Chapter 2…

Chapter 2

=Legislative Authority.=—During the period still called ‘the good times of Mewar,’ the prince, with the aid of his civil council, the four ministers of the crown and their deputies, promulgated all the legislative enactments in which the general rights and wants of the community were involved. In these the martial vassals or chiefs had no concern: a wise exclusion, comprehending also their immediate dependents, military, commercial, and agricultural. Even now, the little that is done in these matters is effected by the civil administration, though the Rajput Pardhans have been too apt to interfere in matters from which they ought always to be kept aloof, being ever more tenacious of their own rights than solicitous for the welfare of the community.

=Panchāyats.=—The neglect in the legislation of late years was supplied by the self-constituted tribunals, the useful panchayats, of which enough has been said to render further illustration unnecessary. Besides the resident ruler of the district, who was also a judicial functionary, there was, as already stated, a special officer of the government in each frontier thana, or garrison post. He united the triple occupation of embodying the quotas, levying the transit duties, and administering justice, in which he was aided at the chabutra[3.2.1] or court, by assembling the Chauthias or assessors of justice. Each town and village has its chauthia, the members of which are elected by their fellow-citizens, and remain as long as they conduct themselves impartially in disentangling the intricacies of complaints preferred to them.

They are the aids to the Nagarseth, or chief magistrate, an hereditary office in every large city in Rajasthan. Of this chauthia the Patel and Patwari[3.2.2] are generally members. The former of these, like the Dasaundhi of the Mahrattas, resembles in his duties the decanus of France and the tithing-man in England. The chauthia and panchayat of these districts are analogous to the assessors of [146] justice called scabini[3.2.3] in France, who held the office by election or the concurrence of the people. But these are the special and fixed council of each town; the general panchayats are formed from the respectable population at large, and were formerly from all classes of society.

The chabutras, or terraces of justice, were always established in the khalisa, or crown demesne. It was deemed a humiliating intrusion if they sat within the bounds of a chief. To ‘erect the flag’ within his limits, whether for the formation of defensive posts or the collection of duties, is deemed a gross breach of his privileged independence, as to establish them within the walls of his residence would be deemed equal to sequestration. It often becomes necessary to see justice enforced on a chief or his dependent, but it begets eternal disputes and disobedience, till at length they are worried to compliance by rozina.

=Rozīna.=—When delay in these matters, or to the general commands of the prince, is evinced, an officer or herald is deputed with a party of four, ten, or twenty horse or foot, to the fief of the chief, at whose residence they take up their abode; and carrying, under the seal, a warrant to furnish them with specified daily (rozina) rations, they live at free quarters till he is quickened into compliance with the commands of the prince. This is the only accelerator of the slow movements of a Rajput chieftain in these days, whether for his appearance at court or the performance of an act of justice. It is often carried to a harassing excess, and causes much complaint.

In cases regarding the distribution of justice or the internal economy of the chief’s estates, the government officers seldom interfere. But of their panchayats I will only remark, that their import amongst the vassals is very comprehensive; and when they talk of the ‘panch,’ it means the ‘collective wisdom.’ In the reply to the remonstrance of the Deogarh vassals,[3.2.4] the chief promises never to undertake any measure without their deliberation and sanction.

On all grand occasions where the general peace or tranquillity of the government is threatened, the chiefs form the council of the sovereign. Such subjects are always first discussed in the domestic councils of each chief; so that when the [147] witenagemot of Mewar was assembled, each had prepared himself by previous discussion, and was fortified by abundance of advice.

To be excluded the council of the prince is to be in utter disgrace. These grand divans produce infinite speculation, and the ramifications which form the opinions are extensive. The council of each chief is, in fact, a miniature representation of the sovereign’s. The greater sub-vassals, his civil pardhan, the mayor of the household, the purohit,[3.2.5] the bard, and two or three of the most intelligent citizens, form the minor councils, and all are separately deliberating while the superior court is in discussion. Thus is collected the wisdom of the magnates of Rajwara.

=Military Service.=—In Mewar, during the days of her glory and prosperity, fifteen thousand horse, bound by the ties of fidelity and service, followed their prince into the field, all supported by lands held by grant; from the chief who headed five hundred of his own vassals, to the single horseman.

=Knight’s Fee or Single Horsemen.=—A knight’s fee in these States varies. For each thousand rupees of annual rent, never less than two, and generally three horsemen were furnished; and sometimes three horse and three foot soldiers, according to the exigencies of the times when the grant was conferred. The different grants[3.2.6] appended will show this variety, and furnish additional proof that this, and all similar systems of policy, must be much indebted to chance for the shape they ultimately take. The knight’s fee, when William the Conqueror partitioned England into sixty thousand such portions, from each of which a soldier’s service was due, was fixed at £20. Each portion furnished its soldier or paid escuage. The knight’s fee of Mewar may be said to be two hundred and fifty rupees, or about £30.

=Limitations of Service.=—In Europe, service was so restricted that the monarch had but a precarious authority. He could only calculate upon forty days’ annual service from the tenant of a knight’s fee. In Rajasthan it is very different: “at home and abroad, service shall be performed when demanded”; such is the condition of the tenure.

For state and show, a portion of the greater vassals[3.2.7] reside at the capital for [148] some months, when they have permission to retire to their estates, and are relieved by another portion. On the grand military festival the whole attend for a given time; and when the prince took the field, the whole assembled at their own charge; but if hostilities carried them beyond the frontier they were allowed certain rations.

=Escuage or Scutage.=—Escuage or scutage, the phrase in Europe to denote the amercement[3.2.8] for non-attendance, is also known and exemplified in deeds. Failure from disaffection, turbulence, or pride, brought a heavy fine; the sequestration of the whole or part of the estate.[3.2.9] The princes of these States would willingly desire to see escuage more general. All have made this first attempt towards an approximation to a standing army; but, though the chiefs would make compensation to get rid of some particular service, they are very reluctant to renounce lands, by which alone a fixed force could be maintained. The rapacity of the court would gladly fly to scutages, but in the present impoverished state of the fiefs, such if injudiciously levied would be almost equivalent to resumption; but this measure is so full of difficulty as to be almost impracticable.

=Inefficiency of this Form of Government.=—Throughout Rajasthan the character and welfare of the States depend on that of the sovereign: he is the mainspring of the system—the active power to set and keep in motion all these discordant materials; if he relax, each part separates, and moves in a narrow sphere of its own. Yet will the impulse of one great mind put the machine in regular movement, which shall endure during two or three imbecile successors, if no fresh exterior force be applied to check it. It is a system full of defects; yet we see them so often balanced by virtues, that we are alternately biassed by these counteracting qualities; loyalty and patriotism, which combine a love of the institutions, religion, and manners of the country, are the counterpoise to systematic evil. In no country has the system ever proved efficient. It has been one of eternal excitement and irregular action; inimical to order, and the repose deemed necessary after conflict for recruiting the national strength. The absence of an external foe was but the signal for disorders within, which increased to a terrific height in the feuds of the two great rival factions of Mewar, the clans of [149] Chondawat[3.2.10] and Saktawat,[3.2.11] as the weakness of the prince augmented by the abstraction of his personal domain, and the diminution of the services of the third class of vassals (the Gol), the personal retainers of the crown; but when these feuds broke out, even with the enemy at their gates, it required a prince of great nerve and talent to regulate them. Yet is there a redeeming quality in the system, which, imperfect as it is, could render such perilous circumstances but the impulse to a rivalry of heroism.

=Rivalry of the Chondāwat and Saktāwat Sub-clans.=—When Jahangir had obtained possession of the palladium of Mewar, the ancient fortress of Chitor, and driven the prince into the wilds and mountains of the west, an opportunity offered to recover some frontier lands in the plains, and the Rana with all his chiefs was assembled for the purpose. But the Saktawats asserted an equal privilege with their rivals to form the vanguard;[3.2.12] a right which their indisputable valour (perhaps superior to that of the other party) rendered not invalid. The Chondawats claimed it as an hereditary privilege, and the sword would have decided the matter but for the tact of the prince. “The harawal to the clan which first enters Untala,” was a decision which the Saktawat leader quickly heard; while the other could no longer plead his right, when such a gauntlet was thrown down for its maintenance.

Untala is the frontier fortress in the plains, about eighteen miles east of the capital, and covering the road which leads from it to the more ancient one of Chitor. It is situated on a rising ground, with a stream flowing beneath its walls, which are of solid masonry, lofty, and with round towers at intervals.[3.2.13] In the centre was the governor’s house, also fortified. One gate only gave admission to this castle.

The clans, always rivals in power, now competitors in glory, moved off at the same time, some hours before daybreak—Untala the goal, the harawal the reward! Animated with hope—a barbarous and cruel foe the object of their prowess—their wives and families spectators, on their return, of the meed of enterprise; the bard [150], who sang the praise of each race at their outset, demanding of each materials for a new wreath, supplied every stimulus that a Rajput could have to exertion.

The Saktawats made directly for the gateway, which they reached as the day broke, and took the foe unprepared; but the walls were soon manned, and the action commenced. The Chondawats, less skilled in topography, had traversed a swamp, which retarded them—but through which they dashed, fortunately meeting a guide in a shepherd of Untala. With more foresight than their opponents, they had brought ladders. The chief led the escalade, but a ball rolled him back amidst his vassals; it was not his destiny to lead the harawal! Each party was checked. The Saktawat depended on the elephant he rode, to gain admission by forcing the gate; but its projecting spikes deterred the animal from applying its strength. His men were falling thick around him, when a shout from the other party made him dread their success. He descended from his seat, placed his body on the spikes, and commanded the driver, on pain of instant death, to propel the elephant against him. The gates gave way, and over the dead body of their chief his clan rushed to the combat! But even this heroic surrender of his life failed to purchase the honour for his clan. The lifeless corpse of his rival was already in Untala, and this was the event announced by the shout which urged his sacrifice to honour and ambition. When the Chondawat chief fell, the next in rank and kin took the command. He was one of those arrogant, reckless Rajputs, who signalized themselves wherever there was danger, not only against men but tigers, and his common appellation was the Benda Thakur (‘mad chief’) of Deogarh. When his leader fell, he rolled the body in his scarf; then tying it on his back, scaled the wall, and with his lance having cleared the way before him he threw the dead body over the parapet of Untala, shouting, “The vanguard to the Chondawat! we are first in!” The shout was echoed by the clan, and the rampart was in their possession nearly at the moment of the entry of the Saktawats. The Moguls fell under their swords: the standard of Mewar was erected in the castle of Untala, but the leading of the vanguard remained with the Chondawats[3.2.14] [151].

This is not the sole instance of such jealousies being converted into a generous and patriotic rivalry; many others could be adduced throughout the greater principalities, but especially amongst the brave Rathors of Marwar.

It was a nice point to keep these clans poised against each other; their feuds were not without utility, and the tact of the prince frequently turned them to account. One party was certain to be enlisted on the side of the sovereign, and this alone counter-balanced the evil tendencies before described. To this day it has been a perpetual struggle for supremacy; and the epithets of ‘loyalist’ and ‘traitor’ have been alternating between them for centuries, according to the portion they enjoyed of the prince’s favour, and the talents and disposition of the heads of the clans to maintain their predominance at court. The Saktawats are weaker in numbers, but have the reputation of greater bravery and more genius than their rivals. I am inclined, on the whole, to assent to this opinion; and the very consciousness of this reputation must be a powerful incentive to its preservation.

When all these governments were founded and maintained on the same principle, a system of feuds, doubtless, answered very well; but it cannot exist with a well-constituted monarchy. Where individual will controls the energies of a nation, it must eventually lose its liberties. To preserve their power, the princes of Rajasthan surrendered a portion of theirs to the emperors of Delhi. They made a nominal surrender to him of their kingdoms receiving them back with a sanad, or grant, renewed on each lapse: thereby acknowledging him as lord paramount. They received, on these occasions, the khilat of honour and investiture, consisting of elephants, horses, arms, and jewels; and to their hereditary title of ‘prince’ was added by the emperor, one of dignity, mansab.[3.2.15] Besides this acknowledgment of supremacy, they offered nazarana[3.2.16] and homage, especially on the festival of Nauroz (the new year), engaging to attend the royal presence when required, at the head of a stipulated number of their vassals. The emperor presented them with a royal standard, kettle-drums, and other insignia, which headed the array of each prince. Here we have all the chief incidents of a great feudal sovereignty. Whether the Tatar sovereigns borrowed these customs from their princely vassals, or brought them from the highlands of Asia, from the Oxus [152] and Jaxartes, whence, there is little doubt, many of these Sachha Rajputs originated, shall be elsewhere considered.

=Akbar’s Policy towards the Rājputs.=—The splendour of such an array, whether in the field or at the palace, can scarcely be conceived. Though Humayun had gained the services of some of the Rajput princes, their aid was uncertain. It was reserved for his son, the wise and magnanimous Akbar, to induce them to become at once the ornament and support of his throne. The power which he consolidated, and knew so well to wield, was irresistible; while the beneficence of his disposition, and the wisdom of his policy, maintained what his might conquered. He felt that a constant exhibition of authority would not only be ineffectual but dangerous, and that the surest hold on their fealty and esteem would be the giving them a personal interest in the support of the monarchy.

=Alliances between Moguls and Rājputs.=—Akbar determined to unite the pure Rajput blood to the scarcely less noble stream which flowed from Aghuz Khan, through Jenghiz, Timur, and Babur, to himself, calculating that they would more readily yield obedience to a prince who claimed kindred with them, than to one purely Tatar; and that, at all events, it would gain the support of their immediate kin, and might in the end become general. In this supposition he did not err. We are less acquainted with the obstacles which opposed his first success than those he subsequently encountered; one of which neither he nor his descendants ever overcame in the family of Mewar, who could never be brought to submit to such alliance.

Amber, the nearest to Delhi and the most exposed, though more open to temptation than to conquest, in its then contracted sphere, was the first to set the example.[3.2.17] Its Raja Bhagwandas gave his daughter to Humayun;[3.2.18] and subsequently this practice became so common, that some of the most celebrated emperors were the offspring of Rajput princesses. Of these, Salim, called after his accession, Jahangir; his ill-fated son, Khusru; Shah Jahan;[3.2.19] Kambakhsh,[3.2.20] the favourite of his father; Aurangzeb, and his rebellious son Akbar, whom his Rajput kin would have placed on the throne had his genius equalled their power, are the most prominent instances. Farrukhsiyar, when the empire began to totter, furnished the last instance of a Mogul sovereign [153] marrying a Hindu princess,[3.2.21] the daughter of Raja Ajit Singh, sovereign of Marwar.

These Rajput princes became the guardians of the minority of their imperial nephews, and had a direct stake in the empire, and in the augmentation of their estates.

=Rājputs in the Imperial Service.=—Of the four hundred and sixteen Mansabdars, or military commanders of Akbar’s empire, from leaders of two hundred to ten thousand men, forty-seven were Rajputs, and the aggregate of their quotas amounted to fifty-three thousand horse:[3.2.22] exactly one-tenth of the united Mansabdars of the empire, or five hundred and thirty thousand horse.[3.2.23] Of the forty-seven Rajput leaders, there were seventeen whose mansabs were from one thousand to five thousand horse, and thirty from two hundred to one thousand.

The princes of Amber, Marwar, Bikaner, Bundi, Jaisalmer, Bundelkhand, and even Shaikhawati, held mansabs of above one thousand; but Amber only, being allied to the throne, had the dignity of five thousand.

The Raja Udai Singh of Marwar, surnamed the Fat, chief of the Rathors, held but the mansab of one thousand, while a scion of his house, Rae Singh of Bikaner, had four thousand. This is to be accounted for by the dignity being thrust upon the head of that house. The independent princes of Chanderi, Karauli, Datia, with the tributary feudatories of the larger principalities, and members of the Shaikhawat federation, were enrolled on the other grades, from four to seven hundred. Amongst these we find the founder of the Saktawat clan, who, quarrelling with his brother, Rana Partap of Mewar, gave his services to Akbar. In short it became general, and what originated in force or persuasion, was soon coveted from interested motives; and as nearly all the States submitted in [154] time to give queens to the empire, few were left to stigmatize this dereliction from Hindu principle.

Akbar thus gained a double victory, securing the good opinions as well as the swords of these princes in his aid. A judicious perseverance would have rendered the throne of Timur immovable, had not the tolerant principles and beneficence of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan been lost sight of by the bigoted and bloodthirsty Aurangzeb; who, although while he lived his commanding genius wielded the destinies of this immense empire at pleasure, alienated the affections, by insulting the prejudices, of those who had aided in raising the empire to the height on which it stood. This affection withdrawn, and the weakness of Farrukhsiyar substituted for the strength of Aurangzeb, it fell and went rapidly to pieces. Predatory warfare and spoliation rose on its ruins. The Rajput princes, with a short-sighted policy, at first connived at, and even secretly invited the tumult; not calculating on its affecting their interests. Each looked to the return of ancient independence, and several reckoned on great accession of power. Old jealousies were not lessened by the part which each had played in the hour of ephemeral greatness; and the prince of Mewar, who preserved his blood uncontaminated, though with loss of land, was at once an object of respect and envy to those who had forfeited the first pretensions[3.2.24] of a Rajput. It was the only ovation the Sesodia[3.2.25] had to boast for centuries of oppression and spoliation, whilst their neighbours were basking in court favour. The great increase of territory of these princes nearly equalled the power of Mewar, and the dignities thus acquired from the sons of Timur, they naturally wished should appear as distinguished as his ancient title. Hence, while one inscribed on his seal “The exalted in dignity, a prince amongst princes, and king of kings,”[3.2.26] the prince of Mewar preserved his royal simplicity in “Maharana Bhima Singh, son of Arsi.” But this is digression.

=Results of Feudalism.=—It would be difficult to say what would be the happiest form of government for these States without reference to their neighbours. Their own feudal customs would seem to have worked well. The experiment of centuries has secured [155] to them political existence, while successive dynasties of Afghans and Moguls, during eight hundred years, have left but the wreck of splendid names. Were they to become more monarchical, they would have everything to dread from unchecked despotism, over which even the turbulence of their chiefs is a salutary control.

Were they somewhat more advanced towards prosperity, the crown demesne redeemed from dissipation and sterility, and the chiefs enabled to bring their quotas into play for protection and police, recourse should never be had to bodies of mercenary troops, which practice, if persevered in, will inevitably change their present form of government. This has invariably been the result, in Europe as well as Rajasthan, else why the dread of standing armies?

=Employment of Mercenaries.=—Escuage is an approximating step. When Charles VII. of France[3.2.27] raised his companies of ordnance, the basis of the first national standing army ever embodied in Europe, a tax called ‘taille’ was imposed to pay them, and Guienne rebelled. Kotah is a melancholy instance of subversion of the ancient order of society. Mewar made the experiment from necessity sixty years ago, when rebellion and invasion conjoined; and a body of Sindis were employed, which completed their disgust, and they fought with each other till almost mutually exterminated, and till all faith in their prince was lost. Jaipur had adopted this custom to a greater extent; but it was an ill-paid band, neither respected at home nor feared abroad. In Marwar the feudal compact was too strong to tolerate it, till Pathan predatory bands, prowling amidst the ruins of Mogul despotism, were called in to partake in each family broil; the consequence was the weakening of all, and opening the door to a power stronger than any, to be the arbiter of their fate.

=General Duties of the Pattāwat, or Vassal Chief of Rājasthān.=—“The essential principle of a fief was a mutual contract of support and fidelity. Whatever obligations it laid upon the vassal of service to his lord, corresponding duties of protection were imposed by it on the lord towards his vassal. If these were transgressed on either side, the one forfeited his land, the other his signiory or rights over it.”[3.2.28] In this is comprehended the very foundation of feudal policy, because in its simplicity we recognize first principles involving mutual preservation. The best [156] commentary on this definition of simple truth will be the sentiments of the Rajputs themselves in two papers: one containing the opinions of the chiefs of Marwar on the reciprocal duties of sovereign and vassal;[3.2.29] the other, those of the sub-vassals of Deogarh, one of the largest fiefs in Rajasthan, of their rights, the infringement of them, and the remedy.[3.2.30]

If, at any former period in the history of Marwar, its prince had thus dared to act, his signiory and rights over it would not have been of great value; his crown and life would both have been endangered by these turbulent and determined vassals. How much is comprehended in that manly, yet respectful sentence: “If he accepts our services, then he is our prince and leader; if not, but our equal, and we again his brothers, claimants of and laying claim to the soil.” In the remonstrance of the sub-vassals of Deogarh, we have the same sentiments on a reduced scale. In both we have the ties of blood and kindred, connected with and strengthening national policy. If a doubt could exist as to the principle of fiefs being similar in Rajasthan and in Europe, it might be set at rest by the important question long agitated by the feodal lawyers in Europe, “whether the vassal is bound to follow the standard of his lord against his own kindred or against his sovereign”: which in these States is illustrated by a simple and universal proof. If the question were put to a Rajput to whom his service is due, whether to his chief or his sovereign, the reply would be, Raj ka malik wuh, pat[3.2.31] ka malik yih: ‘He is the sovereign of the State, but this is my head’: an ambiguous phrase, but well understood to imply that his own immediate chief is the only authority he regards.

This will appear to militate against the right of remonstrance (as in the case of the vassals of Deogarh), for they look to the crown for protection against injustice; they annihilate other rights by admitting appeal higher than this. Every class looks out for some resource against oppression. The sovereign is the last applied to on such occasions, with whom the sub-vassal has no bond of connexion. He can receive no favour, nor perform any service, but through his own immediate superior; and presumes not to question (in cases not personal to himself) the propriety of his chief’s actions, adopting implicitly his feelings [157] and resentments. The daily familiar intercourse of life is far too engrossing to allow him to speculate, and with his lord he lives a patriot or dies a traitor. In proof of this, numerous instances could be given of whole clans devoting themselves to the chief against their sovereign;[3.2.32] not from the ties of kindred, for many were aliens to blood; but from the ties of duty, gratitude, and all that constitutes clannish attachment, superadded to feudal obligation. The sovereign, as before observed, has nothing to do with those vassals not holding directly from the crown; and those who wish to stand well with their chiefs would be very slow in receiving any honours or favours from the general fountain-head. The Deogarh chief sent one of his sub-vassals to court on a mission; his address and deportment gained him favour, and his consequence was increased by a seat in the presence of his sovereign. When he returned, he found this had lost him the favour of his chief, who was offended, and conceived a jealousy both of his prince and his servant. The distinction paid to the latter was, he said, subversive of his proper authority, and the vassal incurred by his vanity the loss of estimation where alone it was of value.

=Obligations of a Vassal.=—The attempt to define all the obligations of a vassal would be endless: they involve all the duties of kindred in addition to those of obedience. To attend the court of his chief; never to absent himself without leave; to ride with him a-hunting; to attend him at the court of his sovereign or to war, and even give himself as a hostage for his release; these are some of the duties of a vassal.

-----

Footnote 3.2.1:

Literally ‘terrace,’ or ‘altar.’

Footnote 3.2.2:

[Headman and accountant.]

Footnote 3.2.3:

They were considered a sort of jury, bearing a close analogy to the judices selecti, who sat with the praetor in the tribunal of Rome (Hallam).

Footnote 3.2.4:

See Appendix, No. III.

Footnote 3.2.5:

Family priest.

Footnote 3.2.6:

See Appendix, Nos. IV. V. and VI.

Footnote 3.2.7:

See Appendix, No.XX. art. 6; the treaty between the chiefs and his vassals defining service.

Footnote 3.2.8:

Appendix, No. XVI.

