily as a knowledge of facts connected with his religion, his prejudices, or his habits. We do but little to secure that our officers are equipped with these passports to popular regard.’ Thus, in one of the last of his public utterances, Sir Herbert Risley stated his deliberate conviction that it is only right ’to teach the anthropology of India to men of the Indian services.’” This question was again raised in 1913 by Sir R. Temple in his Presidential Address delivered before the Anthropological Section at the Birmingham meeting of the British Association, which attracted much attention among all those who are interested in the training of candidates for the Indian Civil Service. An appeal, widely supported by British anthropologists, has recently been submitted to the Government, pleading for the encouragement of anthropological studies in the older Universities, which have already established flourishing Schools, and for the extension of these in the more modern Universities and Colleges.

In 1890 Risley served as member and secretary of a Commission appointed to enquire into the working of the Indian police. After a brief reversion to district duty he resumed work in the Secretariats of Bengal and of the Imperial Governments. The decennial Census of the Empire was fixed to be carried out in 1901, and in 1899 he was appointed Census Commissioner. His administrative ability was proved in the difficult task of organising a competent staff, in consulting with the Provincial Governments, and in formulating an elaborate code of regulations which formed the basis on which the Census of 1901 and that of 1911 were conducted. The results of the Census carried out under his charge were reviewed in an exceptionally interesting report prepared by him with the assistance of his friend, Mr. E. A. Gait, in which he developed his views on the origin and classification of the Indian races largely on the basis of anthropometry. Portions of this report, with some additions and revision, were republished in 1908 under the title of The People of India.

After the completion of this work he was appointed Home Secretary in Lord Curzon’s administration, and in 1909 he became a temporary member of the Council of the Governor-General. When, in the viceroyalty of Lord Minto, the arduous and delicate task of reforming and extending the Provincial Councils, in order to satisfy the aspirations of the more advanced section of the people, was undertaken, the heaviest portion of the work was entrusted to Risley, and the strain of these duties on a constitution which at no time was robust doubtless laid the seeds of the fatal disease which was soon to end his life. In these, the final years of his service in India, besides his official duties, he took his share in various activities. He was Director of the Ethnological Survey, President on three occasions of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, a Trustee of the Indian Museum, Secretary of the Queen Victoria Memorial Committee, and a member of the Committee of Lady Dufferin’s Fund for providing medical and surgical aid for native women. His work on Constitutional Reform was so important that his service was extended for two years on the expiry of thirty-five years, the maximum term of office prescribed for members of the Indian Civil Service.

At a farewell dinner given in his honour at Calcutta on 7th February, 1910, by Lord and Lady Minto, the Viceroy remarked that “he did not know what he should have done without his assistance in the Reforms scheme,” and he paid the highest tribute to his literary abilities, his foresight and industry, which had all been of invaluable assistance to the Government of India. The country could ill afford to spare so able a servant, and he wished him all success in the future.

In February, 1910, he resigned the service. Soon after his arrival in England he was appointed to succeed Sir C. J. Lyall as Permanent Secretary in the India Office. He was able to do little more than take charge of his new duties when his health finally broke down, and he fell the victim to a fatal and painful disease, borne with unflinching courage and with characteristic and touching consideration for those who strove to alleviate his sufferings. He died at Wimbledon on 30th September, 1911, leaving a widow, a son, now an officer in the Indian army, and a daughter to mourn his loss.

In the course of a long Indian career he worthily maintained the traditions of the service to which he belonged. He proved that the study of the native races may be conducted side by side with the most engrossing public work, and forms one of the best means of relaxation amidst its labours and anxieties. He showed a wide sympathy with all classes of the people, and it was his privilege at the close of his official career to be associated with measures calculated to improve the relations of its subjects with the British Government. Some of the native journals, in their sympathetic comments on his career, did not fail to recall that one of the services to the people with which his name was associated was a scheme for the sale through the agency of the Post Office of cheap packets of quinine among the malaria-stricken people of the Ganges Delta.

His services as an administrator and an anthropologist were recognised by the bestowal of the Order of Companion of the Star of India in 1904 and the Knighthood of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1907. He was elected Officier d’Academie Francaise and corresponding member of the Anthropological Societies of Berlin and Rome. One of his last literary tasks was to prepare the Annual Address as President of the Royal Anthropological Institute, which illness prevented him from delivering in person.

The value of Risley’s work on the ethnology of India has been so widely recognised that it is unnecessary to discuss it in detail. He was a pioneer in the application of scientific methods to the classification of the races of India; and, like all pioneer work, some of his conclusions are open to criticism in the light of later researches. The words of Sir J. G. Frazer in reference to the study of comparative religion may well apply to Indian ethnology: “In this as in other branches of study it is the fate of theories to be washed away like children’s castles of sand by the rising tide of knowledge.”* The problems of Indian ethnology are still so obscure and in many directions our knowledge is so imperfect, that in the following pages no attempt will be made to express a dogmatic opinion upon them. All that it is proposed to do is to indicate some of the questions treated in this work which have formed the subject of controversy since the first edition was issued.

