CHAPTER 4

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 localservice 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[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 orpattasof 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 hisshish-mahall,[41]hisbari-mahall,[42]and hismandir,[43]like his prince.He enters thedari-sala, or carpet hall, the minstrel[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’[45]is proclaimed within hissimor 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.[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.[47]Four hides constituted one knight’s fee,[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,[49]in the year 1037, which originated indisagreements 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,[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 termedbhayyad,[51]or brotherhood, synonymous to the tenure by frerage of France, but styled only an approximation to sub-infeudation.[52]"Give me mybat(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[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 findingdaejas, 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”;[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.[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.

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 derelief. Quand un gentilhomme avait dérogé, il pouvait effacer cette tache moyennant finances, et ce qu’il payait s’appelaitrelief, il recevait pour quittance des lettres dereliefou de réhabilitation” (Art.‘Relief,’‘Relief,’Dict. de l’anc. Régime).

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).

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.)

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).

5. ["All Rājput Jāgīrdārs, or holders of assigned lands, paynazarānaon the accession of a new Mahārāna, and on certain other occasions, while most of them pay a fine calledKaid[‘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).]

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.102above].

7. Wright on Tenures,apudHallam, vol. i. p. 185.

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.”

9. Hallam.

10. Ducange,apudHallam.

11.Bararis the generic name for taxation.

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

13. Hallam, vol. i. p. 190.

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.).]

15.Zabti, ‘sequestration.’

16.Nazarana.

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 andvates(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 [?].

18. Hallam, vol. i. 155. [Welsh, Cornishgwas, ‘a servant.’]

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

26. Hallam, quoting Gregory of Tours; the picture drawn inA.D.595.

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.

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

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

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).

31.A.D.1766.

32. Contemporary and opponent of Sultan Babur.

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.

34. Literally, ‘a belly-full.’

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 theMirasorBhumof 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 hisAdyapi,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.

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.

37. See Appendix, Nos.XVI. andXVII.

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.

39. See Appendix.

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

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.]

42. Gardens on the terrace within the palace.

43. Private temple of worship.

44. Dholi.

45.Anis 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.

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.

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

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

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 andjudgement 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 werefeuda paterna, such as had descended from the father. 4. That the lord should not alienate the fief of his vassal without hisconsent.”consent.”

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

51.Bhayyad, ‘frerage’.

52. Hallam, vol. i. p. 186.

53.Ibid.

54. Hallam, vol. i. p. 186.

55.“Ledroit d’aînessea 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).

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 calledrakhwali,[1]or ‘preservation’; thesalvamentaof Europe.[2]To a certain degree it always existed in these States; but the interminable predatorywarfare 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 obtainbhum: and here we have one solution of the constitutedbhumia,[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[4]economy of the protector, was sometimes stipulated, when the husbandmen were to find implements and cattle,[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,[6]likesalvamenta, 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 allsalvamentaand other marks of vassalage, obtained during these times of desolation, were annulled in the settlement which took place between the Rana and his chiefs, inA.D.1818[7][177].

But the crown itself, by some singular proceeding, possesses, or did possess, according to thePatta Bahi, or Book of Grants, considerablesalvamentaright, 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 thisrakhwali[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, isBasai.

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 andvillainsof Europe; nor is there any intermediate term denoting a species of slavery between theGola[9]of the Hindu chief’s household and the free Rajput but the singular one ofbasai, which must be explained, since it cannot be translated. This class approximates closely to thetributariiandcoloni, perhaps to theservi, 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.”[10]Precisely the condition of the cultivator in Haraoti who now tills for a taskmaster the fields he formerly owned, degraded to the name ofhali,[11]a ploughman.

“When small proprietors,” says Hallam, “lost their lands by mere rapine, we may believe their liberty was hardly less endangered.” Thehaliof Haraoti knows the bitter truth of this inference, which applies to the subject immediately before us, [178] thebasai. 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 thehaliof 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 amaire 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 overcomehis 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[12]as a curiosity in legislation, being given thirty years ago. Another, for the agriculturists’ protection, was set up inA.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 agoli[13]ordasimust 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;[14]but are generally esteemed in proportion to the quality of the mother, whether Rajputni, Muslim, or of the degraded tribes: they hold confidential placesabout the chiefs of whose blood they are. The great-grandfather of the late chief of Deogarh used to appear at court with three hundredgolas[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.[16]

Back to Index Next