Footnote 3.2.9:

Both of which I have witnessed.

Footnote 3.2.10:

A clan called after Chonda, eldest son of an ancient Rana, who resigned his birthright.

Footnote 3.2.11:

Sakta was the son of Rana Udai Singh, founder of Udayapura, or Udaipur. The feuds of these two clans, like those of the Armagnacs and Bourguignons, “qui couvrirent la France d’un crêpe sanglant,” have been the destruction of Mewar. It requires but a change of names and places, while reading the one, to understand perfectly the history of the other.

Footnote 3.2.12:

Harāwal.

Footnote 3.2.13:

It is now in ruins, but the towers and part of the walls are still standing.

Footnote 3.2.14:

An anecdote appended by my friend Amra (the bard of the Sangawats, a powerful division of the Chondawats, whose head is Deogarh, often alluded to, and who alone used to lead two thousand vassals into the field) was well attested. Two Mogul chiefs of note were deeply engaged in a game of chess when the tumult was reported to them. Feeling confident of success, they continued their game; nor would they desist till the inner castle of this ‘donjon keep’ was taken, and they were surrounded by the Rajputs, when they coolly begged they might be allowed to terminate their game. This the enemy granted; but the loss of their chiefs had steeled their breasts against mercy, and they were afterwards put to death. [Compare the similar case of Ganga, Rāja of Mysore, who was surprised, by the treachery of his ministers, while occupied in a game of chess (L. Rice, Mysore Gazetteer (1897), 1i. 319.)]

Footnote 3.2.15:

[‘Office, prerogative.’ For a full account of the Mansab system, see Irvine, Army of the Indian Moghuls, 3 ff.]

Footnote 3.2.16:

Fine of relief.

Footnote 3.2.17:

[There were earlier instances of alliances between Muhammadan princes and Hindus. The mother of Fīroz Shāh, born A.D. 1309, was a Bhatti lady: Khizr Khān married Deval Devi, a Vāghela lady of Gujarāt (Elliot-Dowson, iii. 271 f., 545; Elphinstone, 395).]

Footnote 3.2.18:

[There is no evidence for this statement (Smith, Akbar, 58, 225).]

Footnote 3.2.19:

The son of the Princess Jodh Bai, whose magnificent tomb still excites admiration at Sikandra, near Agra.

Footnote 3.2.20:

‘Gift of Love.’ [Kāmbakhsh had a Hindu wife, Kalyān Kumāri, daughter of Amar Chand and sister of Sagat Singh, Zamīndār of Manoharpur. Professor Jadunath Sarkar has been unable to trace a Hindu wife of Akbar, son of Aurangzeb.]

Footnote 3.2.21:

To this very marriage we owe the origin of our power. When the nuptials were preparing, the emperor fell ill. A mission was at that time at Delhi from Surat, where we traded, of which Mr. Hamilton was the surgeon. He cured the king, and the marriage was completed. In the oriental style, he desired the doctor to name his reward; but instead of asking anything for himself, he demanded a grant of land for a factory on the Hoogly for his employers. It was accorded, and this was the origin of the greatness of the British empire in the East. Such an act deserved at least a column; but neither “storied urn nor animated bust” marks the spot where his remains are laid [C. R. Wilson, Early Annals of the English in Bengal, ii. 235, see p. 468 below].

Footnote 3.2.22:

Abu-l Fazl [Āīn, i. 308 ff.].

Footnote 3.2.23:

The infantry, regulars, and militia, exceeded 4,000,000.

Footnote 3.2.24:

See, in the Annals of Mewar, the letter of Rae Singh of Bikaner (who had been compelled to submit to this practice), on hearing that Rana Partap’s reverses were likely to cause a similar result. It is a noble production, and gives the character of both.

Footnote 3.2.25:

The tribe to which the princes of Mewar belonged.

Footnote 3.2.26:

Raj Rajeswara, the title of the prince of Marwar: the prince of Amber, Raj Rajindra.

Footnote 3.2.27:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 117.

Footnote 3.2.28:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 173.

Footnote 3.2.29:

See Appendix, No. I.

Footnote 3.2.30:

See Appendix, Nos. II. and III.

Footnote 3.2.31:

Pat means ‘head,’ ‘chief.’

Footnote 3.2.32:

The death of the chief of Nimaj, in the Annals of Marwar, and Sheogarh Feud, in the Personal Narrative, Vol. II.

-----

Chapter 3

=Feudal Incidents.=—I shall now proceed to compare the more general obligations of vassals, known under the term of ‘Feudal Incidents’ in Europe, and show their existence in Rajasthan. These were six in number: 1. Reliefs; 2. Fines of alienation; 3. Escheats; 4. Aids; 5. Wardship; 6. Marriage [158].

=Relief.=—The first and most essential mark of a feudal relation exists in all its force and purity here: it is a perpetually recurring mark of the source of the grant, and the solemn renewal of the pledge which originally obtained it. In Mewar it is a virtual and bona fide surrender of the fief and renewal thereof. It is thus defined in European polity: “A relief[3.3.1] is a sum of money due from every one of full age taking a fief by descent.” It was arbitrary, and the consequent exactions formed a ground of discontent; nor was the tax fixed till a comparatively recent period.

By Magna Charta reliefs were settled at rates proportionate to the dignity of the holder.[3.3.2] In France the relief was fixed by the customary laws at one year’s revenue.[3.3.3] This last has long been the settled amount of nazarana, or fine of relief, in Mewar.

=Fine paid on Succession.=—On the demise of a chief, the prince immediately sends a party, termed the zabti (sequestrator), consisting of a civil officer and a few soldiers, who take possession of the State in the prince’s name. The heir sends his prayer to court to be installed in the property, offering the proper relief. This paid, the chief is invited to repair to the presence, when he performs homage, and makes protestations of service and fealty; he receives a fresh grant, and the inauguration terminates by the prince girding him with a sword, in the old forms of chivalry. It is an imposing ceremony, performed in a full assembly of the court, and one of the few which has never been relinquished. The fine paid, and the brand buckled to his side, a steed, turban, plume, and dress of honour given to the chief, the investiture[3.3.4] is [159] complete; the sequestrator returns to court, and the chief to his estate, to receive the vows and congratulations of his vassals.[3.3.5]

In this we plainly perceive the original power (whether exercised or not) of resumption. On this subject more will appear in treating of the duration of grants. The kharg bandhai, or ‘binding of the sword,’ is also performed when a Rajput is fit to bear arms; as amongst the ancient German tribes, when they put into the hands of the aspirant for fame a lance. Such are the substitutes for the toga virilis of the young Roman. The Rana himself is thus ordained a knight by the first of his vassals in dignity, the chief of Salumbar.

=Renunciation of Reliefs.=—In the demoralization of all those States, some of the chiefs obtained renunciation of the fine of relief, which was tantamount to making a grant in perpetuity, and annulling the most overt sign of paramount sovereignty. But these and many other important encroachments were made when little remained of the reality, or when it was obscured by a series of oppressions unexampled in any European State.

It is in Mewar alone, I believe, of all Rajasthan, that these marks of fealty are observable to such an extent. But what is remarked elsewhere upon the fiefs being movable, will support the doctrine of resumption though it might not be practised: a prerogative may exist without its being exercised.

=Fine of Alienation.=—Rajasthan never attained this refinement indicative of the dismemberment of the system; so vicious and self-destructive a notion never had existence in these States. Alienation does not belong to a system of fiefs: the lord would never consent to it, but on very peculiar occasions.

In Cutch, amongst the Jareja[3.3.6] tribes, sub-vassals may alienate their estates; but this privilege is dependent on the mode of acquisition. Perhaps the only knowledge we have in Rajasthan of alienation requiring the sanction of the lord paramount, is in donations for pious uses: but this is partial. We see in the remonstrance of the Deogarh vassals the opinion they entertained of their lord’s alienation of their sub-fees to strangers, and without the Rana’s consent; which, with a similar train of conduct, produced sequestration of his fief till they were reinducted [160].

=Tenants of the Crown may Alienate.=—The agricultural tenants, proprietors of land held of the crown, may alienate their rights upon a small fine, levied merely to mark the transaction. But the tenures of these non-combatants and the holders of fees are entirely distinct, and cannot here be entered on, further than to say that the agriculturist is, or was, the proprietor of the soil; the chief, solely of the tax levied thereon. But in Europe the alienation of the feudum paternum was not good without the consent of the kindred in the line of succession.[3.3.7] This would involve sub-infeudation and frerage, which I shall touch on distinctly, many of the troubles of these countries arising therefrom.

=Escheats and Forfeitures.=—The fiefs which were only to descend in lineal succession reverted to the crown on failure of heirs, as they could not be bequeathed by will. This answers equally well for England as for Mewar. I have witnessed escheats of this kind, and foresee more, if the pernicious practice of unlimited adoption do not prevent the Rana from regaining lands, alienated by himself at periods of contention. Forfeitures for crimes must, of course, occur, and these are partial or entire, according to the delinquency.

In Marwar, at this moment, nearly all the representatives of the great fiefs of that country are exiles from their homes: a distant branch of the same family, the prince of Idar, would have adopted a similar line of conduct but for a timely check from the hand of benevolence.[3.3.8]

There is, or rather was, a class of lands in Mewar appended to the crown, of which it bestowed life-rents on men of merit. These were termed Chhorutar, and were given and taken back, as the name implies; in contradistinction to grants which, though originating in good behaviour, not only continued for life but descended in perpetuity. Such places are still so marked in the rent-roll, but they are seldom applied to the proper purpose.

=Aids.=—Aids, implying ‘free gifts,’ or ‘benevolences,’ as they were termed in a European code, are well known. The barar (war-tax) is well understood in Mewar, and is levied on many occasions for the necessities of the prince or the head of a clan. It is a curious fact, that the dasaundh, or ‘tenth,’ in Mewar, as in Europe, was the [161] stated sum to be levied in periods of emergency or danger. On the marriage of the daughters of the prince, a benevolence or contribution was always levied: this varied. A few years ago, when two daughters and a granddaughter were married to the princes of Jaisalmer, Bikaner, and Kishangarh, a schedule of one-sixth, to portion the three, was made out; but it did not realize above an eighth. In this aid the civil officers of government contribute equally with the others. It is a point of honour with all to see their sovereign’s daughters married, and for once the contribution merited the name of benevolence. But it is not levied solely from the coffers of the rich; by the chiefs it is exacted of their tenantry of all classes, who, of course, wish such subjects of rejoicing to be of as rare occurrence as possible.

“These feudal aids are deserving of our notice as the commencement of taxation, of which they long answered the purpose, till the craving necessities and covetous policy of kings established for them more durable and onerous burthens.”[3.3.9]

The great chiefs, it may be assumed, were not backward, on like occasions, to follow such examples, but these gifts were more voluntary. Of the details of aids in France we find enumerated, “paying the relief of the suzerain on taking possession of his lands”;[3.3.10] and by Magna Charta our barons could levy them on the following counts: to make the baron’s eldest son a knight, to marry his eldest daughter, or to redeem his person from captivity. The latter is also one occasion for the demand in all these countries. The chief is frequently made prisoner in their predatory invasions, and carried off as a hostage for the payment of a war contribution. Everything disposable is often got rid of on an occasion of this kind. Cœur de Lion would not have remained so long in the dungeons of Austria had his subjects been Rajputs. In Amber the most extensive benevolence, or barar,[3.3.11] is on the marriage of the Rajkumar, or heir apparent.

=Wardship.=—This does exist, to foster the infant vassal during minority; but often terminating, as in the system of Europe, in the nefarious act of defrauding a helpless infant, to the pecuniary benefit of some court favourite. It is accordingly [162] here undertaken occasionally by the head of the clan; but two strong recent instances brought the dark ages, and the purchase of wardships for the purpose of spoliation, to mind. The first was in the Deogarh chief obtaining by bribe the entire management of the lands of Sangramgarh, on pretence of improving them for the infant, Nahar Singh, whose father was incapacitated by derangement. Nahar was a junior branch of the clan Sangawat, a subdivision of the Chondawat clan, both Sesodias of the Rana’s blood. The object, at the time, was to unite them to Deogarh, though he pleaded duty as head of the clan. His nomination of young Nahar as his own heir gives a colouring of truth to his intentions; and he succeeded, though there were nearer of kin, who were set aside (at the wish of the vassals of Deogarh and with the concurrence of the sovereign) as unfit to head them or serve him.

Another instance of the danger of permitting wardships, particularly where the guardian is the superior in clanship and kindred, is exemplified in the Kalyanpur estate in Mewar. That property had been derived from the crown only two generations back, and was of the annual value of ten thousand rupees. The mother having little interest at court, the Salumbar chief, by bribery and intrigue, upon paying a fine of about one year’s rent, obtained possession—ostensibly to guard the infant’s rights; but the falsehood of this motive was soon apparent. There were duties to perform on holding it which were not thought of. It was a frontier post, and a place of rendezvous for the quotas to defend that border from the incursions of the wild tribes of the south-west. The Salumbar chief, being always deficient in the quota for his own estate, was not likely to be very zealous in his muster-roll for his ward’s, and complaints were made which threatened a change. The chief of Chawand was talked of as one who would provide for the widow and minor, who could not perform the duties of defence.

The sovereign himself often assumes the guardianship of minors; but the mother is generally considered the most proper guardian for her infant son. All others may have interests of their own; she can be actuated by his welfare alone. Custom, therefore, constitutes her the guardian; and with the assistance of the elders of the family, she rears and educates the young chief till he is fit to be girded with the sword [163].[3.3.12]

The Faujdar, or military manager, who frequently regulates the household as well as the subdivisions of the estate, is seldom of the kin or clan of the chief: a wise regulation, the omission of which has been known to produce, in these maires du palais on a small scale, the same results as will be described in the larger. This officer, and the civil functionary who transacts all the pecuniary concerns of the estate, with the mother and her family, are always considered to be the proper guardians of the minor. ‘Blood which could not inherit,’ was the requisite for a guardian in Europe,[3.3.13] as here; and when neglected, the results are in both cases the same.

=Marriage.=—Refinement was too strong on the side of the Rajput to admit this incident, which, with that of wardship (both partial in Europe), illustrated the rapacity of the feudal aristocracy. Every chief, before he marries, makes it known to his sovereign. It is a compliment which is expected, and is besides attended with some advantage, as the prince invariably confers presents of honour, according to the station of the individual.

No Rajput can marry in his own clan; and the incident was originated in the Norman institutes, to prevent the vassal marrying out of his class, or amongst the enemies of his sovereign.[3.3.14]

Thus, setting aside marriage (which even in Europe was only partial and local) and alienation, four of the six chief incidents marking the feudal system are in force in Rajasthan, viz. relief, escheats, aids, and wardships.

=Duration of Grants.=—I shall now endeavour to combine all the knowledge I possess with regard to the objects attained in granting lands, the nature and durability of these grants, whether for life and renewable, or in perpetuity. I speak of the rules as understood in Mewar. We ought not to expect much system in what was devoid of regularity, even according to the old principles of European feudal law, which, though now reduced to some fixed principles, originated in, and was governed by, fortuitous circumstances; and after often changing its character, ended in despotism, oligarchy, or democracy.

=Classes of Landholders.=—There are two classes of Rajput landholders in Mewar, though the one greatly exceeds the other in number. One is the Girasia Thakur, or lord; the other the Bhumia. The Girasia chieftain is he who holds (giras) by grant (patta) of the [164] prince, for which he performs service with specified quotas at home and abroad, renewable at every lapse, when all the ceremonies of resumption,[3.3.15] the fine of relief,[3.3.16] and the investiture take place.

The Bhumia does not renew his grant, but holds on prescriptive possession. He succeeds without any fine, but pays a small annual quit-rent, and can be called upon for local service in the district which he inhabits for a certain period of time. He is the counterpart of the allodial proprietor of the European system, and the real zamindar of these principalities. Both have the same signification; from bhum and zamin, ‘land’: the latter is an exotic of Persian origin.

=Girāsia.=—Girasia is from giras, ‘a subsistence’; literally and familiarly ‘a mouthful.’ Whether it may have a like origin with the Celtic word gwas,[3.3.17] said to mean ‘a servant,’[3.3.18] and whence the word vassal is derived, I shall leave to etymologists to decide, who may trace the resemblance to the girasia, the vassal chieftain of the Rajputs. All the chartularies or pattas[3.3.19] commence, "To ... giras has been ordained."

=Whether Resumable.=—It has always been a subject of doubt whether grants were resumable at pleasure, or without some delinquency imputable to the vassal. Their duration in Europe was, at least, the life of the possessor, when they reverted[3.3.20] to the fisc. The whole of the ceremonies in cases of such lapse are decisive on this point in Mewar. The right to resume, therefore, may be presumed to exist; while the non-practice of it, the formalities of renewal being gone through, may be said to render the right a dead letter. But to prove its existence I need only mention, that so late as the reign of Rana Sangram,[3.3.21] the fiefs of Mewar were actually movable; and little more than a century and a half has passed since this practice ceased. Thus a Rathor would shift, with family, chattels, and retainers, from the north into the wilds of Chappan;[3.3.22] while the Saktawat relieved would occupy the plains at the foot of the Aravalli;[3.3.23] or a Chondawat would exchange his [165] abode on the banks of the Chambal with a Pramara or Chauhan from the table-mountain, the eastern boundary of Mewar.[3.3.24]

Since these exchanges were occurring, it is evident the fiefs (pattas) were not grants in perpetuity. This is just the state of the benefices in France at an early period, as described by Gibbon, following Montesquieu: “Les bénéfices étoient amovibles; bientôt ils les rendirent perpétuels, et enfin héréditaires.”[3.3.25] This is the precise gradation of fiefs in Mewar; movable, perpetual, and then hereditary. The sons were occasionally permitted to succeed their fathers;[3.3.26] an indulgence which easily grew into a right, though the crown had the indubitable reversion. It is not, however, impossible that these changes[3.3.27] were not of ancient authority, but arose from the policy of the times to prevent infidelity.

We ought to have a high opinion of princes who could produce an effect so powerful on the minds of a proud and turbulent nobility. The son was heir to the title and power over the vassals’ personals and movables, and to the allegiance of his father, but to nothing which could endanger that allegiance.

A proper apportioning and mixture of the different clans was another good result to prevent their combinations in powerful families, which gave effect to rebellion, and has tended more than external causes to the ruin which the State of Mewar exhibits.

=Nobility: Introduction of Foreign Stocks.=—Throughout the various gradations of its nobility, it was the original policy to introduce some who were foreign in country and blood. Chiefs of the Rathor, Chauhan, Pramara, Solanki, and Bhatti tribes were intermingled. Of these several were lineal descendants of the most ancient races of the kings of Delhi and Anhilwara Patan;[3.3.28] and from these, in order to preserve the purity of blood, the princes of Mewar took their wives, when the other princes of Hind assented to [166] the degradation of giving daughters in marriage to the emperors of Delhi. The princes of Mewar never yielded in this point, but preserved their ancient manners amidst all vicissitudes. In like manner did the nobles of the Rana’s blood take daughters from the same tribes; the interest of this foreign race was therefore strongly identified with the general welfare, and on all occasions of internal turmoil and rebellion they invariably supported their prince. But when these wise institutions were overlooked, when the great clans increased and congregated together, and the crown demesne was impoverished by prodigality, rebellions were fostered by Mahratta rapacity, which were little known during the lengthened paramount sway of the kings of Delhi. This foreign admixture will lead us to the discussion of the different kinds of grants: a difference, perhaps, more nominal than real, but exhibiting a distinction so wide as to imply grants resumable and irresumable.

=Kāla Pattas.=—It is elsewhere related that two great clans, descendants of the Ranas Rae Mall and Udai Singh, and their numerous scions, forming subdivisions with separate titles or patronymics, compose the chief vassalage of this country.

=Exogamy.=—Chondawat and Saktawat are the stock; the former is subdivided into ten, the latter into about six clans. Rajputs never intermarry with their own kin: the prohibition has no limit; it extends to the remotest degree. All these clans are resolvable into the generic term of ‘the race’ or Kula Sesodia. A Sesodia man and woman cannot unite in wedlock—all these are therefore of the blood royal; and the essayists on population would have had a fine field in these quarters a century ago, ere constant misery had thinned the country, to trace the numerous progeny of Chonda and Sakta in the Genesis[3.3.29] of Mewar. The Bhat’s genealogies would still, to a certain extent, afford the same means.

Descent gives a strength to the tenure of these tribes which the foreign nobles do not possess; for although, from all that has been said, it will be evident that a right of reversion and resumption existed (though seldom exercised, and never but in cases of crime), yet the foreigner had not this strength in the soil, even though of twenty generations’ duration. The epithet of kala patta, or ‘black grant,’ attaches to the foreign grant, and is admitted by the holder, from which the kinsman thinks himself exempt. It is virtually a grant resumable; nor can the possessors feel that security which the other widely affiliated aristocracies afford [167]. When, on a recent occasion, a revision of all the grants took place, the old ones being called in to be renewed under the sign-manual of the reigning prince, the minister himself visited the chief of Salumbar, the head of the Chondawats, at his residence at the capital, for this purpose. Having become possessed of several villages in the confusion of the times, a perusal of the grant would have been the means of detection; and on being urged to send to his estate for it, he replied, pointing to the palace, “My grant is in the foundation of that edifice”: an answer worthy of a descendant of Chonda, then only just of age. The expression marks the spirit which animates this people, and recalls to mind the well-known reply of our own Earl Warenne, on the very same occasion, to the quo warranto of Edward: “By their swords my ancestors obtained this land, and by mine will I maintain it.”

Hence it may be pronounced that a grant of an estate is for the life of the holder, with inheritance for his offspring in lineal descent or adoption, with the sanction of the prince, and resumable for crime or incapacity:[3.3.30] this reversion and power of resumption being marked by the usual ceremonies on each lapse of the grantee, of sequestration (zabti), of relief (nazarana), of homage and investiture of the heir. Those estates held by foreign nobles differ not in tenure; though, for the reasons specified, they have not the same grounds of security as the others, in whose welfare the whole body is interested, feeling the case to be their own: and their interests, certainly, have not been so consulted since the rebellions of S. 1822,[3.3.31] and subsequent years. Witness the Chauhans of Bedla and Kotharia (in the Udaipur valley), and the Pramar of the plateau of Mewar, all chiefs of the first rank.

The difficulty and danger of resuming an old-established grant in these countries are too great to be lightly risked. Though in all these estates there is a mixture of foreign Rajputs, yet the blood of the chief predominates; and these must have a leader of their own, or be incorporated in the estates of the nearest of kin. This increase might not be desirable for the crown, but the sub-vassals cannot be turned [168] adrift; a resumption therefore in these countries is widely felt, as it involves many. If crime or incapacity render it necessary, the prince inducts a new head of that blood; and it is their pride, as well as the prince’s interest, that a proper choice should be made. If, as has often occurred, the title be abolished, the sub-vassals retain their sub-infeudations, and become attached to the crown.

Many estates were obtained, during periods of external commotion, by threats, combination, or the avarice of the prince—his short-sighted policy, or that of his ministers—which have been remedied in the late reorganization of Mewar; where, by retrograding half a century, and bringing matters as near as possible to the period preceding civil dissension, they have advanced at least a century towards order.