First, one of the main assumptions underlying his attempt to classify the races of India on the basis of anthropometry is that “nowhere else in the world do we find the population of a large continent broken up into an infinite number of mutually exclusive aggregates, the members of which are forbidden by an inexorable social law to marry outside the group to which they belong. . . . In this respect India presents a remarkable contrast to most other parts of the world, where anthropometry has to confess itself hindered, if not baffled, by the constant intermixture of types obscuring and confusing the data ascertained by measurements.” *

In reply to this it has been urged that Risley has exaggerated the isolation of the present grouping of the people; that caste, in its modern, rigid form, is of comparatively recent origin. The older custom, for instance, recognised the possibility of a Kshatriya becoming a Brahman, or vice versa; and although a man was supposed to take his first wife from his own class, there was no binding rule to this effect, while in any case he was free to take a second wife from a lower class. Similar laxities of practice prevail at the present time among certain communities in the Himalayan districts of the Panjab. The long periods of anarchy through which most parts of India have passed, some notorious facts of modern peasant life—the pressure of hypergamy which produces a scarcity of brides in the higher groups and leads to the purchase of low-born girls, the weakness of moral control among certain classes—produce miscegenation. Caste, again, has been habitually modified by the action of the Rajas, who claimed the right of promoting and degrading members of the various castes. The process of amalgamation of caste and tribal groups is specially observable in the case of the forest tribes when they come in contact with Hinduism. Each of them shows a ragged fringe in which the more primitive type is found intermingled with the more civilised race. In the case of certain areas, like Burma, Kashmir, Gujarat, the existing population represents a mixture of various races which have amalgamated within the historical period.

It is impossible here to discuss at length the wide and difficult question of the value of anthropometry as a test of race, on which controversy is still active. “Of late years,” says Mr. O’Malley, “anthropometry as a test of race has begun to fall out of favour.” * Perhaps it may be safer to say that measurements collected in a haphazard fashion among the larger composite groups, like Brahmans, Rajputs, Nayars, or Vellalas, which include all sorts and conditions of men, must remain of doubtful value, unless it is certain that the individuals who have been examined belong to sub-castes or families which have not been contaminated by union with outsiders. Mr. Gait, discussing the variability of caste to which reference has been made, writes: “It is desirable to point out the practical bearing on the point at issue of the facts which have been adduced in the preceding paragraphs regarding caste changes. Those which I have described as discontinuous, whereby a whole community raises its social rank, though disturbing the correlation between caste and status which Risley alleged to exist, have in themselves no effect on the racial composition of the community, unless in time the upstarts succeed in intermarrying with some other social group. But the changes arising from the transfer of individuals or groups from one caste to another would clearly disturb the homogeneity of the castes receiving them. This would be the case, for instance, when the men are in the habit of taking wives from other castes of lower status. Still more would it be the case amongst the functional castes. If it be conceded that such castes have received successive accretions of groups from outside, it follows that the main caste is seldom a homogeneous body, and that measurements taken, as they have almost invariably been, without regard to the sub-caste, cannot be expected to give uniform results. The individual sub-castes are more likely to consist of persons having a common origin, but this also is by no means an invariable rule. The processes of fission and fusion have no doubt been in operation from the earliest times; and the sub-castes of to-day, though more uniform in type than the castes of which they form part, were probably in their time formed out of different groups, which in course of time have become so closely intermingled that all traces of the original distinctions have disappeared.”

Secondly, it has been urged that Risley devoted too little attention to the influence of environment in modifying bodily structure. The views of Professor Franz Boas, who claims to have proved that the head-forms of immigrants to the United States rapidly become modified in their environment, have not been universally accepted.* But the stress laid on these influences by Professor W. Ridgeway deserve more attention than they have hitherto received in India. It can hardly, it is urged, be possible that the differences of climate, soil, and food supplies throughout the Indian Peninsula fail to exert their influence on the physical characteristics of the population. The contrast between the deltas of the great rivers and regions like the Panjab, the Deccan, or the forest and hill tracts, is obvious. Differences in the food supply equally deserve investigation, when we compare the races of Bengal or Madras, who mainly subsist on rice, with the people of the Deccan whose staple food is millet, the Panjabi who eats wheat or barley, the jungle-dwellers who largely use the wild products of the forest.

