The Disputed Farman: Diplomatics, Forgery and the Claim to Inam Land
In 1954 a Deshastha Brahmin family in a Deccan village deposited three documents with a university to support its claim to revenue-free land. Document (a) is a Persian farman attributed to Aurangzeb, bearing an impression of the imperial seal and the Hijri date 1085 AH, but with the regnal-year formula written as sana 30. Document (b) is a sanad of 1698 on paper, which the family describes as a contemporary copy made when the original was 'lost in the rains'. Document (c) is a Maratha-period kaifiayat of 1726 narrating the history of the grant. The hand of (a) is an unusually regular nasta'liq with no interlinear corrections and nothing on the reverse. A British settlement report of 1873 records the village as inam but notes that the holders produced no sanad and that their claim rested on 'long possession'.
1. Identify the most damaging internal problem in document (a) and explain precisely what it does and does not prove.
Read the worked answer
The most damaging problem is the contradiction between the Hijri date and the regnal year.
The two are produced by the same chancery office and are arithmetically linked: 1085 AH corresponds to 1674–75 CE, whereas the thirtieth regnal year of Aurangzeb (accession 1658) falls in 1687–88. The gap is about thirteen years. A single scribal slip affects one digit; it cannot displace a reign-year formula by more than a decade. Either the formula was invented, or it was copied from a different document, or the whole is a later composite.
What this proves. Document (a) is not a contemporary chancery issue in its present form. Several further features point the same way and should be noted: a genuine farman normally carries chancery endorsements, a petition summary or a copyist's note, often on the reverse; an entirely blank reverse and a hand of suspicious regularity are what a practised forger produces, since authentic scribal hands show haste and correction.
What it does not prove. It does not prove that no grant existed. Forged or re-issued copies were commonly made precisely because a genuine original had been lost or because a family needed a document in the format that a new regime recognised. The inference to draw is about the document, not yet about the right.
2. Set out the checks you would apply to all three documents and say what each check could establish.
Read the worked answer
Internal (diplomatic) checks
- Formulary: compare invocation, arenga, the emperor's titles in correct hierarchical order, and the operative clause against published Mughal farmans. Anachronistic place names (a pargana renamed later) are decisive against authenticity.
- Date arithmetic: convert the Hijri date and the regnal year independently and test agreement, as above.
- Sealing practice: where the seal sits, whether the ink penetrates the paper at the impression, and whether the seal legend matches the emperor and the date.
Physical checks
- Paper: laid and chain lines, watermark, fibre type, and whether the sheet is hand-made paper of the seventeenth century or machine-made paper of the nineteenth.
- Ink: iron-gall ink bites into paper and haloes over time; modern aniline ink sits on the surface. This is the quickest discriminator between an old document and an old-looking one.
- Radiocarbon: only useful to exclude modern paper; its resolution cannot separate 1690 from 1750, so it must not be oversold.
Transmission checks
- Chain of custody: when is each document first cited? A 'contemporary copy' that first appears in a nineteenth-century settlement dispute is evidence about the dispute, not about the grant. The 1726 kaifiayat is valuable as evidence of eighteenth-century memory, not of a seventeenth-century transaction.
3. If the farman remains disputed, how should the historian write about the family's rights without either endorsing or dismissing the claim?
Read the worked answer
Separate three questions that are usually conflated: legal title, socially recognised possession, and documentary proof.
1. Legal title. On the documents alone, title is unproven. The 1873 settlement officer, applying the evidentiary standard of the day, recorded the village as inam while noting that no sanad was produced and that the claim rested on long possession. That is a finding about possession, not about the original grant.
2. Socially recognised possession. Here the evidence is much stronger and does not depend on (a). The kaifiayat, the settlement record, and the family's position in the village account books together establish that the right was exercised and accepted over generations. A historian can write confidently about watandari practice and village-level recognition while remaining agnostic about the parchment.
3. The documentary regime. The most interesting historical point is why a family felt compelled to produce a farman at all. Between the Maratha and the British record-keeping systems, the evidentiary standard changed: a right that had rested on local custom now needed a paper pedigree. Fabrication of pedigrees is a predictable response to that shift and should be explained, not merely exposed.
Model formulation: 'Whatever the status of the farman, the family's inam was operative in village society by the eighteenth century; the document should be read as evidence of that claim's need for legal form under colonial rule.'