=Bhūmia, the Allodial Proprietor.=—It is stated in the historical annals of this country that the ancient clans, prior to Sanga Rana,[3.3.32] had ceased, on the rising greatness of the subsequent new division of clans, to hold the higher grades of rank; and had, in fact, merged into the general military landed proprietors of this country under the term bhumia, a most expressive and comprehensive name, importing absolute identity with the soil: bhum meaning ‘land,’ and being far more expressive than the newfangled word, unknown to Hindu India, of zamindar, the ‘land-holder’ of Muhammadan growth. These Bhumias, the scions of the earliest princes, are to be met with in various parts of Mewar; though only in those of high antiquity, where they were defended from oppression by the rocks and wilds in which they obtained a footing; as in Kumbhalmer, the wilds of Chappan, or plains of Mandalgarh, long under the kings, and where their agricultural pursuits maintained them.

Their clannish appellations, Kumbhawat, Lunawat, and Ranawat, distinctly show from what stem and when they branched off; and as they ceased to be of sufficient importance to visit the court on the new and continually extending ramifications, they took to the plough. But while they disdained not to derive a subsistence from labouring as husbandmen, they never abandoned their arms; and the Bhumia, amid the crags of the alpine Aravalli where he pastures his cattle or cultivates his fields, preserves the erect mien and proud spirit of his ancestors, with more tractability, and less arrogance and folly, than his more [169] courtly but now widely separated brethren, who often make a jest of his industrious but less refined qualifications.[3.3.33] Some of these yet possess entire villages, which are subject to the payment of a small quit-rent: they also constitute a local militia, to be called in by the governor of the district, but for which service they are entitled to rations or peti.[3.3.34] These, the allodial[3.3.35] tenantry of our feudal system, form a considerable body in many districts, armed with matchlock, sword, and shield. In Mandalgarh, when their own interests and the prince’s unite (though the rapacity of governors, pupils of the Mahratta and other predatory schools, have disgusted these independents), four thousand Bhumias could be collected. They held and maintained without support the important fortress of that district, during half a century of turmoil, for their prince. Mandalgarh is the largest district of Mewar, and in its three hundred and sixty towns and villages many specimens of ancient usage may be found. The Solanki held largely here in ancient days, and the descendant of the princes of Patan still retains his Bhum and title of Rao.[3.3.36]

=Feudal Militia.=—All this feudal militia pay a quit-rent to the crown, and perform local but limited service on the frontier garrison; and upon invasion,[3.3.37] when the Kher is called out, the whole are at the disposal of the prince on furnishing rations only. They assert that they ought not to pay this quit-rent and perform service also; but this may be doubted, since the sum is so small. To elude it, they often performed service under some powerful chief, where faction or court interest [170] caused it to be winked at. To serve without a patta is the great object of ambition. Ma ka bhum, ‘my land,’ in their Doric tongue, is a favourite phrase.[3.3.38]

Circumstances have concurred to produce a resemblance even to the refined fiction of giving up their allodial property to have it conferred as a fief. But in candour it should be stated, that the only instances were caused by the desire of being revenged on the immediate superiors of the vassals. The Rathor chief of Dabla held of his superior, the Raja of Banera, three considerable places included in the grant of Banera. He paid homage, an annual quit-rent, was bound to attend him personally to court, and to furnish thirty-five horse in case of an invasion. During the troubles, though perfectly equal to their performance, he was remiss in all these duties. His chief, with returning peace, desired to enforce the return to ancient customs, and his rights so long withheld; but the Rathor had felt the sweets of entire independence, and refused to attend his summons. To the warrant he replied, “his head and Dabla were together”; and he would neither pay the quit-rent nor attend his court. This refractory spirit was reported to the Rana; and it ended in Dabla being added to the fisc, and the chief’s holding the rest as a vassal of the Rana, but only to perform local service. There are many other petty free proprietors on the Banera estate, holding from small portions of land to small villages; but the service is limited and local in order to swell the chief’s miniature court. If they accompany him, he must find rations for them and their steeds.

So cherished is this tenure of Bhum, that the greatest chiefs are always solicitous to obtain it, even in the villages wholly dependent on their authority: a decided proof of its durability above common grants. The various modes in which it is acquired, and the precise technicalities which distinguished its tenure, as well as the privileges attached to it, are fully developed in translations of different deeds on the subject [171].[3.3.39]

=Rajas of Banera and Shāhpura.=—We have also, amongst the nobility of Mewar, two who hold the independent title of prince or raja, one of whom is by far too powerful for a subject. These are the Rajas of Banera and Shahpura, both of the blood royal. The ancestor of the first was the twin-brother of Rana Jai Singh; the other, a Ranawat, branched off from Rana Udai Singh.

They have their grants renewed, and receive the khilat of investiture; but they pay no relief, and are exempt from all but personal attendance at their prince’s court, and the local service of the district in which their estates are situated. They have hitherto paid but little attention to their duties, but this defect arose out of the times. These lands lying most exposed to the imperial headquarters at Ajmer, they were compelled to bend to circumstances, and the kings were glad to confer rank and honour on such near relations of the Rana’s house. He bestowed on them the titles of Raja, and added to the Shahpura chief’s patrimony a large estate in Ajmer, which he now holds direct of the British Government, on payment of an annual tribute.

=Form and Substance of Grant.=—To give a proper idea of the variety of items forming these chartularies, I append several[3.3.40] which exhibit the rights, privileges, and honours, as well as the sources of income, while they also record the terms on which they are granted. Many royalties have been alienated in modern times by the thoughtless prodigality of the princes; even the grand mark of vassalage, the fine of relief, has been forgiven to one or two individuals; portions of transit duties, tolls on ferries, and other seignorial rights; coining copper currency; exactions of every kind, from the levy of toll for night protection of merchandise and for the repairs of fortifications, to the share of the depredations of the common robber, will sufficiently show the demoralization of the country.

=Division of Pattas, or Sub-infeudation.=—Many years ago, when the similarity of the systems first struck my attention, I took one of the grants or pattas of a great vassal of Jaipur, and dissected it in all its minutiae, with the aid of a very competent authority who had resided as one of the managers of the chief. This document, in which the subdivision of the whole clan is detailed, materially aided me in developing the system [172].

The court and the household economy of a great chieftain is a miniature representation of the sovereign’s: the same officers, from the pardhan, or minister, to the cup-bearer (paniyari), as well as the same domestic arrangements. He must have his shish-mahall,[3.3.41] his bari-mahall,[3.3.42] and his mandir,[3.3.43] like his prince. He enters the dari-sala, or carpet hall, the minstrel[3.3.44] preceding him rehearsing the praises of his family; and he takes his seat on his throne, while the assembled retainers, marshalled in lines on the right and left, simultaneously exclaim, “Health to our chief!” which salutation he returns by bowing to all as he passes them. When he is seated, at a given signal they all follow the example, and shield rattles against shield as they wedge into their places.

We have neither the kiss nor individual oaths of fidelity administered. It is sufficient, when a chief succeeds to his patrimony, that his ‘an’[3.3.45] is proclaimed within his sim or boundary. Allegiance is as hereditary as the land: “I am your child; my head and sword are yours, my service is at your command.” It is a rare thing for a Rajput to betray his Thakur, while the instances of self-devotion for him are innumerable: many will be seen interspersed in these papers. Base desertion, to their honour be it said, is little known, and known only to be execrated. Fidelity to the chief, Swamidharma, is the climax of all the virtues. The Rajput is taught from his infancy, in the song of the bard, to regard it as the source of honour here, and of happiness hereafter. The poet Chand abounds with episodes on the duty and beauty of fidelity; nor does it require a very fervid imagination to picture the affections which such a life is calculated to promote, when the chief is possessed of the qualities to call them forth. At the chase his vassals attend him: in the covert of the forest, the ground their social board, they eat their repast together, from the venison or wild boar furnished by the sport of the day; nor is the cup neglected. They are familiarly admitted at all times to his presence, and accompany him to the court of their mutual sovereign. In short, they are inseparable.[3.3.46]

Their having retained so much of their ancient manners and customs, during [173] centuries of misery and oppression, is the best evidence that those customs were riveted to their very souls. The Rajput of character is a being of the most acute sensibility; where honour is concerned, the most trivial omission is often ignorantly construed into an affront.

=Provision for Chief’s Relations.=—In all the large estates the chief must provide for his sons or brothers, according to his means and the number of immediate descendants. In an estate of sixty to eighty thousand rupees of annual rent, the second brother might have a village of three to five thousand of rent. This is his patrimony (bapota): he besides pushes his fortune at the court of his sovereign or abroad. Juniors share in proportion. These again subdivide, and have their little circle of dependents. Each new family is known by the name of the founder conjoined to that of his father and tribe: Man Meghsinghgot Saktawat; that is, ‘Man, family of Megh, tribe Saktawat.’ The subdivisions descend to the lowest denomination.

=Charsa.=—Charsa, a ‘hide of land,’ or about sufficient to furnish an equipped cavalier. It is a singular coincidence that the term for the lowest subdivision of land for military service should be the same amongst the Rajputs as in the English system. Besides being similar in name, it nearly corresponds in actual quantity. From the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon government the land was divided into hides, each comprehending what could be cultivated by a single plough.[3.3.47] Four hides constituted one knight’s fee,[3.3.48] which is stated to be about forty acres. The Charsa may have from twenty-five to thirty bighas; which are equal to about ten acres—the Saxon hide.

For what these minor vassals held to be their rights on the great pattawats, the reader is again referred to the letter of protest of the inferior pattawats of the Deogarh estate—it may aid his judgement; and it is curious to observe how nearly the subject of their prayer to the sovereign corresponded with the edict of Conrad of Italy,[3.3.49] in the year 1037, which originated in disagreements between the great lords and their vassals on the subject of sub-infeudations [174].

The extent to which the subdivision before mentioned is carried in some of the Rajput States, is ruinous to the protection and general welfare of the country. It is pursued in some parts till there is actually nothing left sufficiently large to share, or to furnish subsistence for one individual: consequently a great deprivation of services to the State ensues. But this does not prevail so much in the larger principalities as in the isolated tributary Thakurats or lordships scattered over the country; as amongst the Jarejas of Cutch, the tribes in Kathiawar, and the small independencies of Gujarat bordering on the greater western Rajput States. This error in policy requires to be checked by supreme authority, as it was in England by Magna Charta,[3.3.50] when the barons of those days took such precautions to secure their own seignorial rights.

=Brotherhood.=—The system in these countries of minute subdivision of fiefs is termed bhayyad,[3.3.51] or brotherhood, synonymous to the tenure by frerage of France, but styled only an approximation to sub-infeudation.[3.3.52] "Give me my bat (share)," says the Rajput, when he attains to man’s estate, ‘the bat of the bhayyad,’ the portion of the frerage; and thus they go on clipping and paring till all are impoverished. The ‘customs’ of France[3.3.53] preserved the dignities of families and the indivisibility of a feudal homage, without exposing the younger sons of a gentleman to beggary and dependence. It would be a great national benefit if some means could be found to limit this subdivision, but it is an evil difficult of remedy. The divisibility of the Cutch and Kathiawar frerage, carried to the most destructive extent, is productive of litigation, crime, and misery. Where it has proper limits it is useful; but though the idea of each rood supporting its man is very poetical, it does not and cannot answer in practice. Its limit in Mewar we would not undertake to assert, but the vassals are careful not to let it become too small; they send the extra numbers to seek their fortunes abroad. In this custom, and the difficulty of finding daejas, or dowers, for their daughters, we have the two chief causes of infanticide amongst the Rajputs, which horrible practice was not always confined to the female.

The author of the Middle Ages exemplifies ingeniously the advantages of sub-[175]infeudation, by the instance of two persons holding one knight’s fee; and as the lord was entitled to the service of one for forty days, he could commute it for the joint service of the two for twenty days each. He even erects as a maxim on it, that “whatever opposition was made to the rights of sub-infeudation or frerage, would indicate decay in the military character, the living principle of feudal tenure”;[3.3.54] which remark may be just where proper limitation exists, before it reaches that extent when the impoverished vassal would descend to mend his shoes instead of his shield. Primogeniture is the corner-stone of feudality, but this unrestricted sub-infeudation would soon destroy it.[3.3.55] It is strong in these States; its rights were first introduced by the Normans from Scandinavia. But more will appear on this subject and its technicalities, in the personal narrative of the author.

-----

Footnote 3.3.1:

“Plusieurs possesseurs de fiefs, ayant voulu en laisser perpétuellement la propriété à leurs descendans, prirent des arrangemens avec leur Seigneur; et, outre ce qu’ils donnèrent pour faire le marché, ils s’engagèrent, eux et leur postérité, à abandonner pendant une année, au Seigneur, la jouissance entière du fief, chaque fois que le dit fief changerait de main. C’est ce qui forma le droit de relief. Quand un gentilhomme avait dérogé, il pouvait effacer cette tache moyennant finances, et ce qu’il payait s’appelait relief, il recevait pour quittance des lettres de relief ou de réhabilitation” (Art. ‘Relief,’ Dict. de l’anc. Régime).

Footnote 3.3.2:

Namely, “the heir or heirs of an earl, for an entire earldom, one hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a baron, for an entire barony, one hundred marks; the heir or heirs of a knight, for a whole knight’s fee, one hundred shillings at most” (Art. III. Magna Charta).

Footnote 3.3.3:

“Le droit de rachat devoit se payer à chaque mutation d’héritier, et se paya même d’abord en ligne directe.—La coutume la plus générale l’avait fixé à une année du revenue” (L’Esprit des Loix, livre xxxi. chap. xxxiii.)

Footnote 3.3.4:

That symbolic species of investiture denominated ‘improper investiture,’ the delivery of a turf, stone, and wand, has its analogies amongst the mountaineers of the Aravalli. The old baron of Badnor, when the Mer villages were reduced, was clamorous about his feudal rights over those wild people. It was but the point of honour. From one he had a hare, from another a bullock, and so low as a pair of sticks which they use on the festivals of the Holi. These marks of vassalage come under the head of ‘petite serjanteri’ (petit serjeantry) in the feudal system of Europe (see Art. XLI. of Magna Charta).

Footnote 3.3.5:

["All Rājput Jāgīrdārs, or holders of assigned lands, pay nazarāna on the accession of a new Mahārāna, and on certain other occasions, while most of them pay a fine called Kaid [‘imprisonment’] on succeeding to these estates. On the death of a Rājput Jāgīrdār, his estates immediately revert to the Darbār, and so remain until his son or successor is recognized by the Mahārāna, when the grant is renewed, and a fresh lease taken" (Erskine ii. A. 71).]

Footnote 3.3.6:

Jareja is the title of the Rajput race in Cutch; they are descendants of the Yadus, and claim from Krishna. In early ages they inhabited the tracts on the Indus and in Seistan [p. 102 above].

Footnote 3.3.7:

Wright on Tenures, apud Hallam, vol. i. p. 185.

Footnote 3.3.8:

The Hon. Mr. Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay. As we prevented the spoliation of Idar by the predatory powers, we are but right in seeing that the head does not become the spoliator himself, and make these brave men “wish any change but that which we have given them.”

Footnote 3.3.9:

Hallam.

Footnote 3.3.10:

Ducange, apud Hallam.

Footnote 3.3.11:

Barar is the generic name for taxation.

Footnote 3.3.12:

The charter of Henry I. promises the custody of heirs to the mother or next of kin (Hallam, vol. ii. p. 429).

Footnote 3.3.13:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 190.

Footnote 3.3.14:

[The rule of tribal exogamy, whatever may be its origin, is much more primitive than the author supposed (Sir J. G. Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, i. 54 ff.).]

Footnote 3.3.15:

Zabti, ‘sequestration.’

Footnote 3.3.16:

Nazarana.

Footnote 3.3.17:

It might not be unworthy of research to trace many words common to the Hindu and the Celt; or to inquire whether the Kimbri, the Juts or Getae, the Sakasena, the Chatti of the Elbe and Cimbric Chersonese, and the ancient Britons, did not bring their terms with their bards and vates (the Bhats and Bardais) from the highland of Scythia east of the Caspian, which originated the nations common to both, improved beyond the Wolga and the Indus [?].

Footnote 3.3.18:

Hallam, vol. i. 155. [Welsh, Cornish gwas, ‘a servant.’]

Footnote 3.3.19:

Patta, a ‘patent’ or ‘grant’; Pattāwat, ‘holder of the fief or grant.’

Footnote 3.3.20:

Montesquieu, chaps. xxv., liv., xxxi.

Footnote 3.3.21:

Ten generations ago. [At present an estate is not liable to confiscation save for some gross political offence (Erskine ii. A. 71).]

Footnote 3.3.22:

The mountainous and woody region to the south-west, dividing Mewar from Gujarat.

Footnote 3.3.23:

The grand chain dividing the western from the central States of Rajasthan.

Footnote 3.3.24:

Such changes were triennial; and, as I have heard the prince himself say, so interwoven with their customs was this rule that it caused no dissatisfaction; but of this we may be allowed at least to doubt. It was a perfect check to the imbibing of local attachment; and the prohibition against erecting forts for refuge or defiance, prevented its growth if acquired. It produced the object intended, obedience to the prince, and unity against the restless Mogul. Perhaps to these institutions it is owing that Mewar alone never was conquered by the kings during the protracted struggle of seven centuries; though at length worried and worn out, her power expired with theirs, and predatory spoliation completed her ruin.

Footnote 3.3.25:

Gibbon, Misc. Works, vol. iii. p. 189; Sur le système féodal surtout en France.

Footnote 3.3.26:

Hallam, quoting Gregory of Tours; the picture drawn in A.D. 595.

Footnote 3.3.27:

"Fiefs had partially become hereditary towards the end of the first race: in these days they had not the idea of an ‘unalienable fief.’" Montesquieu, vol. ii. p. 431. The historian of the Middle Ages doubts if ever they were resumable at pleasure, unless from delinquency.

Footnote 3.3.28:

The Nahlwara of D’Anville and the Arabian travellers of the eighth century, the capital of the Balhara kings.

Footnote 3.3.29:

Janam, ‘birth’; es, ‘lord’ or ‘man.’ [See p. 24 above.]

Footnote 3.3.30:

“La loi des Lombards oppose les bénéfices à la propriété. Les historiens, les formules, les codes des différens peuples barbares, tous les monumens qui nous restent, sont unanimes. Enfin, ceux qui ont écrit le livre des fiefs, nous apprennent, que d’abord les Seigneurs purent les ôter à leur volonté, qu’ensuite ils les assurèrent pour un an, et après les donnèrent pour la vie” (L’Esprit des Loix, chap. xvi. livre 30).

Footnote 3.3.31:

A.D. 1766.

Footnote 3.3.32:

Contemporary and opponent of Sultan Babur.

Footnote 3.3.33:

Many of them taking wives from the degraded but aboriginal races in their neighbouring retreats, have begot a mixed progeny, who, in describing themselves, unite the tribes of father and mother.

Footnote 3.3.34:

Literally, ‘a belly-full.’

Footnote 3.3.35:

Allodial property is defined (Hallam, vol. i. p. 144) as “land which had descended by inheritance, subject to no burthen but public defence. It passed to all the children equally; in failure of children, to the nearest kindred.” Thus it is strictly the Miras or Bhum of the Rajputs: inheritance, patrimony. In Mewar it is divisible to a certain extent; but in Cutch, to infinity: and is liable only to local defence. The holder of bham calls it his Adyapi, i.e. of old, by prescriptive right; not by written deed. Montesquieu, describing the conversion of allodial estates into fiefs, says, “These lands were held by Romans or Franks (i.e. freemen) not the king’s vassals,” viz. lands exterior and anterior to the monarchy. We have Rathor, Solanki, and other tribes, now holding bhum in various districts, whose ancestors were conquered by the Sesodias, but left in possession of small portions insufficient to cause jealousy. Some of these may be said to have converted their lands into fiefs, as the Chauhan lord of ——, who served the Salumbar chief.

Footnote 3.3.36:

Amidst ruins overgrown with forest, I discovered on two tables of stone the genealogical history of this branch, which was of considerable use in elucidating that of Anhilwara, and which corresponded so well with the genealogies of a decayed bard of the family, who travelled the country for a subsistence, that I feel assured they formerly made good use of these marble records.

Footnote 3.3.37:

See Appendix, Nos. XVI. and XVII.

Footnote 3.3.38:

I was intimately acquainted with, and much esteemed, many of these Bhumia chiefs—from my friend Paharji (the rock), Ranawat of Amargarh, to the Kumbhawat of Sesoda on the highest point, lord of the pass of the Aravalli; and even the mountain lion, Dungar Singh who bore amongst us, from his old raids, the familiar title of Roderic Dhu. In each situation I have had my tents filled with them; and it was one of the greatest pleasures I ever experienced, after I had taken my leave of them, perhaps for ever, crossed the frontiers of Mewar, and encamped in the dreary pass between it and Marwar, to find that a body of them had been my guards during the night. This is one of the many pleasing recollections of the past. Fortunately for our happiness, the mind admits their preponderance over opposite feelings. I had much to do in aiding the restoration of their past condition; leaving, I believe, as few traces of error in the mode as could be expected, where so many conflicting interests were to be reconciled.

Footnote 3.3.39:

See Appendix.

Footnote 3.3.40:

See Appendix, Nos. IV., V., VI.

Footnote 3.3.41:

Mirror apartments. [To meet the demand for the glass mosaics seen in the palaces of Rājputāna, the Panjab, and Burma, the industry of blowing glass globes, silvered inside, came into existence. The globes are broken into fragments, and set in cement (in Burma in laquer), and used to decorate the walls (Watt, Comm. Prod. 563, 717 f.). There is a Shīsh Mahall in the Agra Fort.]

Footnote 3.3.42:

Gardens on the terrace within the palace.

Footnote 3.3.43:

Private temple of worship.

Footnote 3.3.44:

Dholi.

Footnote 3.3.45:

An is the oath of allegiance. Three things in Mewar are royalties a subject cannot meddle with: 1, An, or oath of allegiance; 2, Dan, or transit dues on commerce; 3, Khan, or mines of the precious metals.

Footnote 3.3.46:

I rather describe what they were, than what they are. Contentions and poverty have weakened their sympathies and affections; but the mind of philanthropy must hope that they will again become what they have been.

Footnote 3.3.47:

Millar’s Historical View of the English Government, p. 85. [See p. 156 above.]

Footnote 3.3.48:

Hume, History of England, Appendix II. vol. ii. p. 291.

Footnote 3.3.49:

“1. That no man should be deprived of his fief, whether held of the emperor or mesne lord, but by the laws of the empire and judgement of his peers. 2. That from such judgement the vassal might appeal to his sovereign. 3. That fiefs should be inherited by sons and their children, or in their failure by brothers, provided they were feuda paterna, such as had descended from the father. 4. That the lord should not alienate the fief of his vassal without his consent.”

Footnote 3.3.50:

By the revised statute, Quia emptores, of Edw. I., which forbids it in excess, under penalty of forfeiture (Hallam, vol. i. p. 184).

Footnote 3.3.51:

Bhayyad, ‘frerage’.

Footnote 3.3.52:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 186.

Footnote 3.3.53:

Ibid.

Footnote 3.3.54:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 186.

Footnote 3.3.55:

“Le droit d’aînesse a causé, pendant l’existence du régime féodal, une multitude de guerres et de procès. Notre histoire nous présente, à chaque page, des cadets réduits à la mendicité, se livrant à toutes sortes de brigandages pour réparer les torts de la fortune; des aînés, refusant la légitime à leurs frères; des cadets, assassinant leur aîné pour lui succéder, etc.” (see article, ‘Droit d’aînesse,’ Dict. de l’Ancien Régime).