Thirdly, since this book was written, the problem of the Aryan and the Dravidian has assumed new forms. It has been urged that it is difficult to maintain Risley’s theory of a movement of Aryan tribes into the Panjab who retained their original Indo-Aryan type, in spite of the fact that this province has been the scene of continuous foreign immigration—Iranian, Scythian, Hun, Mongol, Persian. Again, writers of the South Indian school maintain the predominance of the Dravidian element in the present population, and regard the distinction between the Aryan and their Dasyu predecessors as one of cult and not of race.

Fourthly, as regards the Dravidian type, the researches of Mr. E. Thurston show that it is far from uniform; and Risley’s extension of this term to include not only the hill tribes of Central India but much of the menial population of the northern plains, is disputed in view of recent work in linguistics which proves that the Mon-Khmer form of speech stretches right across the centre of continental India, and at one time covered the greater part of Further India and the present Province of Assam.* This widespread extension of Mon-Khmer speech may be assumed to imply a westward movement of these races. This, and not a Dravidian element, survives in the menial population of the northern plains.

Fifthly, the views expressed in this work on the origin of the Rajputs, Jats, and Marathas have met with vigorous criticism. Accepting the fact that the people of Central Asia are of an uniform brachycephalic type, Risley argued that it was impossible to suppose that the long-headed Rajputs and Jats could be descended from races entering India from that region. It is now believed by many scholars that the term Scythian or Hun does not represent homogeneous ethnical types; that as the Greeks and Romans confounded Gauls with Germans—and to most Greeks a Scythian was any barbarian from the east of Europe,—so it is held to be possible that the Hindus termed any savage enemy who crossed the Himalaya a Saka or a Huna, migrants from a region which displays many different physical types. It is now generally admitted that these Hun princes rapidly became Hinduised, and that from one of their clans, the Gurjara, the present Rajputs were largely, if not wholly, derived.

As regards the Marathas, Risley suggested that they originated in bodies of Scythians, driven from the grazing-grounds of the Western Panjab toward the south, where they intermingled with the Dravidian type. There seems to be, however, no historical, or even traditional, evidence of a Scythian migration into the Deccan. The Marathas are closely connected with a mixed race of cultivators, extending over a wide area from the Deccan to the valley of the Ganges, and known as Kunbi or Kurmi. The Maratha group has now succeeded in asserting its superiority over its humbler kinsfolk, with whom they practise hypergamy, that is to say, they take brides from the latter, while the higher Maratha families refuse to give their daughters in marriage to the Kunbi husbands. In some places these higher-class Marathas have succeeded in acquiring the right of connubium with certain Rajput septs; but the fact that their tribal organisation retains the totemistic form connects them with the pre-Aryan people. The brachycephalic form of skull which is said to prevail in parts of the Deccan was the basis of Risley’s theory. But this is probably not the result of Scythian migration, but of some early tribal movement, perhaps by sea or along the coast route.*

Had Risley lived to revise this work he would certainly have considered these and other criticisms. It cannot be too clearly stated that on many or most of these problems no complete certainty has yet been attained. Much further investigation, more extended and more careful collection of anthropometric data, will be needed before the study of the ethnology of India can be placed on a scientific basis. The great value of Risley’s work lies in the fact that he opened out fresh fields of enquiry, and gave a new impulse to the study of man in India.

Footnotes

  • “Religion and Customs of the Uraons,” Memoirs Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1906, p. 121 et seq.
  • The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, vol. i., Introductory Essay, p. xv.
  • Journal Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. xx., 1891, p. 235 et seq.
  • The Golden Bough, 3rd ed., Part vii., vol. i., Preface, p. xi.
  • Infra, p. 25 et seq.
  • E. A. Gait, in Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. iii., 1910, p. 234.
  • H. A. Rose, Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, vol. ii., 1911, pp. 130, 256 et seq., 460 note: Census Report, Punjab, 1911, Vol. i., p. 270.
  • Census Report, Punjab, 1911, vol. i., p. 293, United Provinces, 1911, vol. i., p. 327 et seq.
  • General Indefinite Characteristics of the Tribes of Burma, 1906, p. vi.; Census Report, Kashmir, 1911, vol. i., p. 204; Sir G. Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India, vol. ix., part ii., 1908, p. 324.
  • Census Report, Bengal, 1911, vol. i., p. 517.
  • Census Report, India, 1911, vol. i., p. 381; cf. Man, xiv., 1914, p. 207.
  • The American Anthropologist, N.S., vol. xiv., No. 3, July-September, 1912, p. 530 et seq.; Man, xiv., 1914, p. 206 et seq.
  • Report, British Association, 1905, p. 832 et seq.
  • P. T. Srinivas Iyengar, Life in Ancient India in the Age of the Mantras, 1912, p. 9 et seq.
  • The Castes and Tribes of Southern India, 1909, vol. i., Introduction, p. xxxvi. et seq.
  • W. Crooke, “Rajputs and Mahrattas,” Journal Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. xi., 1910, p. 46 et seq.