DHARNA BAITHNA, literally, to sit Dharna, was a practice 'put in force in several parts of India by creditors, who sat down before the doors of their debtors, so as to close all exit unless over the sitter's body, and thus compel a payment of their claims. The practice, up to the 19th century, was familiar at Benares, and may be translated caption or arrest. It was used by the Brahmans to gain a point which could not be accomplished by any other means; and the process was as follows : —A brahman who adopts this expedient for the purpose mentioned, proceeds to the door or house of the person against whom it is directed, or wherever he may most conveniently intercept him. He there sits down in dharna, with poison or a poniard, or some other instrument of suicide in his hand, and, threatening to use it if his adver •sary should attempt to molest or pass him, he thus completely arrests the debtor. In this situation the brahman fasts ; and by the rigour of the etiquette, which is rarely infringed, the unfortunate object of his arrest ought also to fast, and thus they both remain until the institutor of the dharna ' obtains satisfaction. In this, as he seldom makes the attempt without resolution to persevere, he rarely fails ; for if the party thus arrested were to suffer the brahman sitting in dharna to perish by hunger, tlae sin would for ever be upon his head. This practice has become almost unheard of in late years ; the last occasion in Madras was about A.D. 1816 ;• but formerly even the interference of British courts often proved insufficient to check it, as it had been deemed in general most prudent to avoid for this purpose the use of coercion, from an apprehension that the first appearance of it might drive the sitter in dharna to suicide. The discredit of the act would not only fall upon the officers of justice, but upon the Government itself. The practice of sitting in dharna was not confined to brahman men. It was had recourse to by Benu Bhal, the widow of a man of the brahmanical tribe, who had litigation with her brother-in-law, Bal 'ashen, which was tried by arbitration, and the trial and sentence were revised by the court of justice at Benares, and again in appeal. The suit of Benu 13hai involved a claim of property and a consideration of caste, which her antagonist declared she had forfeited. Originally it was practised by brahmans, but was prohibited by Res. 7 of 1820 of the Bengal Code. In the south of India it is done before idols for obtaining the object of desire. It is an ancient practice. Genesis xxiv. says, I will not eat until I have told mine errand,' and a brahman sometimes went to a house, sat down, and refused to eat till he had obtained the object he bad in view. The Englishman ' newspaper relates that about 1850, a man named Chutterbhooj, son of a well-known and respectable Ghana of Udaipur, carried to the late chief of that state certain grievances which he considered himself to be suffering in connection with his village. Failing to secure redress by ordinary
measures, he took the unusual course of intruding on the chief without permission, for which breach of etiquette he was forbidden to enter the palace again. Accordingly, being under a sense of degradation, ill-feeling, and annoyance, engen dered loy the prohibitory order, he indulged in satires and philippics against his chief, who there upon confiscated his village. Upon this, Chutter bhooj proceeded to Sulumbur, which at that time was at enmity with the chief of Udaipur, and this step only incensed the chief all the more against him. Here he appears to have been provided for, but subSequently wandered about from place to place trying to obtain redress, but without being able to secure either the forgiveness of his chief or the restitution of his village. In this state of feel ing he appears to have given way to the supersti tious idea, still prevailing amongst the Rajputs, that the shedding of his own blood or the blood of his family would bring destruction upon those who had offended him, if Lit did uot secure a ready attention to his real or ,Imaginary wrongs. In 1859, therefore, whilst travelling through the jungle with his two wives, two slave girls, and a servant, together with a party of the Meena, who were his retainers, he one day 'dismounted and gave his horse in charge to the servant, and began to smoke. Then, advancing a little distance, he suddenly killed the servant, and called upon the Meenas to dismount the women. His orders were obeyed. One slave girl fled away with her boy to a neighbouring village, and escaped, but the three other women were killed. The slave girl informed the villagers of what liful occurred, and they went out and saw the dead bodies, and carried them away, and burnt them. Tho slave girl died the next year, and Oliutterbhooj never turned up for six years after tho offence had been committed. Ho then came in and confessed to having murdered the women and servant. Accordingly he was tried and convicted of murder, and the Viceroy was fully of opinion that tho man deserved hang ing, but that, considering the number of years which had elapsed, the prevalence of superstition, and tho lawlessness which prevailed in that part of Ilajputana at tho period in question, when many such acts were committed with impunity, His Excellency connnuted the sentence to transporta tion for life. Tho inviolability of a brahman, and tho sin attached to causiug the death of one in any way, is inseparable, and to this, according to Sir William Jones, may be traced the practice of dharna.