-----

Chapter 4

=Rakhwāli.=—I now proceed to another point of striking resemblance between the systems of the east and wrest, arising from the same causes—the unsettled state of society, and the deficiency of paramount protection. It is here called rakhwali,[3.4.1] or ‘preservation’; the salvamenta of Europe.[3.4.2] To a certain degree it always existed in these States; but the interminable predatory warfare of the last half century increased it to so frightful an extent that superior authority was required to redeem the abuses it had occasioned. It originated in the necessity of protection; and the modes of obtaining it, as well as the compensation [176] when obtained, were various. It often consisted of money or kind on the reaping of each harvest: sometimes in a multiplicity of petty privileges and advantages, but the chief object was to obtain bhum: and here we have one solution of the constituted bhumia,[3.4.3] assimilating, as observed, to the allodial proprietor. Bhum thus obtained is irrevocable; and in the eager anxiety for its acquisition we have another decided proof of every other kind of tenure being deemed resumable by the crown.

It was not unfrequent that application for protection was made to the nearest chief by the tenants of the fisc; a course eventually sanctioned by the Government, which could not refuse assent where it could not protect. Here, then, we revert to first principles; and ‘seignorial rights’ may be forfeited, when they cease to yield that which ought to have originated them, viz. benefit to the community. Personal service at stated periods, to aid in the agricultural[3.4.4] economy of the protector, was sometimes stipulated, when the husbandmen were to find implements and cattle,[3.4.5] and to attend whenever ordered. The protected calls the chief ‘patron’; and the condition may not unaptly be compared to that of personal commendation,[3.4.6] like salvamenta, founded on the disturbed state of society. But what originated thus was often continued and multiplied by avarice, and the spirit of rapine, which disgraced the Rajput of the last half century, though he had abundance of apologies for ‘scouring the country.’ But all salvamenta and other marks of vassalage, obtained during these times of desolation, were annulled in the settlement which took place between the Rana and his chiefs, in A.D. 1818[3.4.7] [177].

But the crown itself, by some singular proceeding, possesses, or did possess, according to the Patta Bahi, or Book of Grants, considerable salvamenta right, especially in the districts between the new and ancient capitals, in sums of from twenty to one hundred rupees in separate villages.

To such an extent has this rakhwali[3.4.8] been carried when protection was desired, that whole communities have ventured their liberty, and become, if not slaves, yet nearly approaching the condition of slaves, to the protector. But no common visitation ever leads to an evil of this magnitude. I mention the fact merely to show that it does exist; and we may infer that the chief, who has become the arbiter of the lives and fortunes of his followers, must have obtained this power by devoting all to their protection. The term thus originated, and probably now (with many others) written for the first time in English letters in this sense, is Basai.

=Basāi, Slavery.=—Slavery is to be found in successive stages of society of Europe, but we have no parallel in Rajwara (at least in name) to the agricultural serfs and villains of Europe; nor is there any intermediate term denoting a species of slavery between the Gola[3.4.9] of the Hindu chief’s household and the free Rajput but the singular one of basai, which must be explained, since it cannot be translated. This class approximates closely to the tributarii and coloni, perhaps to the servi, of the Salic Franks, “who were cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their master’s estate, though not destitute of property or civil rights.”[3.4.10] Precisely the condition of the cultivator in Haraoti who now tills for a taskmaster the fields he formerly owned, degraded to the name of hali,[3.4.11] a ploughman.

“When small proprietors,” says Hallam, “lost their lands by mere rapine, we may believe their liberty was hardly less endangered.” The hali of Haraoti knows the bitter truth of this inference, which applies to the subject immediately before us, [178] the basai. The portion of liberty the latter has parted with, was not originally lost through compulsion on the part of the protector, but from external violence, which made this desperate remedy necessary. Very different from the hali of Kotah, who is servile though without the title—a serf in condition but without the patrimony; compelled to labour for subsistence on the land he once owned; chained to it by the double tie of debt and strict police; and if flight were practicable, the impossibility of bettering his condition from the anarchy around would render it unavailing. This is not the practice under the patriarchal native government, which, with all its faults, retains the old links of society, with its redeeming sympathies; but springs from a maire du palais, who pursued an unfeeling and mistaken policy towards this class of society till of late years. Mistaken ambition was the origin of the evil; he saw his error, and remedied it in time to prevent further mischief to the State. This octogenarian ruler, Zalim Singh of Kotah, is too much of a philosopher and politician to let passion overcome his interests and reputation; and we owe to the greatest despot a State ever had the only regular charter which at present exists in Rajasthan, investing a corporate body with the election of their own magistrates and the making of their own laws, subject only to confirmation; with all the privileges which marked in the outset the foundation of the free cities of Europe, and that of boroughs in England.

It is true that, in detached documents, we see the spirit of these institutions existing in Mewar, and it is as much a matter of speculation, whether this wise ruler promulgated this novelty as a trap for good opinions, or from policy and foresight alone: aware, when all around him was improving, from the shackles of restraint being cast aside, that his retention of them must be hurtful to himself. Liberality in this exigence answered the previous purpose of extortion. His system, even then, was good by comparison; all around was rapine, save in the little oasis kept verdant by his skill, where he permitted no other oppression than his own.

This charter is appended[3.4.12] as a curiosity in legislation, being given thirty years ago. Another, for the agriculturists’ protection, was set up in A.D. 1821. No human being prompted either; though the latter is modelled from the proceedings in Mewar, and may have been intended, as before observed, to entrap applause.

In every district of Haraoti the stone was raised to record this ordinance [179].

=Gola—Das= (Slaves).—Famine in these regions is the great cause of loss of liberty: thousands were sold in the last great famine. The predatory system of the Pindaris and mountain tribes aided to keep it up. Here, as amongst the Franks, freedom is derived through the mother. The offspring of a goli[3.4.13] or dasi must be a slave. Hence the great number of golas in Rajput families, whose illegitimate offspring are still adorned in Mewar, as our Saxon slaves were of old, with a silver ring round the left ankle, instead of the neck. They are well treated, and are often amongst the best of the military retainers;[3.4.14] but are generally esteemed in proportion to the quality of the mother, whether Rajputni, Muslim, or of the degraded tribes: they hold confidential places about the chiefs of whose blood they are. The great-grandfather of the late chief of Deogarh used to appear at court with three hundred golas[3.4.15] on horseback in his train, the sons of Rajputs, each with a gold ring round his ankle: men whose lives were his own. This chief could then head two thousand retainers, his own vassals.[3.4.16]

=Slavery due to Gambling.=—Tacitus[3.4.17] describes the baneful effects of gambling amongst the German tribes, as involving personal liberty; their becoming slaves, and being subsequently sold by the winner. The Rajput’s passion for gaming, as remarked in the history of the tribes, is strong; and we can revert to periods long anterior to Tacitus, and perhaps before the woods of Germany were peopled with the worshippers of Tuisto, for the antiquity of this vice amongst the Rajput warriors, presenting a highly interesting picture of its pernicious effects. Yudhishthira having staked and lost the throne of India to Duryodhana, to recover it hazarded the beautiful and virtuous Draupadi. By the loaded dice of his foes she became the goli of the Kaurava, who, triumphing in his pride, would have unveiled her in public; but the deity presiding over female modesty preserved her from the rude gaze of the assembled host; the miraculous scarf lengthened as he withdrew it, till tired, he desisted at the instance of superior interposition. Yudhishthira, not satisfied with this, staked twelve years of his personal liberty, and became an exile from the haunts of Kalindi, a wanderer in the wilds skirting the distant ocean [180].

The illegitimate sons of the Rana are called das, literally ‘slave’: they have no rank, though they are liberally provided for. Basai signifies ‘acquired slavery’; in contradistinction to gola, ‘an hereditary slave.’ The gola can only marry a goli: the lowest Rajput would refuse his daughter to a son of the Rana of this kind. The basai can redeem[3.4.18] his liberty: the gola has no wish to do so, because he could not improve his condition nor overcome his natural defects. To the basai nothing dishonourable attaches: the class retain their employments and caste, and are confined to no occupation, but it must be exercised with the chief’s sanction. Individuals reclaimed from captivity, in gratitude have given up their liberty: communities, when this or greater evils threatened, have done the same for protection of their lives, religion, and honour. Instances exist of the population of towns being in this situation. The greater part of the inhabitants of the estate of Bijolli are the basai of its chief, who is of the Pramara tribe: they are his subjects; the Rana, the paramount lord, has no sort of authority over them. Twelve generations have elapsed since his ancestor conducted this little colony into Mewar, and received the highest honours and a large estate on the plateau of its border, in a most interesting country.[3.4.19]

The only badge denoting the basai is a small tuft of hair on the crown of the head. The term interpreted has nothing harsh in it, meaning ‘occupant, dweller, or settler.’ The numerous towns in India called Basai have this origin: chiefs abandoning their ancient haunts, and settling[3.4.20] with all their retainers and chattels in new abodes. From this, the town of Basai near Tonk (Rampura), derived its name, when the Solanki prince was compelled to abandon his patrimonial lands in Gujarat; his subjects of all classes accompanying him voluntarily, in preference to submitting to foreign rule. Probably the foundation of Bijolli was similar; though only the name of Basai now attaches to the inhabitants. It is not uncommon [181], in the overflowing of gratitude, to be told, “You may sell me, I am your basai.”[3.4.21]

=Private Feuds—Composition.=—In a state of society such as these sketches delineate, where all depends on the personal character of the sovereign, the field for the indulgence of the passions, and especially of that most incident to the uncontrollable habits of such races—revenge—must necessarily be great. Private feuds have tended, with the general distraction of the times, to desolate this country. Some account of their mode of prosecution, and the incidents thence arising, cannot fail to throw additional light on the manners of society, which during the last half-century were fast receding to a worse than semi-barbarous condition, and, aided by other powerful causes, might have ended in entire annihilation. The period was rapidly advancing, when this fair region of Mewar, the garden of Rajasthan, would have reverted to its primitive sterility. The tiger and the wild boar had already become inmates of the capital, and the bats flitted undisturbed in the palaces of her princes. The ante-courts, where the chieftains and their followers assembled to grace their prince’s cavalcade, were overgrown with dank shrubs and grass, through which a mere footpath conducted the ‘descendant of a hundred kings’ to the ruins of his capital.

In these principalities the influence of revenge is universal. Not to prosecute a feud is tantamount to an acknowledgement of self-degradation; and, as in all countries where the laws are insufficient to control individual actions or redress injuries, they have few scruples as to the mode of its gratification. Hence feuds are entailed with the estates from generation to generation. To sheathe the sword till ‘a feud is balanced’ (their own idiomatic expression), would be a blot never to be effaced from the escutcheon.

In the Hindu word which designates a feud we have another of those striking coincidences in terms to which allusion has already been made: vair is ‘a feud,’ vairi, ‘a foe.’ The Saxon term for the composition of a feud, wergild, is familiar to every man. In some of these States the initial vowel is hard, and [182] pronounced bair. In Rajasthan, bair is more common than vair, but throughout the south-west vair only is used. In these we have the original Saxon word war,[3.4.22] the French guer. The Rajput wergild is land or a daughter to wife. In points of honour the Rajput is centuries in advance of our Saxon forefathers, who had a legislative remedy for every bodily injury, when each finger and toe had its price.[3.4.23] This might do very well when the injury was committed on a hind, but the Rajput must have blood for blood. The monarch must be powerful who can compel acceptance of the compensation, or mund-kati.[3.4.24]

The prosecution of a feud is only to be stopped by a process which is next to impracticable; namely, by the party injured volunteering forgiveness, or the aggressor throwing himself as a suppliant unawares on the clemency of his foe within his own domains: a most trying situation for each to be placed in, yet not unexampled, and revenge in such a case would entail infamy. It was reserved for these degenerate days to produce such an instance.

=Amargarh-Shāhpura Feud.=—The Raja of Shahpura, one of the most powerful of the chiefs of Mewar, and of the Rana’s blood, had a feud with the Ranawat chief, the Bhumia proprietor of Amargarh. Ummeda,[3.4.25] the chief of Shahpura, held two estates: one was the grant of the kings of Delhi, the other of his own sovereign, and each amounting to £10,000[3.4.26] of annual rent, besides the duties on commerce. His estate in Mewar was in the district of Mandalgarh, where also lay his antagonist’s; their bounds were in common and some of the lands were intermixed: this led to disputes, threats, and blows, even in the towns of their fathers, between their husbandmen. The Bhumia Dilel was much less powerful; he was lord of only ten villages, not yielding above £1200 a year; but they were compact and well managed, and he was [183] popular amongst his brethren, whose swords he could always command. His castle was perched on a rock, and on the towers facing the west (the direction of Shahpura) were mounted some swivels: moreover a belt of forest surrounded it, through which only two or three roads were cut, so that surprise was impossible. Dilel had therefore little to fear, though his antagonist could bring two thousand of his own followers against him. The feud burned and cooled alternately; but the Raja’s exposed villages enabled Dilel to revenge himself with much inferior means. He carried off the cattle, and sometimes the opulent subjects, of his foe, to his donjon-keep in Amargarh for ransom. Meanwhile the husbandmen of both suffered, and agriculture was neglected, till half the villages held by Ummeda in Mandalgarh became deserted. The Raja had merited this by his arrogance and attempts to humble Dilel, who had deserved more of the sympathies of his neighbours than his rival, whose tenants were tired of the payments of barchi-dohai.[3.4.27]

Ummeda was eccentric, if the term be not too weak to characterize acts which, in more civilized regions, would have subjected him to coercion. He has taken his son and suspended him by the cincture to the pinnacle of his little chapel at Shahpura, and then called on the mother to come and witness the sight. He would make excursions alone on horseback or on a swift camel, and be missing for days. In one of these moods he and his foe Dilel encountered face to face within the bounds of Amargarh. Dilel only saw a chief high in rank at his mercy. With courtesy he saluted him, invited him to his castle, entertained him, and pledged his health and forgiveness in the munawwar piyala:[3.4.28] they made merry, and in the cup agreed to extinguish the remembrance of the feud.

Both had been summoned to the court of the sovereign. The Raja proposed that they should go together, and invited him to go by Shahpura. Dilel accordingly saddled his twenty steeds, moved out his equipage, and providing himself with fitting raiment, and funds to maintain him at the capital, accompanied the Raja to receive the return of his hospitality. They ate from the same platter,[3.4.29] drank of the same cup and enjoyed the song and dance. They even went together to [184] their devotions, to swear before their deity what they had pledged in the cup—oblivion of the past. But scarcely had they crossed the threshold of the chapel, when the head of the chief of Amargarh was rolling on the pavement, and the deity and the altar were sprinkled with his blood! To this atrocious and unheard-of breach of the laws of hospitality, the Raja added the baseness of the pilferer, seizing on the effects of his now lifeless foe. He is said, also, with all the barbarity and malignity of long-treasured revenge, to have kicked the head with his foot, apostrophising it in the pitiful language of resentment. The son of Dilel, armed for revenge, collected all his adherents, and confusion was again commencing its reign. To prevent this, the Rana compelled restitution of the horses and effects; and five villages from the estate of the Raja were the mund-kati (wergild) or compensation to the son of Dilel. The rest of the estate of the murderer was eventually sequestrated by the crown.

The feuds of Arja and Sheogarh are elsewhere detailed, and such statements could be multiplied. Avowal of error and demand of forgiveness, with the offer of a daughter in marriage, often stop the progress of a feud, and might answer better than appearing as a suppliant, which requires great delicacy of contrivance.[3.4.30] Border disputes[3.4.31] are most prolific in the production of feuds, and the Rajput lord-marchers have them entailed on them as regularly as their estates. The border chiefs of Jaisalmer and Bikaner carry this to such extent that it often involved both states in hostilities. The vair and its composition in Mandalgarh will, however, suffice for the present to exemplify these things.

=Rajput Pardhans or Premiers.=—It would not be difficult, amongst the Majores Domus Regiae of these principalities, to find parallels to the Maires du Palais of France. Imbecility in the chief, whether in the east or west, must have the same consequences; and more than one State in India will present us with the joint appearance of the phantom and the substance of royalty. The details of [185] personal attendance at court will be found elsewhere. When not absent on frontier duties, or by permission at their estates, the chiefs resided with their families at the capital; but a succession of attendants was always secured, to keep up its splendour and perform personal service at the palace. In Mewar, the privileges and exemptions of the higher class are such as to exhibit few of the marks of vassalage observable at other courts. Here it is only on occasion of particular festivals and solemnities that they ever join the prince’s cavalcade, or attend at court. If full attendance is required, on the reception of ambassadors, or in discussing matters of general policy, when they have a right to hear and advise as the hereditary council (panchayat) of the State, they are summoned by an officer, with the prince’s juhar,[3.4.32] and his request. On grand festivals the great nakkaras, or kettle-drums, beat at three stated times; the third is the signal for the chief to quit his abode and mount his steed. Amidst all these privileges, when it were almost difficult to distinguish between the prince and his great chiefs, there are occasions well understood by both, which render the superiority of the former apparent: one occurs in the formalities observed on a lapse; another, when at court in personal service, the chief once a week mounts guard at the palace with his clan. On these occasions the vast distance between them is seen. When the chief arrives in the grand court of the palace with his retainers, he halts under the balcony till intimation is given to the prince, who from thence receives his obeisance and duty. This over, he retires to the great darikhana, or hall of audience, appropriated for these ceremonies, where carpets are spread for him and his retainers. At meals the prince sends his compliments, requesting the chief’s attendance at the rasora[3.4.33] or ‘feasting hall,’ where with other favoured chiefs he partakes of dinner with the prince. He sleeps in the hall of audience, and next morning with the same formalities takes his leave. Again, in the summons to the presence from their estates, instant obedience is requisite. But in this, attention to their rank is studiously shown by ruqa, written by the private secretary, with the sign-manual of the prince attached, and sealed with the private finger-ring. For the inferior grades, the usual seal of state entrusted to the minister is used.

But these are general duties. In all these States some great court favourite [186], from his talents, character, or intrigue, holds the office of premier. His duties are proportioned to his wishes, or the extent of his talents and ambition; but he does not interfere with the civil administration, which has its proper minister. They, however, act together. The Rajput premier is the military minister, with the political government of the fiefs; the civil minister is never of this caste. Local customs have given various appellations to this officer. At Udaipur he is called bhanjgarh; at Jodhpur, pardhan; at Jaipur (where they have engrafted the term used at the court of Delhi) musahib; at Kotah, kiladar, and diwan or regent. He becomes a most important personage, as dispenser of the favours of the sovereign. Through him chiefly all requests are preferred, this being the surest channel to success. His influence, necessarily, gives him unbounded authority over the military classes, with unlimited power over the inferior officers of the State. With a powerful body of retainers always at his command, it is surprising we have not more frequently our ‘mayors of Burgundy and Dagoberts,’[3.4.34] our ‘Martels and Pepins,’ in Rajasthan.

We have our hereditary Rajput premiers in several of these States: but in all the laws of succession are so regulated that they could not usurp the throne of their prince, though they might his functions.

When the treaty was formed between Mewar and the British Government, the ambassadors wished to introduce an article of guarantee of the office of pardhan to the family of the chief noble of the country, the Rawat of Salumbar. The fact was, as stated, that the dignity was hereditary in this family; but though the acquisition was the result of an act of virtue, it had tended much towards the ruin of the country, and to the same cause are to be traced all its rebellions.

The ambassador was one of the elders of the same clan, being the grand uncle of the hereditary pardhan. He had taken a most active share in the political events of the last thirty years, and had often controlled the councils of his prince during this period, and actually held the post of premier himself when stipulating [187] for his minor relative. With the ascendancy he exercised over the prince, it may be inferred that he had no intention of renouncing it during his lifetime; and as he was educating his adopted heir to all his notions of authority, and initiating him in the intrigues of office, the guaranteed dignity in the head of his family would have become a nonentity,[3.4.35] and the Ranas would have been governed by the deputies of their mayors. From both those evils the times have relieved the prince. The crimes of Ajit had made his dismissal from office a point of justice, but imbecility and folly will never be without ‘mayors.’

When a Rana of Udaipur leaves the capital, the Salumbar chief is invested with the government of the city and charge of the palace during his absence. By his hands the sovereign is girt with the sword, and from him he receives the mark of inauguration on his accession to the throne. He leads, by right, the van in battle; and in case of the siege of the capital, his post is the surajpol,[3.4.36] and the fortress which crowns it, in which this family had a handsome palace, which is now going fast to decay.

It was the predecessor of the present chief of Salumbar who set up a pretender and the standard of rebellion; but when foreign aid was brought in, he returned to his allegiance and the defence of the capital. Similar sentiments have often been awakened in patriotic breasts, when roused by the interference of foreigners in their internal disputes. The evil entailed on the State by these hereditary offices will appear in its annals.

In Marwar the dignity is hereditary in the house of Awa; but the last brave chief who held it became the victim of a revengeful and capricious sovereign,[3.4.37] [188] who was jealous of his exploits; and dying, he bequeathed a curse to his posterity who should again accept the office. It was accordingly transferred to the next in dignity, the house of Asop. The present chief, wisely distrusting the prince whose reign has been a series of turmoils, has kept aloof from court. When the office was jointly held by the chiefs of Nimaj and Pokaran, the tragic end of the former afforded a fine specimen of the prowess and heroism of the Rathor Rajput. In truth, these pardhans of Marwar have always been mill-stones round the necks of their princes; an evil interwoven in their system when the partition of estates took place amidst the sons of Jodha in the infancy of this State. It was, no doubt, then deemed politic to unite to the interests of the crown so powerful a branch, which when combined could always control the rest; but this gave too much equality.

=The Chief of Pokaran.=—Deo Singh, the great-grandfather of the Pokaran chief alluded to, used to sleep in the great hall of the palace with five hundred of his clan around him. “The throne of Marwar is in the sheath of my dagger,” was the repeated boast of this arrogant chieftain. It may be anticipated that either he or his sovereign would die a violent death. The lord of Pokaran was entrapped, and instant death commanded; yet with the sword suspended over his head, his undaunted spirit was the same as when seated in the hall, and surrounded by his vassals. “Where, traitor, is now the sheath that holds the fortunes of Marwar?” said the prince. The taunt recoiled with bitterness when he loftily replied, “With my son at Pokaran I have left it.” No time was given for further insult; his head rolled at the steps of the palace; but the dagger of Pokaran still haunts the imaginations of these princes, and many attempts have been made to get possessed of their stronghold on the edge of the desert.[3.4.38] The narrow escape of the present chief will be related hereafter, with the sacrifice of his friend and coadjutor, the chief of Nimaj.

=Premiers in Kotah and Jaisalmer.=—In Kotah and Jaisalmer the power of the ministers is supreme. We might describe their situation in the words of Montesquieu. "The Pepins kept their princes in a state of imprisonment in the palace, showing them once a year to the people. On this occasion they made such ordinances as were directed [189] by the mayor; they also answered ambassadors, but the mayor framed the answer."[3.4.39]

Like those of the Merovingian race, these puppets of royalty in the east are brought forth to the Champ de Mars once a year, at the grand military festival, the Dasahra. On this day, presents provided by the minister are distributed by the prince. Allowances for every branch of expenditure are fixed, nor has the prince the power to exceed them. But at Kotah there is nothing parsimonious, though nothing superfluous. On the festival of the birth of Krishna, and other similar feasts, the prince likewise appears abroad, attended by all the insignia of royalty. Elephants with standards precede; lines of infantry and guns are drawn up; while a numerous cavalcade surrounds his person. The son of the minister sometimes condescends to accompany his prince on horseback; nor is there anything wanting to magnificence, but the power to control or alter any part of it. This failing, how humiliating to a proud mind, acquainted with the history of his ancestors and imbued with a portion of their spirit, to be thus muzzled, enchained, and rendered a mere pageant of state! This chain would have been snapped, but that each link has become adamantine from the ties this ruler has formed with the British Government. He has well merited our protection; though we never contemplated to what extent the maintenance of these ties would involve our own character. But this subject is connected with the history of an individual who yields to none of the many extraordinary men whom India has produced, and who required but a larger theatre to have drawn the attention of the world. His character will be further elucidated in the Annals of Haravati [190].

