ANCIENT POLITICAL DIVISIONS. 
135 
1899.] 
during Hindu times. The Lokaprakasa, it is true, tells us of the 
division of Kasmir into twenty-seven Visayas and enumerates some 
nineteen of the latter. But several of the names are so corrupt as to be 
beyond recognition, while others bear a distinctly modern look. In any 
case it is impossible to fix the date to which this notice may belong or 
to judge of its authenticity. 1 
Abu-l-Fazl’s account is the first which presents us with a systematic 
statement of Kasmir Parganas. It is of special interest because it 
shows us how their list could be increased, or re-adjusted within certain 
limits according to fiscal requirements or administrative fancies. The 
return of Asaf Klian reproduced by Abu-1-Fazl shows thirty-eight 
Parganas, while the earlier one of Qazi ‘All contained forty-one. The 
difference is accounted for by the amalgamation of some and the splitting- 
up of other Parganas. The Parganas varied greatly in size, as shown 
by the striking contrasts in the revenue-assessments. Thus, e.g , Patan 
was assessed at circ. 5300 Kharwars, while the revenue from ‘ Kamraj ’ 
amounted to 446,500 Kharwars. 
The number of Parganas had changed but little during Mughal and 
Pathan times. For the Sikhs on their conquest of the V alley seem to 
have found thirty-six as the accepted traditional number. But there 
had been various changes in the names and extent of these Parganas. 
These changes became still more frequent under the Sikh administra¬ 
tion, as is seen by a comparison of the lists given by Moorecroft (1823), 
Baron Hiigel (1835) and Yigne (circ. 1840). They all show a total 
of thirty-six Parganas but vary among themselves in the names of 
individual Parganas. 
These frequeut changes and redistributions of the Parganas conti¬ 
nued during JDogra Rule. The most accurate list I am able to refer to 
for this most recent period, is that given by Major Bates. It shows a 
total of forty-three Parganas for the year 1865. 2 Subsequent reforms 
introduced Tahsils after the fashion of British provinces with a view to 
reducing the number of sub-divisions. The latest list shows eleven 
Tahsils. 3 In their constitution little regard was paid to the historical 
divisions of the country. Fortunately, however, Kasmirls are as con- 
1 Of the Lokaprakasa’s Visayas Khoydsrami, S'amala , Lahari, Auladlya , Nlldsa, 
Khaduviya correspond clearly to the Khfiyasrama, S'amala, Lahara, Holada, Nllasva, 
Khaduvl of the Rajataranginl. Ekena, Devasiivi may possibly be corruptions for 
Evenaka and Devasarasa. Krodhana, Dvavimsati, Bhrnga , Phdgvd probably repre¬ 
sent the modern Parganas of Kruhin, Dunts, Bring, Phakh. Cdlana , Vitasthd, 
Satrava, Svanavdri , Nzld, Hart , Jalahadiya, are quite uncertain. 
2 See Gazetteer , p. 2 sqq. 
3 Compare the sketch-map attached to Mr. Lawrence’s Valley. 
