The Ahikuntaka

www.dilmahconservation.org
The Court system
During the years gone by, with the community solely living
a nomadic lifestyle, moving from one place to another, the
community developed a unique system to decide on disputes that
arose amongst them. It can be safely assumed that the system
was a result of a mixture of customs and traditions that existed
within the community and the influence of the neighboring
communities. Rules and regulations were imposed upon the
community by the will of the majority and where a set of elders
well versed in the laws, decided on disputes. This system is similar
to the ‘Panchayath Sabha’ practiced in rural India. The head of the
council is the head of the ‘Kuppayama’ (village) and in the event
of a dispute, the aggrieved party complains to the ‘Arachchila’
(head of the village) who in turn decides on a date for the hearing.
The most important feature at this hearing, much to the surprise
of many a civilised person, is the pride of place given to alcohol.
The plaintiff, prior to the hearing has to entertain the respondents,
the council and those present at the hearing with alcohol. Both the
complainant and the respondent, in addition to providing alcohol,
are obliged to pay the council a fee for the hearing and this fee in
turn is also used to purchase some form of alcohol. Due to this,
a hearing of a dispute is a much looked forward to event by the
villagers.
In the event one party does not agree with the decision arrived at
by the council, there is the remedy of an appeal. For the appeal,
the party disagreeing with the decision has to bear the cost of the
alcohol. If a decision cannot be reached despite the appeal, then
the hearing is shifted to another location.
According to Thimmannage Engatana, if there is no agreeable
decision at the appeal, the parties and those interested in the
outcome, shift locations most often to a land close to a dam. The
same procedure regarding the distribution of alcohol is strictly
adhered to even during the second appeal. In the event that no
proper judgment is arrived at, the parties then move to another
gypsy village and can complain to the ‘Koralama’ who is considered
as a regional head of a few villages.
Finding the culprit
If in the case of a hearing, the wrongdoer does not agree with
the decision, the community has devised their own method
of ‘swearing’ which involves deities and other transcendental
aspects the community believes in. The method of swearing their
innocence is similar to those of the Sinhala swearing methods used
during the times of the kings.
If the council decides that there has to be a swearing, the
community adopts a very customary approach to the ceremony.
The swearing is always scheduled to the day after the disputed
decision is given. During that time the accused is kept under
house arrest and held under the watchful eyes of the members of
the council. Prior to the swearing, the accused has to bathe and
cleanse himself. One of the main methods of swearing adopted
by the community is the ‘burning oil’ method. Accordingly, the
accused has to move around a pot of burning oil thrice and then
put his thumb into the pot. If his thumb burns that is taken as an
assurance of his guilt. Another method is making the accused hold
a heated iron bar. If there is no burn on the accused, he is absolved
of the crime. The community believes that the gods that be, protect
the innocent during these trials. These trials by torture are not
alien to the Ahikunatakas and have been used time and time again
during Greek and Roman civilisations.
If there are two suspects being accused of the same offence, there is
a somewhat different method used to decide on the culprit. Both
the accused are given similar amounts of rice, water and heat to
boil a pot of rice. The first person to have boiled the pot of rice is
considered innocent.
32 The Ahikuntaka
The Court system