-----

Footnote 3.4.1:

See Appendix, Nos. VII., VIII., and IX.

Footnote 3.4.2:

This is the ‘sauvement ou vingtain’ of the French system: there it ceased with the cause. “Les guerres (feudal) cessèrent avec le régime féodal, et les paysans n’eurent plus besoin de la protection du Seigneur; on ne les força pas moins de réparer son château, et de lui payer le droit qui se nommait de sauvement ou vingtain” (Art. ‘Château,’ Dict. de l’Ancien Régime).

Footnote 3.4.3:

The chief might lose his patta lands, and he would then dwindle down into the bhumia proprietor, which title only lawless force could take from him. See Appendix, No. IX.

Footnote 3.4.4:

See Appendix, No. X., Art. II.

Footnote 3.4.5:

This species would come under the distinct term of Hydages due by soccage vassals, who in return for protection supply carriages and work (Hume, vol. ii. p. 308).

Footnote 3.4.6:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 169.

Footnote 3.4.7:

In indulging my curiosity on this subject, I collected some hundred engagements, and many of a most singular nature. We see the chieftain stipulating for fees on marriages; for a dish of the good fare at the wedding feast, which he transfers to a relation of his district if unable to attend himself; portions of fuel and provender; and even wherewithal to fill the wassail cup in his days of merriment. The Rajput’s religious notions are not of so strict a character as to prevent his even exacting his rakhwali dues from the church lands, and the threat of slaughtering the sacred flock of our Indian Apollo has been resorted to, to compel payment when withheld. Nay, by the chiefs it was imposed on things locomotive: on caravans, or Tandas of merchandise, wherever they halted for the day, rakhwali was demanded. Each petty chief through whose district or patch of territory they travelled, made a demand, till commerce was dreadfully shackled; but it was the only way in which it could be secured. It was astonishing how commerce was carried on at all; yet did the cloths of Dacca and the shawls of Kashmir pass through all such restraints, and were never more in request. Where there is demand no danger will deter enterprise; and commerce flourished more when these predatory armies were rolling like waves over the land, than during the succeeding halcyon days of pacification.

Footnote 3.4.8:

The method by which the country is brought under this tax is as follows: “When the people are almost ruined by continual robberies and plunders, the leader of the band of thieves, or some friend of his, proposes that, for a sum of money annually paid, he will keep a number of men in arms to protect such a tract of ground, or as many parishes as submit to the contribution. When the terms are agreed upon he ceases to steal, and thereby the contributors are safe: if any one refuse to pay, he is immediately plundered. To colour all this villainy, those concerned in the robberies pay the tax with the rest; and all the neighbourhood must comply or be undone. This is the case (among others), with the whole low country of the shire of Ross” (Extract from Lord Lovat’s Memorial to George I. on the State of the Highlands of Scotland, in A.D. 1724).

Footnote 3.4.9:

In Persian ghulām, literally ‘slave’; evidently a word of the same origin with the Hindu gola. [The words have no connexion.]

Footnote 3.4.10:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 217.

Footnote 3.4.11:

From hal, ‘a plough.’ Syl is ‘a plough’ in Saxon (Turner’s Anglo-Saxons). The h and s are permutable throughout Rajwara. [The words have no connexion.] In Marwar, Salim Singh is pronounced Halim Hingh.

Footnote 3.4.12:

See Appendix, No. XI.

Footnote 3.4.13:

Female slave.

Footnote 3.4.14:

See Appendix, No. XIX.

Footnote 3.4.15:

The reader of Dow’s translation of Ferishta [i. 134] may recollect that when Kutbu-d-din was left the viceroy of the conqueror he is made to say: “He gave the country to Gola the son of Pittu Rai.” [“He delivered over the country to the Gola, or natural son, of Pithow Ray” (Briggs’ trans. i. 128).] Dow mistakes this appellation of the natural brother of the last Hindu sovereign for a proper name. He is mentioned by the bard Chand in his exploits of Prithwiraja.

Footnote 3.4.16:

I have often received the most confidential messages, from chiefs of the highest rank, through these channels. [There are, at the present day, several bastard castes originally composed of the illegitimate children of men of rank, Rājputs, Brāhmans, Mahājans, and others. These are now recruited from the descendants of such persons, and from recently born illegitimate children (Census Report, Rajputana, 1911, i. 249f.).]

Footnote 3.4.17:

Germania, xxiv.

Footnote 3.4.18:

The das or ‘slave’ may hold a fief in Rajasthan, hut he never can rise above the condition in which this defect of birth has placed him. “L’affranchissement consistait à sortir de la classe des serfs, par l’acquisition d’un fief, ou settlement d’un fonds. La nécessité où s’étaient trouvés les seigneurs féodaux de vendre une partie de leurs terres, pour faire leurs équipages des croisades, avait rendu ces acquisitions communes; mais le fief n’anoblissait qu’à la troisième génération.” Serfs who had twice or thrice been champions, or saved the lives of their masters, were also liberated. “Un évêque d’Auxerre déclara qu’il n’affranchirait gratuitement, qui que ce soit, s’il n’avait reçu quinze blessures à son service” (see Article ‘Affranchissement,’ Dict. de l’ancien Régime).

Footnote 3.4.19:

I could but indistinctly learn whether this migration, and the species of paternity here existing, arose from rescuing them from Tatar invaders, or from the calamity of famine.

Footnote 3.4.20:

Basna, ‘to settle.’

Footnote 3.4.21:

I had the happiness to be the means of releasing from captivity some young chiefs, who had been languishing in Mahratta fetters as hostages for the payment of a war contribution. One of them, a younger brother of the Purawat division, had a mother dying to see him; but though he might have taken her house in the way, a strong feeling of honour and gratitude made him forgo this anxious visit: “I am your Rajput, your gola, your basai.” He was soon sent off to his mother. Such little acts, mingling with public duty, are a compensation for the many drawbacks of solitude, gloom, and vexation, attending such situations. They are no sinecures or beds of roses—ease, comfort, and health, being all subordinate considerations.

Footnote 3.4.22:

Gilbert on Tenures, art. “Warranty,” p. 169. [Wergild, wer, ‘man,’ gield, gieldan; vair is Skt. vīra, ‘hero’; O.E. wer, O.H.G. werran, ‘to embroil,’ Fr. guerre.]

Footnote 3.4.23:

“The great toe took rank as it should be, and held to double the sum of the others, for which ten scyllinga was the value without the nail, which was thirty scealta to boot” (Turner’s Anglo-Saxons, vol. ii. p. 133).

Footnote 3.4.24:

Appendix, No. XVIII. The laws of composition were carried to a much greater extent amongst the Hindu nations than even amongst those of the Anglo-Saxons, who might have found in Manu all that was ever written on the subject, from the killing of a Brahman by design to the accidental murder of a dog. The Brahman is four times the value of the soldier, eight of the merchant, and sixteen times of the Sudra. “If a Brahman kill one of the soldier caste (without malice), a bull and one thousand cows is the fine of expiation. If he slays a merchant, a bull and one hundred cows is the fine. If a Sudra or lowest class, ten white cows and a bull to the priest is the expiation” [Laws, xi. 127 ff.]. Manu legislated also for the protection of the brute creation, and if the priest by chance kills a cat, a frog, a dog, a lizard, an owl, or a crow, he must drink nothing but milk for three days and nights, or walk four miles in the night.

Footnote 3.4.25:

Ummeda, ‘hope.’

Footnote 3.4.26:

Together £20,000, equal to £100,000 of England, if the respective value of the necessaries of life be considered.

Footnote 3.4.27:

Barchi is ‘a lance.’ In these marauding days, when there was a riever in every village, they sallied out to ‘run the country,’ either to stop the passenger on the highway or the inhabitant of the city. The lance at his breast, he would call out dohai, an invocation of aid. During harvest time barchi-dohai used to be exacted.

Footnote 3.4.28:

‘Cup of invitation.’ [Munawwar, Pers. ‘bright, splendid.’]

Footnote 3.4.29:

This is a favourite expression, and a mode of indicating great friendship: ‘to eat of the same platter (thali), and drink of the same cup (piyala).’

Footnote 3.4.30:

The Bundi feud with the Rana is still unappeased, since the predecessor of the former slew the Rana’s father. It was an indefensible act, and the Bundi prince was most desirous to terminate it. He had no daughter to offer, and hinted a desire to accompany me incog. and thus gain admission to the presence of the Rana. The benevolence and generosity of this prince would have insured him success; but it was a delicate matter, and I feared some exposure from any arrogant hot-headed Rajput ere the scene could have been got up. The Raja Bishan Singh of Bundi is since dead [in 1828]; a brave and frank Rajput; he has left few worthier behind. His son [Rām Singh, 1821-89], yet a minor, promises well. The protective alliance, which is to turn their swords into ploughshares, will prevent their becoming foes; but they will remain sulky border-neighbours, to the fostering of disputes and the disquiet of the merchant and cultivator.

Footnote 3.4.31:

Sim—Kankar.

Footnote 3.4.32:

A salutation, only sent by a superior to an inferior.

Footnote 3.4.33:

The kitchen is large enough for a fortress, and contains large eating halls. Food for seven hundred of the prince’s court is daily dressed. This is not for any of the personal servants of the prince, or female establishments; all these are separate.

Footnote 3.4.34:

Dagobert commended his wife and son Clovis to the trust of Ega, with whom she jointly held the care of the palace. On his death, with the aid of more powerful lords, she chose another mayor. He confirmed their grants for life. They made his situation hereditary; but which could only have held good from the crowd of imbeciles who succeeded Clovis, until the descendant of this mayor thrust out his children and seized the crown. This change is a natural consequence of unfitness; and if we go back to the genealogies (called sacred) of the Hindus, we see there a succession of dynasties forced from their thrones by their ministers. Seven examples are given in the various dynasties of the race of Chandra. (See Genealogical Tables, No. II.) [The above is in some ways inaccurate, but it is unnecessary to correct it, as it is not connected with the question of premiers in Rājputāna: see EB, xvii. 938.]

Footnote 3.4.35:

So many sudden deaths had occurred in this family, that the branch in question (Ajit Singh’s) were strongly suspected of ‘heaping these mortal murders on their crown,’ to push their elders from their seats. The father of Padma, the present chief, is said to have been taken off by poison; and Pahar Singh, one generation anterior, returning grievously wounded from the battle of Ujjain, in which the southrons first swept Mewar, was not permitted to recover. The mother of the present young chief of the Jhala tribe of the house of Gogunda, in the west, was afraid to trust him from her sight. She is a woman of great strength of mind and excellent character, but too indulgent to an only son. He is a fine bold youth, and, though impatient of control, may be managed. On horseback with his lance, in chase of the wild boar, a more resolute cavalier could not be seen. His mother, when he left the estate alone for court, which he seldom did without her accompanying him, never failed to send me a long letter, beseeching me to guard the welfare of her son. My house was his great resort: he delighted to pull over my books, or go fishing or riding with me.

Footnote 3.4.36:

Surya, ‘sun’; and pol, ‘gate.’ Poliya, ‘a porter.’

Footnote 3.4.37:

“The cur can bite,” the reply of this chief, either personally, or to the person who reported that his sovereign so designated him, was never forgiven.

Footnote 3.4.38:

His son, Sabal Singh, followed in his footsteps, till an accidental cannon-shot relieved the terrors of the prince.

Footnote 3.4.39:

L’Esprit des Loix, chap. vi. livre 31.

-----

Chapter 5

=Adoption.=—The hereditary principle, which perpetuates in these States their virtues and their vices, is also the grand preservative of their political existence and national manners: it is an imperishable principle, which resists time and innovation: it is this which made the laws of the Medes and Persians, as well as those of the Rajputs, unalterable. A chief of Mewar, like his sovereign, never dies: he disappears to be regenerated. ‘Le roi est mort, vive le roi!’ is a phrase, the precise virtue of which is there well understood. Neither the crown nor the greater fiefs are ever without heirs. Adoption is the preservative of honours and titles; the great fiefs of Rajasthan can never become extinct.[3.5.1] But, however valuable this privilege, which the law of custom has made a right, it is often carried to the most hurtful and foolish extent. They have allowed the limit which defined it to be effaced, and each family, of course, maintains a custom, so soothing to vanity, as the prospect of having their names revived in their descendants. This has resulted from the weakness of the prince and the misery of the times. Lands were bestowed liberally which yielded nothing to their master, who, in securing a nominal obedience and servitude, had as much as the times made them worth when given; but with returning prosperity and old customs, these great errors have become too visible. Adoptions are often made during the life of the incumbent when without prospect of issue. The chief and his wife first agitate the subject in private; it is then confided to the little council of the fief, and when propinquity and merit unite, they at once petition the prince to confirm their wishes, which are generally acceded to. So many interests are to be consulted on this occasion, that the blind partiality of the chief to any particular object is always counterpoised by the elders of the clan, who must have a pride in seeing a proper Thakur[3.5.2] at their head, and who prefer the nearest of kin, to prevent the disputes which would be attendant on neglect in this point [191].

On sudden lapses, the wife is allowed the privilege, in conjunction with those interested in the fief, of nomination, though the case is seldom left unprovided for: there is always a presumptive heir to the smallest sub-infeudation of these estates. The wife of the deceased is the guardian of the minority of the adopted.

=The Case of Deogarh.=—The chief of Deogarh, one of the sixteen Omras[3.5.3] of Mewar, died without issue. On his death-bed he recommended to his wife and chiefs Nahar Singh for their adoption. This was the son of the independent chieftain of Sangramgarh, already mentioned. There were nearer kin, some of the seventh and eighth degrees, and young Nahar was the eleventh. It was never contemplated that the three last gigantic[3.5.4] chieftains of Deogarh would die without issue, or the branches, now claimants from propinquity, would have been educated to suit the dignity; but being brought up remote from court, they had been compelled to seek employment where obtainable, or to live on the few acres to which their distant claim of birth restricted them. Two of these, who had but the latter resource to fly to, had become mere boors; and of two who had sought service abroad by arms, one was a cavalier in the retinue of the prince, and the other a hanger-on about court: both dissipated and unfitted, as the frerage asserted, ‘to be the chieftains of two thousand Rajputs, the sons of one father.’[3.5.5] Much interest and intrigue were carried on for one of these, and he was supported by the young prince and a faction. Some of the senior Pattawats of Deogarh are men of the highest character, and often lamented the sombre qualities of their chief, which prevented the clan having that interest in the State to which its extent and rank entitled it. While these intrigues were in their infancy, they adopted a decided measure; they brought home young Nahar from his father’s residence, and ‘bound round his head the turban of the deceased.’ In his name the death of the late chief was announced. It was added, that he hoped to see his friends after the stated days of matam or mourning; and he performed all the duties of the son of Deogarh, and lighted the funeral pyre.

When these proceedings were reported, the Rana was highly and justly incensed. The late chief had been one of the rebels of S. 1848;[3.5.6] and though pardon had been [192] granted, yet this revived all the recollection of the past, and he felt inclined to extinguish the name of Sangawat.[3.5.7]

In addition to the common sequestration, he sent an especial one with commands to collect the produce of the harvest then reaping, charging the sub-vassals with the design of overturning his lawful authority. They replied very submissively, and artfully asserted that they had only given a son to Gokuldas, not an heir to Deogarh; that the sovereign alone could do this, and that they trusted to his nominating one who would be an efficient leader of so many Rajputs in the service of the Rana. They urged the pretensions of young Nahar, at the same time leaving the decision to the sovereign. Their judicious reply was well supported by their ambassador at court, who was the bard of Deogarh, and had recently become, though ex officio, physician to the prince.[3.5.8] The point was finally adjusted, and Nahar was brought to court, and invested with the sword by the hand of the sovereign, and he is now lord of Deogarh Madri, one of the richest and most powerful fiefs[3.5.9] of Mewar. Madri was the ancient name of the estate; and Sangramgarh, of which Nahar was the heir, was severed from it, but by some means had reverted to the crown, of which it now holds. The adoption of Nahar by Gokuldas leaves the paternal estate without an immediate heir; and his actual father being mad, if more distant claims are not admitted, it is probable that Sangramgarh will eventually revert to the fisc.

=Reflections.=—The system of feuds must have attained considerable maturity amongst the Rajputs, to have left such traces, notwithstanding the desolation that has swept the land: but without circumspection these few remaining customs will become a dead letter. Unless we abstain from all internal interference, we must destroy the links which connect the prince and his vassals; and, in lieu of a system decidedly imperfect, we should leave them none at all, or at least not a system of feuds, the only one they can comprehend. Our friendship has rescued them from exterior foes, and time will restore the rest. With the dignity and [193] establishments of their chiefs, ancient usages will revive; and nazarana (relief), kharg bandhai (investiture), dasaundh (aids or benevolence, literally ‘the tenth’), and other incidents, will cease to be mere ceremonies. The desire of every liberal mind, as well as the professed wish of the British Government, is to aid in their renovation, and this will be best effected by not meddling with what we but imperfectly understand.[3.5.10]

We have nothing to apprehend from the Rajput States if raised to their ancient prosperity. The closest attention to their history proves beyond contradiction that they were never capable of uniting, even for their own preservation: a breath, a scurrilous stanza of a bard, has severed their closest confederacies. No national head exists amongst them as amongst the Mahrattas; and each chief being master of his own house and followers, they are individually too weak to cause us any alarm.

No feudal government can be dangerous as a neighbour; for defence it has in all countries been found defective; and for aggression, totally inefficient. Let there exist between us the most perfect understanding and identity of interests; the foundation-step to which is to lessen or remit the galling, and to us contemptible tribute, now exacted, enfranchise them from our espionage and agency, and either unlock them altogether from our dangerous embrace, or let the ties between us be such only as would ensure grand results: such as general commercial freedom and protection, with treaties of friendly alliance. Then, if a Tatar or a Russian invasion threatened our eastern empire, fifty thousand Rajputs would be no despicable allies.[3.5.11]

=Rajput Loyalty and Patriotism.=—Let us call to mind what they did when they fought for Aurangzeb: they are still unchanged, if we give them the proper stimulus. Gratitude, honour, and fidelity, are terms which at one time were the foundation of all the virtues of a Rajput. Of the theory of these sentiments he is still enamoured; but, unfortunately, for his happiness, the times have left him but little scope for the practice [194] of them. Ask a Rajput which is the greatest of crimes? he will reply, ‘gunchhor,’ ‘forgetfulness of favours.’ This is his most powerful term for ingratitude. Gratitude with him embraces every obligation of life, and is inseparable from swamidharma, ‘fidelity to his lord.’ He who is wanting in these is not deemed fit to live, and is doomed to eternal pains in Pluto’s[3.5.12] realm hereafter.[3.5.13]

“It was a powerful feeling,” says an historian[3.5.14] who always identifies his own emotions with his subject, “which could make the bravest of men put up with slights and ill-treatment at the hand of their sovereign, or call forth all the energies of discontented exertion for one whom they never saw, and in whose character there was nothing to esteem. Loyalty has scarcely less tendency to refine and elevate the heart than patriotism itself.” That these sentiments were combined, the past history of the Rajputs will show;[3.5.15] and to the strength of these ties do they owe their political existence, which has outlived ages of strife. But for these, they would have been converts and vassals to the Tatars, who would still have been enthroned in Delhi. Neglect, oppression, and religious interference, sunk one of the greatest monarchies of the world;[3.5.16] made Sivaji a hero, and converted the peaceful husbandmen of the Kistna and Godavari into a brave but rapacious soldier.

We have abundant examples, and I trust need not exclaim with the wise minister of Akbar, “who so happy as to profit by them?”[3.5.17]

The Rajput, with all his turbulence, possesses in an eminent degree both loyalty and patriotism; and though he occasionally exhibits his refractory spirit to his [195] father and sovereign,[3.5.18] we shall see of what he is capable when his country is threatened with dismemberment, from the history of Mewar, and the reign of Ajit Singh of Marwar. In this last we have one of the noblest examples history can afford of unbounded devotion. A prince, whom not a dozen of his subjects had ever seen, who had been concealed from the period of his birth throughout a tedious minority to avoid the snares of a tyrant,[3.5.19] by the mere magic of a name kept the discordant materials of a great feudal association in subjection, till, able to bear arms, he issued from his concealment to head these devoted adherents, and reconquer what they had so long struggled to maintain. So glorious a contest, of twenty years’ duration, requires but an historian to immortalize it. Unfortunately we have only the relation of isolated encounters, which, though exhibiting a prodigality of blood and acts of high devotion, are deficient in those minor details which give unity and interest to the whole.

=Gallant Services to the Empire.=—Let us take the Rajput character from the royal historians themselves, from Akbar, Jahangir, Aurangzeb. The most brilliant conquests of these monarchs were by their Rajput allies; though the little regard the latter had for opinion alienated the sympathies of a race, who when rightly managed, encountered at command the Afghan amidst the snows of Caucasus, or made the furthest Cheronese tributary to the empire. Assam, where the British arms were recently engaged, and for the issue of which such anxiety was manifested in the metropolis of Britain, was conquered by a Rajput prince,[3.5.20] whose descendant is now an ally of the British Government.

But Englishmen in the east, as elsewhere, undervalue everything not national. They have been accustomed to conquest, not reverses: though it is only by studying the character of those around them that the latter can be avoided and this superiority maintained. Superficial observers imagine that from lengthened predatory spoliation the energy of the Rajput has fled: an idea which is at once erroneous and dangerous. The vices now manifest from oppression will disappear [196] with the cause, and with reviving prosperity new feelings will be generated, and each national tie and custom be strengthened. The Rajput would glory in putting on his saffron robes[3.5.21] to fight for such a land, and for those who disinterestedly laboured to benefit it.

Let us, then, apply history to its proper use. We need not turn to ancient Rome for illustration of the dangers inseparable from wide dominion and extensive alliances. The twenty-two Satrapies of India, the greater part of which are now the appanage of Britain, exhibited, even a century ago, one of the most splendid monarchies history has made known, too extensive for the genius of any single individual effectually to control. Yet was it held together, till encroachment on their rights, and disregard to their habits and religious opinions, alienated the Rajputs, and excited the inhabitants of the south to rise against their Mogul oppressors. ‘Then was the throne of Aurangzeb at the mercy of a Brahman, and the grandson[3.5.22] of a cultivator in the province of Khandesh held the descendants of Timur pensioners on his bounty’ [197].

-----

Footnote 3.5.1:

[The abandonment of the policy of escheat or lapse, and the recognition of the right of adoption were announced by Lord Canning in 1859.]

Footnote 3.5.2:

As in Deogarh.

Footnote 3.5.3:

[Umara, plural of Amīr, ‘a chief.’]

Footnote 3.5.4:

Gokuldas, the last chief, was one of the finest men I ever beheld in feature and person. He was about six feet six, perfectly erect, and a Hercules in bulk. His father at twenty was much larger, and must have been nearly seven feet high. It is surprising how few of the chiefs of this family died a natural death. It has produced some noble Rajputs.

Footnote 3.5.5:

Ek bap ka beta.

Footnote 3.5.6:

A.D. 1792.

Footnote 3.5.7:

That of the clan of Deogarh.

Footnote 3.5.8:

Apollo [Krishna] is the patron both of physicians and poets; and though my friend Amra does not disgrace him in either calling, it was his wit, rather than his medical degree, that maintained him at court. He said it was not fitting that the sovereign of the world should be served by clowns or opium-eaters; and that young Nahar, when educated at court under the Rana’s example, would do credit to the country: and what had full as much weight as any of the bard’s arguments was, that the fine of relief on the Talwar bandhai (or girding on of the sword) of a lac of rupees, should be immediately forthcoming.

Footnote 3.5.9:

Patta. [About 30 miles south of Udaipur city.]

Footnote 3.5.10:

Such interference, when inconsistent with past usage and the genius of the people, will defeat the very best intentions. On the grounds of policy and justice, it is alike incumbent on the British Government to secure the maintenance of their present form of government, and not to repair, but to advise the repairs of the fabric, and to let their own artists alone be consulted. To employ ours would be like adding a Corinthian capital to a column of Ellora, or replacing the mutilated statue of Baldeva with a limb from the Hercules Farnese. To have a chain of prosperous independent States on our only exposed frontier, the north-west, attached to us from benefits, and the moral conviction that we do not seek their overthrow, must be a desirable policy.

Footnote 3.5.11:

[The author’s prediction has been realized by recent events.]

Footnote 3.5.12:

Yamaloka.

Footnote 3.5.13:

The gunchhor (ungrateful) and satchhor (violator of his faith) are consigned, by the authority of the bard, to sixty-thousand years’ residence in hell. Europeans, in all the pride of mastery, accuse the natives of want of gratitude, and say their language has no word for it. They can only know the namak-haram [‘he that is false to his salt’] of the Ganges. Gunchhor is a compound of powerful import, as ingratitude and infidelity are the highest crimes. It means, literally, "abandoner (from chhorna, ‘to quit’) of virtue (gun)."

Footnote 3.5.14:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 323.

Footnote 3.5.15:

Of the effects of loyalty and patriotism combined, we have splendid examples in Hindu history and tradition. A more striking instance could scarcely be given than in the recent civil distractions at Kotah, where a mercenary army raised and maintained by the Regent, either openly or covertly declared against him, as did the whole feudal body to a man, the moment their young prince asserted his subverted claims, and in the cause of their rightful lord abandoned all consideration of self, their families and lands, and with their followers offered their lives to redeem his rights or perish in the attempt. No empty boast, as the conclusion testified. God forbid that we should have more such examples of Rajput devotion to their sense of fidelity to their lords!

Footnote 3.5.16:

See statement of its revenues during the last emperor, who had preserved the empire of Delhi united.

Footnote 3.5.17:

Abu-l Fazl uses this expression when moralizing on the fall of Shihabu-d-din, king of Ghazni and first established monarch of India, slain by Prithwiraja, the Hindu sovereign of Delhi [Āīn, ii. 302]. [Muhammad Ghori, Shihābu-d-dīn, was murdered on the road to Ghazni by a fanatic of the Mulāhidah sect, in March, A.D. 1206 (Tabakāt-ī-Nāsiri, in Elliot-Dowson ii. 297, 235). According to the less probable account of Ferishta (Briggs, i. 185), he was murdered at Rohtak by a gang of Gakkhars or rather Khokhars (Rose, Glossary, ii. 275).]

Footnote 3.5.18:

The Rajput, who possesses but an acre of land, has the proud feeling of common origin with his sovereign, and in styling him bapji (sire), he thinks of him as the common father or representative of the race. What a powerful incentive to action!

Footnote 3.5.19:

Aurangzeb.

Footnote 3.5.20:

Raja Man of Jaipur, who took Arakan, Orissa, and Assam. Raja Jaswant Singh of Marwar retook Kabul for Aurangzeb, and was rewarded by poison. Raja Ram Singh Hara, of Kotah, made several important conquests; and his grandson, Raja Isari Singh, and his five brothers, were left on one field of battle.

Footnote 3.5.21:

When a Rajput is determined to hold out to the last in fighting, he always puts on a robe dyed in saffron. [This was the common practice, saffron being the colour of the bridal robe (Malcolm, Memoir of Central India, 2nd ed. i. 358; Grant Duff, Hist. of the Mahrattas, 317; Forbes, Rāsmālā, 408).]

Footnote 3.5.22:

Sindhia.

-----

Appendix

=PAPERS REFERRED TO IN THE SKETCH OF A FEUDAL SYSTEM IN RAJASTHAN=

BEING

LITERAL TRANSLATIONS from INSCRIPTIONS and ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, most of which are in the AUTHOR’S POSSESSION

No. I

Translation of a Letter from the expatriated Chiefs[3.a.1] of Marwar to the Political Agent of the British Government, Western Rajput States.

After compliments.

We have sent to you a confidential person, who will relate what regards us. The Sarkar Company are sovereigns of Hindustan, and you know well all that regards our condition. Although there is nothing which respects either ourselves or our country hid from you, yet is there matter immediately concerning us which it is necessary to make known.

Sri Maharaja and ourselves are of one stock, all Rathors. He is our head, we his servants: but now anger has seized him, and we are dispossessed of our country. Of the estates, our patrimony and our dwelling, some have been made khalisa,[3.a.2] and those who endeavour to keep aloof expect the same fate. Some under the most solemn pledge of security have been inveigled and suffered death, and others imprisoned. Mutasadis,[3.a.3] officers of state, men of the soil and those foreign to it, have been seized, and the most unheard-of deeds and cruelties inflicted, which we cannot even write. Such a spirit has possessed his mind as never was known to any former prince of Jodhpur. His forefathers have reigned for generations; our forefathers were their ministers and advisers, and whatever was performed was by the collective wisdom of the council of our chiefs. Before the face of his ancestors, our own ancestors have slain and been slain; and in performing services to the kings,[3.a.4] they made the State of Jodhpur what it is. Wherever Marwar was concerned, there our fathers were to be found, and with their lives preserved the land. Sometimes our head was a minor; even then by the wisdom of our fathers and their services, the land was kept firm under our feet, and thus has it descended from generation to generation. Before his eyes (Raja Man’s) we have performed good service: when at that perilous time the host of Jaipur[3.a.5] surrounded [198] Jodhpur on the field we attacked it; our lives and fortunes were at stake, and God granted us success; the witness is God Almighty. Now, men of no consideration are in our prince’s presence; hence this reverse. When our services are acceptable, then is he our lord; when not, we are again his brothers and kindred, claimants and laying claim to the land.

He desires to dispossess us; but can we let ourselves be dispossessed? The English are masters of all India. The chief of —— sent his agent to Ajmer; he was told to go to Delhi. Accordingly Thakur —— went there, but no path was pointed out. If the English chiefs will not hear us, who will? The English allow no one’s lands to be usurped, and our birthplace is Marwar—from Marwar we must have bread. A hundred thousand Rathors—where are they to go to? From respect to the English alone have we been so long patient, and without acquainting your government of our intentions, you might afterwards find fault; therefore we make it known, and we thereby acquit ourselves to you. What we brought with us from Marwar we have consumed, and even what we could get on credit; and now, when want must make us perish, we are ready and can do anything.[3.a.6]

The English are our rulers, our masters. Sri Man Singh has seized our lands; by your government interposing these troubles may be settled, but without its guarantee and intervention we can have no confidence whatever. Let us have a reply to our petition. We will wait it in patience; but if we get none, the fault will not be ours, having given everywhere notice. Hunger will compel man to find a remedy. For such a length of time we have been silent from respect to your government alone: our own Sarkar is deaf to complaint. But to what extreme shall we wait? Let our hopes be attended to. Sambat 1878, Sawan sudi duj.

(August 1821.)

True Translation: (Signed) JAMES TOD.

No. II

Remonstrance of the Sub-Vassals of Deogarh against their chief, Rawat Gokul Das.

1. He respects not the privileges or customs established of old.

2. To each Rajput’s house a charas[3.a.7] or hide of land was attached: this he has resumed.

3. Whoever bribes him is a true man: who does not, is a thief.

4. Ten or twelve villages established by his pattayats[3.a.8] he has resumed, and left their families to starve.

5. From time immemorial sanctuary (saran) has been esteemed sacred: this he has abolished.

6. On emergencies he would pledge his oath to his subjects (ryots), and afterwards plunder them.

7. In old times, it was customary when the presence of his chiefs and kindred was required, to invite them by letter: a fine is now the warrant of summons: thus lessening their dignity.

8. Such messengers, in former times, had a taka[3.a.9] for their ration (bhatta); now he imposes two rupees [199].

9. Formerly, when robberies occurred in the mountains within the limits of Deogarh, the loss was made good: now all complaint is useless, for his faujdar[3.a.10] receives a fourth of all such plunder. The Mers[3.a.11] range at liberty; but before they never committed murder: now they slay as well as rob our kin; nor is there any redress, and such plunder is even sold within the town of Deogarh.

10. Without crime, he resumes the lands of his vassals for the sake of imposition of fines; and after such are paid, he cuts down the green crops, with which he feeds his horses.

11. The cultivators[3.a.12] on the lands of the vassals he seizes by force, extorts fines, or sells their cattle to pay them. Thus cultivation is ruined and the inhabitants leave the country.

12. From oppression the town magistrates[3.a.13] of Deogarh have fled to Raepur. He lays in watch to seize and extort money from them.

13. When he summons his vassals for purposes of extortion and they escape his clutches, he seizes on their wives and families. Females, from a sense of honour, have on such occasions thrown themselves into wells.

14. He interferes to recover old debts, distraining the debtor of all he has in the world: half he receives.

15. If any one have a good horse, by fair means or foul he contrives to get it.

16. When Deogarh was established, at the same time were our allotments: as is his patrimony, so is our patrimony.[3.a.14] Thousands have been expended in establishing and improving them, yet our rank, privileges, and rights he equally disregards.

17. From these villages, founded by our forefathers, he, at will, takes four or five skins of land and bestows them on foreigners; and thus the ancient proprietors are reduced to poverty and ruin.

18. From of old, all his Rajput kin had daily rations, or portions of grain: for four years these rights have been abolished.

19. From ancient times the pattayats formed his council; now he consults only foreigners. What has been the consequence? the whole annual revenue derived from the mountains is lost.

20. From the ancient Bhum[3.a.15] of the Frerage[3.a.16] the mountaineers carry off the cattle, and instead of redeeming them, this faujdar sets the plunderers up to the trick of demanding rakhwali.[3.a.17]

21. Money is justice, and there is none other: whoever has money may be heard. The bankers and merchants have gone abroad for protection, but he asks not where they are.

22. When cattle are driven off to the hills, and we do ourselves justice and recover them, we are fined, and told that the mountaineers have his pledge. Thus our dignity is lessened. Or if we seize one of these marauders, a party is sent to liberate him, for which the faujdar [200] receives a bribe. Then a feud ensues at the instigation of the liberated Mer, and the unsupported Rajput is obliged to abandon his patrimony.[3.a.18] There is neither protection nor support. The chief is supine, and so regardless of honour, that he tells us to take money to the hills and redeem our property. Since this faujdar had power, ‘poison has been our fate.’ Foreigners are all in all, and the home-bred are set aside. Deccanis and plunderers enjoy the lands of his brethren. Without fault, the chiefs are deprived of their lands, to bring which into order time and money have been lavished. Justice there is none.

Our rights and privileges in his family are the same as his in the family of the Presence.[3.a.19] Since you[3.a.20] entered Mewar, lands long lost have been recovered. What crimes have we committed that at this day we should lose ours?

We are in great trouble.[3.a.21]

No. III

Maharaja Sri Gokuldas to the four ranks (char misl) of Pattayats of Deogarh, commanding. Peruse.

Without crime no vassal shall have his estate or charsas disseized. Should any individual commit an offence, it shall be judged by the four ranks (char misl), my brethren, and then punished. Without consulting them on all occasions I shall never inflict punishment.[3.a.22] To this I swear by Sri Nathji. No departure from this agreement shall ever occur. S. 1874; the 6th Pus.

No. IV

Grant from Maharana Ari Singh, Prince of Mewar, to the Sindi Chief, Abdu-l Rahim Beg.

Ramji![3.a.23] Ganeshji![3.a.23] Eklingji![3.a.23]

Sri Maharaja Dhiraj Maharana Ari Singh to Mirza Abdu-l Rahim Beg Adilbegot, commanding.

Now some of our chiefs having rebelled and set up the impostor Ratna Singh, brought the [201] Deccani army and erected batteries against Udaipur, in which circumstances your services have been great and tended to the preservation of our sovereignty: therefore, in favour towards you, I have made this grant, which your children and children’s children shall continue to enjoy. You will continue to serve faithfully; and whoever of my race shall dispossess you or yours, on him be Eklingji and the sin of the slaughter of Chitor.

Particulars.

1st. In estates, 200,000 rupees.

2nd. In cash annually, 25,000.

3rd. Lands outside the Debari gate, 10,000.

4th. As a residence, the dwelling-house called Bharat Singh’s.

5th. A hundred bighas of land outside the city for a garden.

6th. The town of Mithun in the valley, to supply wood and forage.

7th. To keep up the tomb of Ajmeri Beg, who fell in action, one hundred bighas of land.

Privileges and Honours.

8th. A seat in Darbar and rank in all respects equal to the chieftain of Sadri.[3.a.24]

9th. Your kettle-drums (Nakkara) to beat to the exterior gate, but with one stick only.

10th. Amar Balaona,[3.a.25] and a dress of honour on the Dasahra[3.a.26] festival.

11th. Drums to beat to Ahar. All other privileges and rank like the house of Salumbar.[3.a.27] Like that house, yours shall be from generation to generation; therefore according to the valuation of your grant you will serve.

12th. Your brothers or servants, whom you may dismiss, I shall not entertain or suffer my chief to entertain.

13th. The Chamars[3.a.28] and Kirania[3.a.29] you may use at all times when alone, but never in the Presence.

14th. Munawwar Beg, Anwar Beg, Chaman Beg, are permitted seats in front of the throne; Amar Balaona, and honorary dresses on Dasahra, and seats for two or three other relatives who may be found worthy the honour.

15th. Your agent (Vakil) shall remain at court with the privileges due to his rank.

By command: SAH MOTI RAM BOLIA,

S. 1826 (A.D. 1770) Bhadon (August) sudi 11 Somwar (Monday).

No. V

Grant of the Patta of Bhainsror to Rawat Lal Singh, one of the sixteen great vassals of Mewar.

Maharaja Jagat Singh to Rawat Lal Singh Kesarisinghgot,[3.a.30] commanding.

Now to you the whole Pargana of Bhainsror[3.a.31] is granted as Giras, viz. [202]:

Town of Bhainsror 3000 1500

Fifty-two others (names uninteresting), besides one in the valley of the capital. Total value 62,000 31,000[3.a.32]

With two hundred and forty-eight horse and two hundred and forty-eight foot, good horse and good Rajputs, you will perform service. Of this, forty-eight horse and forty-eight foot are excused for the protection of your fort; therefore with two hundred foot and two hundred horse you will serve when and wherever ordered. The first grant was given in Pus, S. 1798, when the income inserted was over-rated. Understanding this, the Presence (huzur) ordered sixty thousand of annual value to be attached to Bhainsror.

No. VI

Grant from Maharana Sangram Singh of Mewar to his Nephew, the Prince Madho Singh, heir-apparent to the principality of Jaipur.

SRI RAMJAYATI

(Victory to Rama).

SRI GANESH PRASAD SRI EKLING PRASAD

(_By favour of (By favour of Ganesh). Eklinga_).

Maharaja Dhiraj Maharana Sri Sangram Singh, Adisatu, commanding. To my nephew, Kunwar Madho Singhji, giras (a fief) has been granted, viz.:

The fief (patta) of Rampura; therefore, with one thousand horse and two thousand foot, you will perform service during six months annually; and when foreign service is required, three thousand foot and three thousand horse.

While the power of the Presence is maintained in these districts you will not be dispossessed.

By command: PANCHOLI RAECHAND and MEHTA MUL DAS. S. 1785 (A.D. 1729); Chait sudi 7th; Mangalwar (Tuesday).

Addressed in the Rana’s own hand.

To my nephew Madho Singh[3.a.35] [203]. My child, I have given you Rampura: while mine, you shall not be deprived of it. Done.

No. VII

Grant of Bhum Rakhwali (Salvamenta) from the village of Dongla to Maharaja Khushhal Singh.

S. 1806 (A.D. 1750), the first of Sawan (July).

1st. A field of one hundred and fifty-one bighas, of which thirty-six are irrigated.

2nd. One hundred and two bighas of waste and unirrigated, viz.:

Six bighas cultivated by Govinda the oilman.

Three, under Hira and Tara the oilmen.

Seventeen cultivated by the mason Hansa, and Lal the oilman.

Four bighas of waste and forest land (parti, aryana) which belonged to Govinda and Hira, etc., etc.; and so on enumerating all the fields composing the above aggregate.

Dues and Privileges

Pieces of money 12.

Grain 24 maunds.

On the festivals of Rakhi, Diwali, and Holi, one copper coin from each house.

Serana at harvest.

Shukri from the Brahmans.

Transit duties for protection of merchandise, viz., a pice on every cart-load, and half a pice for each bullock.

Two platters on every marriage feast.

--------------

No. VIII

Grant of Bhum by the Inhabitants of Amli to Rawat Fateh Singh of Amet. S. 1814 (A.D. 1758)

The Ranawats Sawant Singh and Subhag Singh had Amli in grant; but they were oppressive to the inhabitants, slew the Patels Jodha and Bhagi, and so ill-treated the Brahmans, that Kusal and Nathu sacrificed themselves on the pyre. The inhabitants demanded the protection of the Rana, and the pattayats were changed; and now the inhabitants grant in rakhwali one hundred and twenty-five bighas as bhum to Fateh Singh[3.a.36] [204].

No. IX

Grant of Bhum by the Inhabitants of the Town of Dongla to Maharaja Zorawar Singh, of Bhindar.

To Sri Maharaja Zorawar Singh, the Patels, traders, merchants, Brahmans, and united inhabitants of Dongla, make agreement.

Formerly the ‘runners’ in Dongla were numerous: to preserve us from whom we granted bhum to the Maharaja. To wit:

One well, that of Hira the oilman.

One well, that of Dipa the oilman.

One well, that of Dewa the oilman.

In all, three wells, being forty-four bighas of irrigated (piwal), and one hundred and ninety-one bighas of unirrigated (mal) land. Also a field for juar.

Customs or Dignities (Maryad) attached to the Bhum.

1st. A dish (kansa) on every marriage.

2nd. Six hundred rupees ready cash annually.

3rd. All Bhumias, Girasias, the high roads, passes from raids and ‘runners,’ and all disturbances whatsoever, the Maharaja must settle.

When the Maharaja is pleased to let the inhabitants of Dongla reinhabit their dwellings, then only can they return to them.[3.a.37]

Written by the accountant Kacchia, on the full moon of Jeth, S. 1858, and signed by all the traders, Brahmans, and towns-people.

------------------

No. X

Grant of Bhum by the Prince of Mewar to an inferior Vassal.

Maharana Bhim Singh to Baba Ram Singh, commanding.

Now a field of two hundred and twenty-five bighas in the city of Jahazpur, with the black orchard (sham bagh) and a farm-house (nohara) for cattle, has been granted you in bhum.

Your forefathers recovered for me Jahazpur and served with fidelity; on which account this bhum is renewed. Rest assured no molestation shall be offered, nor shall any pattayat interfere with you.

Privileges.

One serana.[3.a.38] Two halmas [205].[3.a.39] Offerings of coco-nuts on the Holi and Dasahra festivals. From every hundred bullock-loads[3.a.40] of merchandise, twelve annas. From every hundred and twenty-five ass-loads, six annas. From each horse sold within Jahazpur, two annas. From each camel sold, one anna. From each oil-mill, one pula. From each iron mine (madri), a quarter rupee. From each distillation of spirits, a quarter rupee. From each goat slain, one pice. On births and marriages,[3.a.41] five platters (kansa). The handful (inch) from every basket of greens. With every other privilege attached to bhum.

Irrigated land (piwal) 51 bighas. Unirrigated land (mal) 110 " Mountain land (magra) 40 " Meadow land (bira) 25 " —— 226 bighas. ——

Asarh (June) S. 1853 (A.D. 1797).

No. XI

Charter of Privileges and Immunities granted to the town of Jhalrapatan, engraved on a Pillar in that City.

S. 1853 (A.D. 1797), corresponding with the Saka 1718, the sun being in the south, the season of cold, and the happy month of Kartika,[3.a.42] the enlightened half of the month, being Monday the full moon.

Maharaja Dhiraj Sri Ummed Singh Deo,[3.a.43] the Faujdar[3.a.44] Raj Zalim Singh [206] and Kunwar Madho Singh, commanding. To all the inhabitants of Jhalrapatan, Patels,[3.a.45] Patwaris,[3.a.46] Mahajans,[3.a.47] and to all the thirty-six castes, it is written.

At this period entertain entire confidence, build and dwell.

Within this abode all forced contributions and confiscations are for ever abolished. The taxes called Bhalamanusi,[3.a.48] Anni,[3.a.49] and Rekha Barar,[3.a.50] and likewise all Bhetbegar,[3.a.51] shall cease.

To this intent is this stone erected, to hold good from year to year, now and evermore. There shall be no violence in this territory. This is sworn by the cow to the Hindu and the hog to the Musalman: in the presence of Captain Dilel Khan, Chaudhari Sarup Chand, Patel Lalo, the Mahesri Patwari Balkishan, the architect Kalu Ram, and the stone-mason Balkishan.

Parmo[3.a.52] is for ever abolished. Whoever dwells and traffics within the town of Patan, one half of the transit duties usually levied in Haravati are remitted; and all mapa (meter’s) duties are for ever abolished.

------------------

No. XII

Abolitions, Immunities, Prohibitions, etc. etc. Inscription in the Temple of Lachhmi Narayan at Akola.

In former times tobacco was sold in one market only. Rana Raj Singh commanded the monopoly to be abolished. S. 1645.

Rana Jagat Singh prohibited the seizure of the cots and quilts by the officers of his government from the printers of Akola.

------------------

No. XIII

Privileges and Immunities granted to the Printers of Calico and Inhabitants of the Town of Great Akola in Mewar.

Maharana Bhim Singh, commanding, to the inhabitants of Great Akola.

Whereas the village has been abandoned from the assignments levied by the garrison of Mandalgarh, and it being demanded of its population how it could again be rendered prosperous, they unanimously replied: "Not to exact beyond the dues and contributions (dand dor) established of yore; to erect the pillar promising never to exact above half the produce of the crops, or to molest the persons of those who thus paid their dues."

The Presence agreed, and this pillar has been erected. May Eklinga look to him who breaks this command. The hog to the Musalman and the cow to the Hindu.

Whatever contributions (dand) parmo,[3.a.53] puli,[3.a.54] heretofore levied shall be paid [207].

All crimes committed within the jurisdiction of Akola to be tried by its inhabitants, who will sit in justice on the offender and fine him according to his faults.

On Amavas[3.a.55] no work shall be done at the well[3.a.56] or at the oil-mill, nor printer put his dye-pot on the fire.[3.a.57]

Whoever breaks the foregoing, may the sin of the slaughter of Chitor be upon him.

This pillar was erected in the presence of Mehta Sardar Singh, Sanwal Das, the Chaudharis Bhopat Ram and Daulat Ram, and the assembled Panch of Akola.

Written by the Chaudhari Bhopji, and engraved by the stonecutter Bhima.

S. 1856 (A.D. 1800)

------------------

No. XIV

Prohibition against Guests carrying away Provisions from the Public Feast.[3.a.58]

Sri Maharana Sangram Singh to the inhabitants of Marmi.

On all feasts of rejoicing, as well as those on the ceremonies for the dead, none shall carry away with them the remains of the feast. Whoever thus transgresses shall pay a fine to the crown of one hundred and one rupees. S. 1769 (A.D. 1713), Chait Sudi 7th.

------------------

No. XV

Maharana Sangram Singh to the merchants and bankers of Bakrol.

The custom of furnishing quilts (sirak)[3.a.59] of which you complain is of ancient date. Now when the collectors of duties, their officers, or those of the land revenue stop at Bakrol, the merchants will furnish them with beds and quilts. All other servants will be supplied by the other inhabitants.

Should the dam of the lake be in any way injured, whoever does not aid in its repair shall, as a punishment, feed one hundred and one Brahmans. Asarh 1715, or June A.D. 1659 [208].

------------------

No. XVI

Warrant of the Chief of Bijolli to his Vassal, Gopaldas Saktawat.

Maharaja Mandhata to Saktawat Gopaldas, be it known.

At this time a daily fine of four rupees is in force against you. Eighty are now due; Ganga Ram having petitioned in your favour, forty of this will be remitted. Give a written declaration to this effect—that with a specified quota you will take the field; if not, you will stand the consequences.

Viz.: One good horse and one matchlock, with appurtenances complete, to serve at home and abroad (des pardes), and to run the country[3.a.60] with the Kher.

When the levy (kher) takes the field, Gopaldas must attend in person. Should he be from home, his retainers must attend, and they shall receive rations from the presence. Sawan sudi das (August 10) S. 1782.

------------------

No. XVII

Maharaja Udaikaran to the Saktawat Shambhu Singh. Be it known.

I had annexed Gura to the fisc, but now, from favour, restore it to you. Make it flourish, and serve me at home and abroad, with one horse, and one foot soldier.

When abroad you shall receive rations (bhatta) as follows:

Flour 3 lb.

Pulse 4 ounces.

Butter (ghi) 2 pice weight.

Horses’ feed 4 seers at 22 takas each seer, of daily allowance.

If for defence of the fort you are required, you will attend with all your dependents, and bring your wife, family, and chattels; for which, you will be exempted from two years of subsequent service. Asarh 14, S. 1834 [209].

------------------

No. XVIII

Bhum in Mundkati, or Compensation for Blood, to Jeth Singh Chondawat.

The Patel’s son went to bring home his wife with Jeth’s Rajputs as a guard. The party was attacked, the guard killed, and there having been no redress for the murder, twenty-six bighas have been granted in mundkati[3.a.61] (compensation).

No. XIX

Rawat Megh Singh to his natural brother, Jamna Das, a patta (fief) has been granted, viz.:

The village of Rajpura, value Rupees 401 A garden of mogra flowers[3.a.62] 11 —— Rupees 412 ——

Serve at home and abroad with fidelity: contributions and aids pay according to custom, and as do the rest of the vassals. Jeth 14th, S. 1874.

No. XX

Charter given by the Rana of Mewar, accepted and signed by all his Chiefs; defining the duties of the contracting Parties.

A.D. 1818.

Siddh Sri Maharana Dhiraj, Maharana Bhim Singh, to all the nobles my brothers and kin, Rajas, Patels, Jhalas, Chauhans, Chondawats, Panwars, Sarangdeots, Saktawats, Rathors, Ranawats, etc., etc.

Now, since S. 1822 (A.D. 1776), during the reign of Sri Ari Singhji,[3.a.63] when the troubles commenced, laying ancient usages aside, undue usurpations of the land have been made: therefore on this day, Baisakh badi 14th, S. 1874 (A.D. 1818), the Maharana assembling all his chiefs, lays down the path of duty in new ordinances.

1st. All lands belonging to the crown obtained since the troubles, and all lands seized by one chief from another, shall be restored.

2nd. All Rakhwali,[3.a.64] Bhum, Lagat,[3.a.65] established since the troubles, shall be renounced.

3rd. Dhan,[3.a.66] Biswa,[3.a.67] the right of the crown alone, shall be renounced.

4th. No chiefs shall commit thefts or violence within the boundaries of their estates. They shall entertain no Thugs,[3.a.68] foreign thieves or thieves of the country, as Moghias,[3.a.68] Baoris,[3.a.68] Thoris:[3.a.68] but those who shall adopt peaceful habits may remain; but should any return to their old pursuits, their heads shall instantly be taken off. All property stolen shall be made good by the proprietor of the estate within the limits of which it is plundered [210].

5th. Home or foreign merchants, traders, Kafilas,[3.a.69] Banjaras,[3.a.70] who enter the country, shall be protected. In no wise shall they be molested or injured, and whoever breaks this ordinance, his estate shall be confiscated.

6th. According to command, at home or abroad service must be performed. Four divisions (chaukis) shall be formed of the chiefs, and each division shall remain three months in attendance at court, when they shall be dismissed to their estates. Once a year, on the festival of the Dasahra,[3.a.71] all the chiefs shall assemble with their quotas ten days previous thereto, and twenty days subsequent they shall be dismissed to their estates. On urgent occasions, and whenever their services are required, they shall repair to the Presence.

7th. Every Pattawat holding a separate patta from the Presence shall perform separate service. They shall not unite or serve under the greater Pattawats: and the sub-vassals of all such chiefs shall remain with and serve their immediate Pattawat.[3.a.72]

8th. The Maharana shall maintain the dignities due to each chief according to his degree.

9th. The Ryots shall not be oppressed: there shall be no new exactions or arbitrary fines. This is ordained.

10th. What has been executed by Thakur Ajit Singh and sanctioned by the Rana, to this all shall agree.[3.a.73]

11th. Whosoever shall depart from the foregoing, the Maharana shall punish. In doing so the fault will not be the Rana’s. Whoever fails, on him be the oath (an) of Eklinga and the Maharana.

[Here follow the signatures of all the chieftains of rank in Mewar, which it is needless to insert] [211].

-----

Footnote 3.a.1:

The names omitted to prevent any of them falling a sacrifice to the blind fury of their prince. The brave chief of Nimaj has sold his life, but dearly. In vain do we look in the annals of Europe for such devotion and generous despair as marked his end, and that of his brave clan. He was a perfect gentleman in deportment, modest and mild, and head of a powerful clan.

Footnote 3.a.2:

Fiscal, that is, sequestrated.

Footnote 3.a.3:

Clerks, and inferior officers of government.

Footnote 3.a.4:

Alluding to the sovereigns of Delhi. In the magnificent feudal assemblage at this gorgeous court, where seventy-six princes stood in the Divan (Diwan-i-Khass) each by a pillar covered with plates of silver, the Marwar prince had the right hand of all. I have an original letter from the great-grandfather of Raja Man to the Rana, elate with this honour.

Footnote 3.a.5:

In 1806.

Footnote 3.a.6:

The historian of the Middle Ages justly remarks, that “the most deadly hatred is that which men, exasperated by proscription and forfeitures, bear their country.”

Footnote 3.a.7:

Hide or skin, from the vessel used in irrigation being made of leather.

Footnote 3.a.8:

The vassals, or those holding fiefs (patta) of Deogarh.

Footnote 3.a.9:

A copper coin, equal to twopence.

Footnote 3.a.10:

Military commander; a kind of inferior maire du palais, on every Rajput chieftain’s estate, and who has the military command of the vassals. He is seldom of the same family, but generally of another tribe.

Footnote 3.a.11:

Mountaineers.

Footnote 3.a.12:

Of the Jat and other labouring tribes.

Footnote 3.a.13:

Chauthias. In every town there is an unpaid magistracy, of which the head is the Nagar Seth, or chief citizen, and the four Chauthias, tantamount to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, who hold their courts and decide in all civil cases.

Footnote 3.a.14:

Here are the precise sentiments embodied in the remonstrances of the great feudal chiefs of Marwar to their prince; see Appendix, No. I.

Footnote 3.a.15:

The old allodial allotments.

Footnote 3.a.16:

Bhayyad.

Footnote 3.a.17:

The salvamenta of our feudal writers; the blackmail of the north.

Footnote 3.a.18:

‘Watan.’

Footnote 3.a.19:

The Rana.

Footnote 3.a.20:

The Author.

Footnote 3.a.21:

With the articles of complaint of the vassals of Deogarh and the short extorted charter, to avoid future cause for such, we may contrast the following: "Pour avoir une idée du brigandage que les nobles exerçaient à l’époque où les premieres chartes furent accordées, il suffit d’en lire quelques-unes, et l’on verra que le seigneur y disait:—‘Je promets de ne point voler, extorquer les biens et les meubles des habitans, de les délivrer des totes ou rapines, et autres mauvaises coutumes, et de ne plus commettre envers eux d’exactions.’—En effet, dans ces tems malheureux, vivres, meubles, chevaux, voitures, dit le savant Abbé de Mably, tout était enlevé par l’insatiable et aveugle avidité des seigneurs" (Art. ‘Chartres,’ Dict. de l’Ancien Régime).

Footnote 3.a.22:

This reply to the remonstrance of his vassals is perfectly similar in point to the 43rd article of Magna Charta.

Footnote 3.a.23:

Invocations to Ram, Ganesh (god of wisdom), and Eklinga, the patron-divinity of the Sesodia Guhilots.

Footnote 3.a.24:

The first of the foreign vassals of the Rana’s house. [Bari Sādri, about 50 miles E.S.E. of Udaipur city, held by the senior noble of Mewār, a Rājput of the Jhāla sub-sept, styled Rāja of Sādri (Erskine ii. A. 93).]

Footnote 3.a.25:

A horse furnished by the prince, always replaced when he dies, therefore called Amar, or immortal.

Footnote 3.a.26:

The grand military festival, when a muster is made of all the Rajput quotas.

Footnote 3.a.27:

The first of the home-chieftains.

Footnote 3.a.28:

The tail of the wild ox, worn across the saddle-bow.

Footnote 3.a.29:

An umbrella or shade against the sun; from kiran, ‘a ray.’

Footnote 3.a.30:

Clan (got) of Kesari Singh, one of the great branches of the Chondawats.

Footnote 3.a.31:

On the left bank of the Chambal.

Footnote 3.a.32:

To explain these double rekhs, or estimates, one is the full value, the other the deteriorated rate.

Footnote 3.a.33:

The bhala, or lance, is the sign-manual of the Salumbar chieftain, as hereditary premier of the state.

Footnote 3.a.34:

Is a monogram forming the word Sahai, being the sign-manual of the prince.

Footnote 3.a.35:

Bhanaij is sister’s son; as Bhatija is brother’s son. It will be seen in the Annals, that to support this prince to the succession of the Jaipur Gaddi, both Mewar and Jaipur were ruined, and the power of the Deccanis established in both countries.

Footnote 3.a.36:

This is a proof of the value attached to bhum, when granted by the inhabitants, as the first act of the new proprietor though holding the whole town from the crown, was to obtain these few bighas as bhum. After having been sixty years in that family, Amli has been resumed by the crown: the bhum has remained with the chief.

Footnote 3.a.37:

This shows how bhum was extorted in these periods of turbulence, and that this individual gift was as much to save them from the effects of the Maharaja’s violence as to gain protection from that of others.

Footnote 3.a.38:

A seer on each maund of produce.

Footnote 3.a.39:

The labour of two ploughs (hal). Halma is the personal service of the husbandman with his plough for such time as is specified. Halma is precisely the detested corvée of the French régime. “Les corvées sont tout ouvrage ou service, soit de corps ou de charrois et bêtes, pendant le jour, qui est dû à un seigneur. Il y avait deux sortes de corvées: les réelles et les personnelles, etc. Quelquefois le nombre des corvées était fixe: mais, le plus souvent, elles étaient à volonté du seigneur, et c’est ce qu’on appelait corvées à merci” (Art. ‘Corvée,’ Dict. de l’anc. Régime). Almost all the exactions for the last century in Mewar may come under this latter denomination.

Footnote 3.a.40:

A great variety of oppressive imposts were levied by the chiefs during these times of trouble, to the destruction of commerce and all facility of travelling. Everything was subject to tax, and a long train of vexatious dues exacted for “repairs of forts, boats at ferries, night-guards, guards of passes,” and other appellations, all having much in common with the ‘Droit de Péage’ in France. “Il n’y avait pas de ponts, de gués, de chaussées, d’écluses, de défilés, de portes, etc., où les féodaux ne fissent payer un droit à ceux que leurs affaires ou leur commerce forçaient de voyager” (Dict. de l’anc. Régime).

Footnote 3.a.41:

The privileges of our Rajput chieftains on the marriages of their vassals and cultivating subjects are confined to the best dishes of the marriage feast or a pecuniary commutation. This is, however, though in a minor degree, one of the vexatious claims of feudality of the French system, known under the term noçages, where the seigneur or his deputy presided, and had the right to be placed in front of the bride, “et de chanter à la fin du répas, une chanson guillerette.” But they even carried their insolence further, and "poussèrent leur mépris pour les villains (the agricultural classes of the Rajput system) jusqu’à exiger que leurs chiens eussent leur couvert auprès de la mariée, et qu’on les laissât manger sur la table" (Art. ‘Noçages,’ Dict. de l’anc. Régime).

Footnote 3.a.42:

December.

Footnote 3.a.43:

The Raja of Kotah.

Footnote 3.a.44:

Commander of the forces and regent of Kotah.

Footnote 3.a.45:

Officers of the land revenue.

Footnote 3.a.46:

Land accountants.

Footnote 3.a.47:

The mercantile class.

Footnote 3.a.48:

Literally ‘good behaviour.’

Footnote 3.a.49:

An agricultural tax.

Footnote 3.a.50:

Tax for registering.

Footnote 3.a.51:

This includes in one word the forced labour exacted from the working classes: the corvée of the French system.

Footnote 3.a.52:

Grain thrown on the inhabitants at an arbitrary rate; often resorted to at Kotah, where the regent is farmer general.

Footnote 3.a.53:

Grain, the property of the government, thrown on the inhabitants for purchase at an arbitrary valuation.

Footnote 3.a.54:

The handful from each sheaf at harvest.

Footnote 3.a.55:

A day sacred to the Hindu, being that which divides the month.

Footnote 3.a.56:

Meaning, they shall not irrigate the fields.

Footnote 3.a.57:

This part of the edict is evidently the instigation of the Jains, to prevent the destruction of life, though only that of insects.

Footnote 3.a.58:

The cause of this sumptuary edict was a benevolent motive, and to prevent the expenses on these occasions falling too heavily on the poorer classes. It was customary for the women to carry away under their petticoats (ghaghra) sufficient sweetmeats for several days’ consumption. The great Jai Singh of Amber had an ordinance restricting the number of guests to fifty-one on these occasions, and prohibited to all but the four wealthy classes the use of sugar-candy: the others were confined to the use of molasses and brown sugar. To the lower vassals and the cultivators these feasts were limited to the coarser fare; to juar flour, greens and oil. A dyer who on the Holi feasted his friends with sweetmeats of fine sugar and scattered about balls made of brown sugar, was fined five thousand rupees for setting so pernicious an example. The sadh, or marriage present, from the bridegroom to the bride’s father, was limited to fifty-one rupees. The great sums previously paid on this score were preventives of matrimony. Many other wholesome regulations of a much more important kind, especially those for the suppression of infanticide, were instituted by this prince.

Footnote 3.a.59:

‘Defence against the cold weather’ (si). This in the ancient French régime came under the denomination of “Albergie ou Hébergement, un droit royal. Par exemple, ce ne fut qu’après le règne de Saint Louis, et moyennant finances, que les habitans de Paris et de Corbeil s’affranchirent, les premiers de fournir au roi et à sa suite de bons oreillers et d’excellens lits de plumes, tant qu’il séjournait dans leur ville, et les seconds de le régaler quand il passait par leur bourg.”

Footnote 3.a.60:

The ‘Daurayat’ or runners, the term applied to the bands who swept the country with their forays in those periods of general confusion, are analogous to the armed bands of the Middle Ages, who in a similar manner desolated Europe under the term routiers, tantamount to our rabars (on the road), the labars of the Pindaris in India. The Rajput Daurayat has as many epithets as the French routier, who were called escorcheurs, tard veneurs (of which class Gopaldas appears to have been), mille-diables, Guilleries, etc. From the Crusades to the sixteenth century, the nobles of Europe, of whom these bands were composed (like our Rajputs), abandoned themselves to this sort of life; who, to use the words of the historian, “préférèrent la vie vagabonde à laquelle ils s’étoient accoutumés dans le camp, à retourner cultiver leurs champs. C’est alors que se formèrent ces bandes qu’on vit parcourir le royaume et étendre sur toutes les provinces le fléau de leurs inclinations destructives, répandre partout l’effroi, la misère, le deuil et le désespoir; mettre les villes à contribution, piller et incendier les villages, égorger les laboureurs, et se livrer à des accès de cruauté qui font frémir” (Dict. de l’ancien régime et des abus féodaux, art. ‘Routier,’ p. 422).

We have this apology for the Rajput routiers, that the nobles of Europe had not; they were driven to it by perpetual aggressions of invaders. I invariably found that the reformed routier was one of the best subjects: it secured him from indolence, the parent of all Rajput vices.

Footnote 3.a.61:

Mund, ‘the head’; kati, ‘cut.’

Footnote 3.a.62:

[The double jasmine, Jasminum sambac.]

Footnote 3.a.63:

The rebellion broke out during the reign of this prince.

Footnote 3.a.64:

Salvamenta.

Footnote 3.a.65:

Dues.

Footnote 3.a.66:

Transit duty.

Footnote 3.a.67:

Ditto.

Footnote 3.a.68:

Different descriptions of thieves. [The Moghias are settled principally in E. Mewār; if not identical with, they are closely allied to, the Bāori (Luard, Ethnographic Survey, Central India, App. V. 17 ff.). Gen. C. Hervey (Some Records of Crime, i. 386 ff.) makes frequent references to dacoities committed by them from their headquarters, Nīmach. The Bāori or Bāwariya are a notorious criminal tribe (Rose, Glossary, ii. 70 ff.; M. Kennedy, Notes on Criminal Classes in Bombay Presidency, 173 ff., 198 ff.). The Thori in Mārwār claim Rājput origin, and are connected with the Aheri, or nomad hunters (Census Report, Mārwār, 1891, ii. 194). According to Rose (op. cit. iii. 466) those in the Panjāb are rather vagrants than actual criminals.]

Footnote 3.a.69:

Caravans of merchandise, whether on camels, bullocks, or in carts.

Footnote 3.a.70:

Caravans of bullocks, chiefly for the transport of grain and salt.

Footnote 3.a.71:

On this festival the muster of all the feudal retainers is taken by the Rana in person, and honorary dresses and dignities are bestowed.

Footnote 3.a.72:

This article had become especially necessary, as the inferior chiefs, particularly those of the third class, had amalgamated themselves with the head of their clans, to whom they had become more accountable than to their prince.

Footnote 3.a.73:

This alludes to the treaty which this chief had formed, as the ambassador of the Rana, with the British Government.

-----

Chapter 1

We now proceed to the history of the States of Rajputana, and shall commence with the Annals of Mewar, and its princes.

=Titles of Mewār Chiefs: descent from the Sun.=—These are styled Ranas, and are the elder branch of the Suryavansi, or ‘children of the sun.’ Another patronymic is Raghuvansi, derived from a predecessor of Rama, the focal point of each scion of the solar race. To him, the conqueror of Lanka,[4.1.1] the genealogists endeavour to trace the solar lines. The titles of many of these claimants are disputed; but the Hindu tribes yield unanimous suffrage to the prince of Mewar as the legitimate heir to the throne of Rama, and style him Hindua Suraj, or ‘Sun of the Hindus.’[4.1.2] He is universally allowed to be the first of the ‘thirty-six royal tribes’; nor has a doubt ever been raised respecting his purity of descent. Many of these tribes[4.1.3] have been swept away by time; and the genealogist, who abhors a vacuum in his mystic page, fills up their place with others, mere scions of some ancient but forgotten stem.

=Stability of Mewār State.=—With the exception of Jaisalmer, Mewar is the only dynasty of these races[4.1.3] which has outlived eight centuries of foreign domination, in the same lands where [212] conquest placed them. The Rana still possesses nearly the same extent of territory which his ancestors held when the conqueror from Ghazni first crossed the ‘blue waters’[4.1.4] of the Indus to invade India; while the other families now ruling in the northwest of Rajasthan are the relics of ancient dynasties driven from their pristine seats of power, or their junior branches, who have erected their own fortunes. This circumstance adds to the dignity of the Ranas, and is the cause of the general homage which they receive, notwithstanding the diminution of their power. Though we cannot give the princes of Mewar an ancestor in the Persian Nushirwan, nor assert so confidently as Sir Thomas Roe his claims to descent from the celebrated Porus,[4.1.5] the opponent of Alexander, we can carry him into the regions of antiquity more remote than the Persian, and which would satisfy the most fastidious in respect to ancestry.

=Origin of the Rājputs.=—In every age and clime we observe the same eager desire after distinguished pedigree, proceeding from a feeling which, though often derided, is extremely natural. The Rajaputras are, however, scarcely satisfied with discriminating their ancestors from the herd of mankind. Some plume themselves on a celestial origin, whilst others are content to be demi-celestial; and those who cannot advance such lofty claims, rather than acknowledge the race to have originated in the ordinary course of nature, make their primeval parent of demoniac extraction; accordingly, several of the dynasties who cannot obtain a niche amongst the children of the sun or moon, or trace their descent from some royal saint, are satisfied to be considered the offspring of some Titan (Daitya). These puerilities are of modern fabrication, in cases where family documents have been lost, or emigration has severed branches from the parent stock; who, increasing in power, but ignorant of their birth, have had recourse to fable to supply the void. Various authors, borrowing from the same source, have assigned the seat of Porus to the Rana’s family; and coincidence of name has been the cause of the family being alternately elevated and depressed. Thus the incidental circumstance of the word Rhamnae being found in Ptolemy’s geography, in countries bordering on Mewar, furnishes our ablest geographers[4.1.6] with a reason [213] for planting the family there in the second century; while the commentators[4.1.7] on the geography of the Arabian travellers of the ninth and tenth centuries[4.1.8] discover sufficient evidence in “the kingdom of Rahmi, always at war with the Balhara sovereign,” to consider him (notwithstanding Rahmi is expressly stated “not to be much considered for his birth or the antiquity of his kingdom”) as the prince of Chitor, celebrated in both these points.

The translator of the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, following D’Anville,[4.1.9] makes Ozene (Ujjain) the capital of a Porus,[4.1.10] who sent an embassy to Augustus to regulate their commercial intercourse, and whom he asserts to be the ancestor of the Rana. But to show how guarded we should be in admitting verbal resemblance to decide such points, the title of Rana is of modern adoption, even so late as the twelfth century; and was assumed in consequence of the victorious issue of a contest with the Parihara prince of Mandor, who bore the title of Rana, and who surrendered it with his life and capital to the prince of Mewar. The latter substituted it for the more ancient appellation of Rawal;[4.1.11] but it was not till the thirteenth century that the novel distinction was generally recognized by neighbouring powers. Although we cannot for a moment admit the Rahmi, or even the Rhamnae of Ozene, to be connected with this family, yet Ptolemy appears to have given the real ancestor in his Baleokouroi, the Balhara monarchs of the Arabian travellers, the Valabhiraes of Saurashtra, who were the ancestors of the princes of Mewar.[4.1.12]

Before we proceed, it is necessary to specify the sources whence materials were obtained for the Annals of Mewar, and to give some idea of the character they merit as historical data [214].

=Sources of the History.=—For many years previous to sojourning at the court of Udaipur, sketches were obtained of the genealogy of the family from the rolls of the bards. To these was added a chronological sketch, drawn up under the eye of Raja Jai Singh of Amber, with comments of some value by him, and which served as a ground-work. Free access was also granted to the Rana’s library, and permission obtained to make copies of such MSS. as related to his history. The most important of these was the Khuman Raesa,[4.1.13] which is evidently a modern work founded upon ancient materials, tracing the genealogy to Rama, and halting at conspicuous beacons in this long line of crowned heads, particularly about the period of the Muhammadan irruption in the tenth century, the sack of Chitor by Alau-d-din in the thirteenth century, and the wars of Rana Partap with Akbar, during whose reign the work appears to have been recast.

The next in importance were the Rajvilas, in the Vraj Bhakha, by Man Kabeswara;[4.1.14] and the Rajratnakar,[4.1.15] by Sudasheo Bhat: both written in the reign of Rana Raj Singh, the opponent of Aurangzeb: also the Jaivilas, written in the reign of Jai Singh, son of Raj Singh. They all commence with the genealogies of the family, introductory to the military exploits of the princes whose names they bear.

The Mamadevi Prasistha is a copy of the inscriptions[4.1.16] in the temple of ‘the Mother of the Gods’ at Kumbhalmer. Genealogical rolls of some antiquity were obtained from the widow of an ancient family bard, who had left neither children nor kindred to follow his profession. Another roll was procured from a priest of the Jains residing in Sandrai, in Marwar, whose ancestry had enjoyed from time immemorial the title of Guru, which they held at the period of the sack of Valabhipura in the fifth century, whence they emigrated simultaneously with the Rana’s ancestors. Others were obtained from Jain priests at Jawad in Malwa. Historical documents possessed by several chiefs were readily furnished, and extracts were made from works, both Sanskrit and Persian, which incidentally mention the family. To these were added traditions or biographical anecdotes furnished in conversation by the Rana, or men of intellect amongst his chiefs [215], ministers, or bards, and inscriptions calculated to reconcile dates; in short, every corroborating circumstance was treasured up which could be obtained by incessant research during sixteen years. The Commentaries of Babur and Jahangir, the Institutes of Akbar, original grants, public and autograph letters of the emperors of Delhi and their ministers, were made to contribute more or less; yet, numerous as are the authorities cited, the result may afford but little gratification to the general reader, partly owing to the unpopularity of the subject, partly to the inartificial mode of treating it.

=Kanaksen.=—At least ten genealogical lists, derived from the most opposite sources, agree in making Kanaksen the founder of this dynasty; and assign his emigration from the most northern of the provinces of India to the peninsula of Saurashtra in S. 201, or A.D. 145. We shall, therefore, make this the point of outset; though it may be premised that Jai Singh, the royal historian and astronomer of Amber, connects the line with Sumitra (the fifty-sixth descendant from the deified Rama), who appears to have been the contemporary of Vikramaditya, B.C. 56.

The country of which Ayodhya (now Oudh) was the capital, and Rama monarch, is termed, in the geographical writings of the Hindus, Kosala; doubtless from the mother of Rama, whose name was Kausalya.[4.1.17] The first royal emigrant from the north is styled, in the Rana’s archives, Kosala-putra, ‘son of Kosala.’

=Titles of the Chiefs.=—Rama had two sons, Lava and Kusa: from the former the Rana’s family claim descent. He is stated to have built Lahore, the ancient Lohkot;[4.1.18] and the branch from which the princes of Mewar are descended resided there until Kanaksen emigrated to Dwarka. The difficulty of tracing these races through a long period of years is greatly increased by the custom of changing the appellation of the tribe, from conquest, locality, or personal celebrity. Sen[4.1.19] seems to have been the martial termination for many generations: this was followed by Dit, or Aditya, a term for the ‘sun.’ The first change in the name of the tribe was on their expulsion from Saurashtra, when for the generic term of Suryavansi was substituted the particular appellation of Guhilot. This name was maintained till another event dispersed the family, and when they settled in [216] Ahar,[4.1.20] Aharya became the appellative of the branch. This continued till loss of territory and new acquisitions once more transferred the dynasty to Sesoda,[4.1.21] a temporary capital in the western mountains. The title of Ranawat, borne by all descendants of the blood royal since the eventful change which removed the seat of government from Chitor to Udaipur, might in time have superseded that of Sesodia, if continued warfare had not checked the increase of population; but the Guhilot branch of the Suryavansi still retain the name of Sesodia.

Having premised thus much, we must retrograde to the darker ages, through which we shall endeavour to conduct this celebrated dynasty, though the clue sometimes nearly escapes from our hands in these labyrinths of antiquity.[4.1.22] When it is recollected to what violence this family has been subjected during the last eight centuries, often dispossessed of all but their native hills and compelled to live on their spontaneous produce, we could scarcely expect that historical records should be preserved. Chitor was thrice sacked and destroyed, and the existing records are formed from fragments, registers of births and marriages, or from the oral relations of the bards.

=Legend of Kanaksen.=—By what route Kanaksen, the first emigrant of the solar race, found his way into Saurashtra from Lohkot, is uncertain: he, however, wrested dominion from a prince of the Pramara race, and founded Birnagara in the second century (A.D. 144). Four generations afterwards, Vijayasen, whom the prince of Amber calls Nushirwan, founded Vijayapur, supposed to be where Dholka now stands, at the head of the Saurashtra peninsula.[4.1.23] Vidarba was also founded by him, the name of which was afterwards changed to Sihor. But the most celebrated was the capital, Valabhipura, which for years baffled all search, till it was revealed in its now humbled condition as Walai, ten miles west [217] of Bhaunagar. The existence of this city was confirmed by a celebrated Jain work, the Satrunjaya Mahatma.[4.1.24] The want of satisfactory proof of the Rana’s emigration from thence was obviated by the most unexpected discovery of an inscription of the twelfth century, in a ruined temple on the tableland forming the eastern boundary of the Rana’s present territory, which appeals to the ‘walls of Valabhi’ for the truth of the action it records. And a work written to commemorate the reign of Rana Raj Singh opens with these words: “In the west is Sorathdes,[4.1.25] a country well known: the barbarians invaded it, and conquered Bal-ka-nath;[4.1.26] all fell in the sack of Valabhipura, except the daughter of the Pramara.” And the Sandrai roll thus commences: “When the city of Valabhi was sacked, the inhabitants fled and founded Bali, Sandrai, and Nadol in Mordar des.”[4.1.27] These are towns yet of consequence, and in all the Jain religion is still maintained, which was the chief worship of Valabhipura when sacked by the ‘barbarian.’ The records preserved by the Jains give S.B. 205 (A.D. 524) as the date of this event.[4.1.28]

The tract about Valabhipura and northward is termed Bal, probably from the tribe of Bala, which might have been the designation of the Rana’s tribe prior to that of Grahilot; and most probably Multan, and all these regions of the Kathi, Bala, etc., were dependent on Lohkot, whence emigrated Kanaksen; thus strengthening the surmise of the Scythic descent of the Ranas, though now installed in the seat of Rama. The sun was the deity of this northern tribe, as of the Rana’s ancestry, and the remains of numerous temples to this grand object of Scythic homage are still to be found scattered over the peninsula; whence its name, Saurashtra, the country of the Sauras, or Sun-worshippers; the Surastrene or Syrastrene of ancient geographers; its inhabitants, the Suros (Σύρων) of Strabo.[4.1.29]

Besides these cities, the MSS. give Gayni[4.1.30] as the last refuge of the family [218] when expelled Saurashtra. One of the poetic chronicles thus commences: “The barbarians had captured Gajni. The house of Siladitya was left desolate. In its defence his heroes fell; of his seed but the name remained.”

=Invaders of Saurāshtra.=—These invaders were Scythic, and in all probability a colony from the Parthian kingdom, which was established in sovereignty on the Indus in the second century, having their capital at Saminagara, where the ancient Yadu ruled for ages: the Minnagara[4.1.31] of Arrian, and the Mankir of the Arabian geographers. It was by this route, through the eastern portion of the valley of the Indus, that the various hordes of Getae or Jats, Huns, Kamari, Kathi, Makwahana, Bala and Aswaria, had peopled this peninsula, leaving traces still visible. The period is also remarkable when these and other Scythic hordes were simultaneously abandoning higher Asia for the cold regions of Europe and the warm plains of Hindustan. From the first to the sixth century of the Christian era, various records exist of these irruptions from the north. Gibbon, quoting De Guignes, mentions one in the second century, which fixed permanently in the Saurashtra peninsula; and the latter, from original authorities, describes another of the Getae or Jats, styled by the Chinese Yueh-chi, in the north of India.[4.1.32] But the authority directly in point is that of Cosmas, surnamed Indikopleustes, who was in India during the reign of Justinian, and that of the first monarch of the Chinese dynasty of Leam.[4.1.33] Cosmas [219] had visited Kalyan, included in the Balhara kingdom; and he mentions the Ephthalites, or White Huns, under their king Golas, as being established on the Indus at the very period of the invasion of Valabhipura.[4.1.34]

Arrian, who resided in the second century at Barugaza (Broach), describes a Parthian sovereignty as extending from the Indus to the Nerbudda.[4.1.35] Their capital has already been mentioned, Minnagara. Whether these, the Abtelites[4.1.36] of Cosmas, were the Parthian dynasty of Arrian, or whether the Parthians were supplanted by the Huns, we must remain in ignorance, but to one or the other we must attribute the sack of Valabhipura.

The legend of this event affords scope for speculation, both as regards the conquerors and the conquered, and gives at least a colour of truth to the reputed Persian ancestry of the Rana: a subject which will be distinctly considered. The solar orb, and its type, fire, were the chief objects of adoration of Siladitya of Valabhipura. Whether to these was added that of the lingam, the symbol of Balnath (the sun), the primary object of worship with his descendants, may be doubted. It was certainly confined to these, and the adoption of ‘strange gods’ by the Suryavansi Guhilot is comparatively of modern invention.[4.1.37]

=The Fountain of the Sun.=—There was a fountain (Suryakunda) ‘sacred to the sun’ at Valabhipura, from which arose, at the summons of Siladitya (according to the legend) the seven-headed horse Saptasva, which draws the car of Surya, to bear him to battle. With such an auxiliary no foe could prevail; but a wicked minister revealed to the enemy the secret of annulling this aid, by polluting the sacred fountain with blood. This accomplished, in vain did the prince call on Saptasva to save him from the strange and barbarous foe: the charm was broken, and with it sunk the dynasty of Valabhi. Who the ‘barbarian’ was that defiled with blood of kine [220] the fountain of the sun,[4.1.38] whether Getae, Parthian, or Hun, we are left to conjecture. The Persian, though he venerated the bull, yet sacrificed him on the altar of Mithras;[4.1.39] and though the ancient Guebre purifies with the urine[4.1.40] of the cow, he will not refuse to eat beef; and the iniquity of Cambyses, who thrust his lance into the flank of the Egyptian Apis, is a proof that the bull was abstractedly no object of worship. It would be indulging a legitimate curiosity, could we by any means discover how these ‘strange’ tribes obtained a footing amongst the Hindu races; for so late as seven centuries ago we find Getae, Huns, Kathi, Ariaspas, Dahae, definitively settled, and enumerated amongst the Chhattis rajkula. How much earlier the admission, no authority states; but mention is made of several of them aiding in the defence of Chitor, on the first appearance of the faith of Islam upwards of eleven hundred years ago.

-----

Footnote 4.1.1:

Said to be Ceylon; an idea scouted by the Hindus, who transfer Lanka to a very distant region. [The latter is certainly not the common belief.]

Footnote 4.1.2:

This descendant of one hundred kings shows himself in cloudy weather from the surya-gaukhra, or ‘balcony of the sun.’

Footnote 4.1.3:

See History of the Tribes.

Footnote 4.1.4:

Nilab from nil, ‘blue,’ and ab, ‘water’; hence the name of the Nile in Egypt and in India [?]. Sind, or Sindhu, appears to be a Scythian word: Sin in the Tatar, t sin in Chinese, ‘river.’ [It is Sanskrit, meaning ‘divider.’] Hence the inhabitants of its higher course termed it aba sin, ‘parent stream’; and thus, very probably, Abyssinia was formed by the Arabians; ‘the country on the Nile,’ or aba sin. [Abyssinia is ‘land of the Habashi, or negroes.’]

Footnote 4.1.5:

See p. 47 above.

Footnote 4.1.6:

D’Anville and Rennell. [The Rhamnae have been identified with the Brāhūi of Baluchistān (McCrindle, Ptolemy, 159). Lassen places them on the Nerbudda.]

Footnote 4.1.7:

Maurice and others.

Footnote 4.1.8:

Relations anciennes des voyageurs, par Renaudot.

Footnote 4.1.9:

D’Anville (Antiquités de l’Inde) quotes Nicolas of Damascus as his authority, who says the letter written by Porus, prince of Ozene, was in the Greek character.

Footnote 4.1.10:

This Porus is a corruption of Puar, once the most powerful and conspicuous tribe in India; classically written Pramara, the dynasty which ruled at Ujjain for ages. [This is not certain (Smith, EHI, 60, note).]

Footnote 4.1.11:

Rawal, or Raul, is yet borne as a princely title by the Aharya prince of Dungarpur, and the Yadu prince of Jaisalmer, whose ancestors long ruled in the heart of Scythia. Raoul seems to have been titular to the Scandinavian chiefs of Scythic origin. The invader of Normandy was Raoul, corrupted to Rollon or Rollo. [The words, of course, have no connexion: Rāwal, Skt. rājakula, ‘royal family.’]

Footnote 4.1.12:

The Balhara kings, and their capital Nahrwala, or Anhilwara Patan, have given rise to much conjecture amongst the learned. We shall, before this work is closed, endeavour to condense what has been said by ancient and modern authorities on the subject; and from manuscripts, ancient inscriptions, and the result of a personal visit to this ancient domain, to set the matter completely at rest. [See p. 122 above.] [“Hippokoura, the royal seat of Baleo Kouros” (Periplus, viii. 83). Baleo Kouros has been identified with Vilivāyakura, a name found on coins of the Andhra dynasty (BG, i. Part ii. 158; McCrindle, Ptolemy, 179).]

Footnote 4.1.13:

Khuman is an ancient title of the earlier princes, and still used. It was borne by the son of Bappa, the founder, who retired to Transoxiana, and there ruled and died: the very country of the ancient Scythic Khomani.

Footnote 4.1.14:

Lord of rhyme.

Footnote 4.1.15:

Sea of gems.

Footnote 4.1.16:

These inscriptions will be described in the Personal Narrative.

Footnote 4.1.17:

[It is the other way: Kausalya took her name from Kosala.]

Footnote 4.1.18:

[See p. 116 above.]

Footnote 4.1.19:

Sen, ‘army’; kanak, ‘gold.’ [Kanaksen is entirely mythical. It has been suggested that the name is a reminiscence of the connexion of the great Kushān Emperor, Kanishka, with Gujarāt and Kāthiāwār (BG, i. Part i. 101).]

Footnote 4.1.20:

Ahar, or Ar, is in the valley of the present capital, Udaipur.

Footnote 4.1.21:

The origin of this name is from the trivial occurrence of the expelled prince of Chitor having erected a town to commemorate the spot, where after an extraordinarily hard chase he killed a hare (sasu).

Footnote 4.1.22:

The wild fable which envelops or adorns the cradle of every illustrious family is not easily disentangled. The bards weave the web with skill, and it clings like ivy round each modern branch, obscuring the aged stem, in the time-worn branches of which monsters and demi-gods are perched, whose claims of affinity are held in high estimation by these ‘children of the sun,’ who would deem it criminal to doubt that the loin-robe (dhoti) of their great founder, Bapa Rawal, was less than five hundred cubits in circumference, that his two-edged sword (khanda), the gift of the Hindu Proserpine, weighed an ounce less than sixty-four pounds, or that he was an inch under twenty feet in height.

Footnote 4.1.23:

[Vijayapur has been doubtfully identified with Bījapur in the Ahmadābād district (BG, i. Part i. 110).]

Footnote 4.1.24:

Presented to the Royal Asiatic Society of London.

Footnote 4.1.25:

Sorath or Saurashtra.

Footnote 4.1.26:

The ‘lord of Bal.’

Footnote 4.1.27:

Mārwār.

Footnote 4.1.28:

[The date of the fall of Valabhi is very uncertain (Smith, EHI, 315, note). It is said to have been destroyed in the reign of Sīlāditya VI., the last of the dynasty, about A.D. 776 (Duff, Chronology of India, 31, 67, 308).]

Footnote 4.1.29:

[There is possibly a confusion with the Soras of Aelian (xv. 8) which has been identified by Caldwell (Dravidian Grammar, 17) with the Σῶραι of Ptolemy, and with the Chola kingdom of Southern India. Surāshtra or Saurāshtra, ‘land of the Sus,’ was afterwards Sanskritized into ‘goodly country’ (Monier Williams, Skt. Dict. s.v.; BG, i. Part i. 6).]

Footnote 4.1.30:

Gaini, or Gajni, is one of the ancient names of Cambay (the port of Valabhipura), the ruins of which are about three miles from the modern city. Other sources indicate that these princes held possessions in the southern continent of India, as well as in the Saurashtra peninsula. Talatalpur Patan, on the Godavari, is mentioned, which tradition asserts to be the city of Deogir; but which, after many years’ research, I discovered in Saurashtra, it being one of the ancient names of Kandala. In after times, when succeeding dynasties held the title of Balakarae, though the capital was removed inland to Anhilwara Patan, they still held possession of the western shore, and Cambay continued the chief port. [For the identification of Gajni with Cambay see IA, iv. 147; BG, vi. 213 note. The site of Devagiri has been identified with Daulatābād (BG, i. Part ii. 136; Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, ii. 255, note).]

Footnote 4.1.31:

The position of Minnagara has occupied the attention of geographers from D’Anville to Pottinger. Sind being conquered by Omar, general of the caliph Al-Mansur (Abbasi), the name of Minnagara was changed to Mansura, “une ville célèbre sur le rivage droit du Sind ou Mehran.” “Ptolémée fait aussi mention de cette ville; mais en la déplaçant,” etc. D’Anville places it about 26°, but not so high as Ulug Bég, whose tables make it 26° 40´. I have said elsewhere that I had little doubt that Minnagara, handed down to us by the author of the Periplus as the μετρόπολις τῆς Σκυθίας, was the Saminagara of the Yadu Jarejas, whose chronicles claim Seistān as their ancient possession, and in all probability was the stronghold (nagara) of Sambos, the opponent of Alexander. On every consideration, I am inclined to place it on the site of Sehwan. The learned Vincent, in his translation of the Periplus, enters fully and with great judgment upon this point, citing every authority, Arrian, Ptolemy, Al-Biruni, Edrisi, D’Anville, and De la Rochette. He has a note (26, p. 386, vol. i.) which is conclusive, could he have applied it: “Al-Birun [equi-distant] between Debeil and Mansura.” D’Anville also says: “de Mansora à la ville nommée Birun, la distance est indiquée de quinze parasanges dans Abulféda,” who fixes it, on the authority of Abu-Rehan (surnamed Al-Biruni from his birthplace), at 26° 40´. The ancient name of Haidarabad, the present capital of Sind, was Nerun (نيرون;) or Nirun, and is almost equi-distant, as Abulfeda says, between Debal (Dewal or Tatta) and Mansura, Sehwan, or Minnagara, the latitude of which, according to my construction, is 26° 11´. Those who wish to pursue this may examine the Éclaircissemens sur la Carte de l’Inde, p. 37 et seq., and Dr. Vincent’s estimable translation, p. 386. [The site of Minnagara, like those of all the cities in the delta of the Indus, owing to changes in the course of the river, is very uncertain. Jhajhpur or Mungrapur has been suggested (McCrindle, Ptolemy, 72, Periplus, 1086 f.). Nīrūn has been identified with Helāi, a little below Jarak, on the high road from Tatta to Haidarābād (Elliot-Dowson i. 400).]

Footnote 4.1.32:

See History of the Tribes, p. 107, and translation of Inscription No. I. Vide Appendix.

Footnote 4.1.33:

Considerable intercourse was carried on between the princes of India and China from the earliest periods; but particularly during the dynasties of Sum, Leam and Tam, from the fourth to the seventh centuries, when the princes from Bengal and Malabar to the Panjab sent embassies to the Chinese monarchs. The dominions of these Hindu princes may yet be identified. [Cosmas flourished in the sixth century A.D., and never reached India proper (EB, vii. 214).]

Footnote 4.1.34:

[Gollas was Mihiragula (Smith, EHI, 317).]

Footnote 4.1.35:

[Ibid. 230 f.]

Footnote 4.1.36:

D’Herbelot (vol. i. p. 179) calls them the Haiathelah or Indoscythae, and says that they were apparently from Thibet, between India and China. De Guignes (tome i. p. 325) is offended with this explanation, and says: “Cette conjecture ne peut avoir lieu, les Euthélites n’ayant jamais demeuré dans le Thibet.” A branch of the Huns, however, did most assuredly dwell in that quarter, though we will not positively assert that they were the Abtelites. The Haihaya was a great branch of the Lunar race of Yayati, and appears early to have left India for the northern regions, and would afford a more plausible etymology for the Haiathelah than the Te-le, who dwelt on the waters (ab) of the Oxus. This branch of the Hunnish race has also been termed Nephthalite, and fancied one of the lost tribes of Israel [?].

Footnote 4.1.37:

Ferishta, in the early part of his history [i. Introd. lxviii f.], observes that, some centuries prior to Vikramaditya, the Hindus abandoned the simple religion of their ancestors, made idols, and worshipped the host of heaven, which faith they had from Kashmir, the foundry of magic superstition.

Footnote 4.1.38:

Divested of allegory, it means simply that the supply of water was rendered impure, and consequently useless to the Hindus, which compelled them to abandon their defences and meet death in the open field. Alau-d-din practised the same ruse against the celebrated Achal, the Khichi prince of Gagraun, which caused the surrender of this impregnable fortress. “It matters not,” observes an historian whose name I do not recollect, “whether such things are true, it is sufficient that they were believed. We may smile at the mention of the ghost, the evil genius of Brutus, appearing to him before the battle of Pharsalia; yet it never would have been stated, had it not assimilated with the opinions and prejudices of the age.” And we may deduce a simple moral from “the parent orb refusing the aid of his steed to his terrestrial offspring,” viz. that he was deserted by the deity. Fountains sacred to the sun and other deities were common to the Persians, Scythians, and Hindus, and both the last offered steeds to him in sacrifice. Vide History of the Tribes, article ‘Aswamedha,’ p. 91.

Footnote 4.1.39:

The Baldan, or sacrifice of the bull to Balnath, is on record, though now discontinued amongst the Hindus. [Baldān = balidāna, ‘a general offering to the gods.’]

Footnote 4.1.40:

Pinkerton, who is most happy to strengthen his aversion for the Celt, seizes on a passage in Strabo, who describes him as having recourse to the same mode of purification as the Guebre. Unconscious that it may have had a religious origin, he adduces it as a strong proof of the uncleanliness of their habits.

-----