CHAPTER 8

118. The Jadu ka Dang, ‘or hills of Yadu,’ mentioned in the sketch of this race as one of their intermediate points of halt when they were driven from India after the Mahabharata.

119. Near the spot where Alexander built his fleet, which navigated to Babylon thirteen hundred years before.

120. Translated by Dow, ‘an island.’ Sind Sagar is one of the Duabas of the Panjab. I have compared Dow’s translation of the earlier portion of the history of Ferishta with the original, and it is infinitely more faithful than the world gives him credit for. His errors are most considerable in numerals and in weights and measures; and it is owing to this that he has made the captured wealth of India appear so incredible.

121. Ferishta vol. i. [The translation in the text is an abstract of that of Dow (i. 72). That of Briggs (i. 81 f.) is more accurate. In neither version is there any mention of the Sind Sāgar. Rose (Glossary, ii. 359) discredits the account of this naval engagement, and expresses a doubt whether the Jats at this period occupied Jūd or the Salt Ranges.]

122. [By the ‘Getae’ of the text the author apparently means Mongols.]

123. Abulghazi vol. ii. chap. 16. After his battle with Sultan Mahmud of Delhi, Timur gave orders, to use the word of his historian, “for the slaughter of a hundred thousand infidel slaves. The great mosque was fired, and the souls of the infidels were sent to the abyss of hell. Towers were erected of their heads, and their bodies were thrown as food to the beasts and birds of prey. At Mairta the infidel Guebres were flayed alive.” This was by order of Tamerlane, to whom the dramatic historians of Europe assign every great and good quality!

124. [The first Hun invasion occurred in 455A.D., and about 500 they overthrew the Gupta Empire (Smith,EHI, 309, 316).]

125.Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 136.

126.Hist. Gén. des Huns, tom. iii. p. 238.

127. [The name Tatar is derived from that of the Ta-ta Mongols (EB, xxvi. 448).]

128.Précis de Géographie universelle.Malte-Brun traces a connexion between the Hungarians and the Scandinavians, from similarity of language:“A ces siècles primitifs où les Huns, les Goths, les Jotes, les Ases, et bien d’autres peuples étaient réunis autour des anciens autels d’Odin.”Several of the words which he affords us are Sanskrit in origin. Vol. vi. p. 370.

129.Eclaircissemens Géographiques sur la Carte de l’Inde, p. 43 [Smith,EHI, 315 ff.].

130. An orthography which more assimilates with the Hindu pronunciation of the name Huon, or Oun, than Hun.

131. The same bard says that there are three or four houses of these Huns at Trisawi, three coss from Baroda; and the Khichi bard, Moghji, says their traditions record the existence of many powerful Hun princes in India. [On the Huns in W. India seeBG, i. Part i. 122 ff. The difficulty in the text is now removed by the proof that many of them became Rājputs.]

132. The late Captain Macmurdo, whose death was a loss to the service and to literature, gives an animated account of the habits of the Kathi. His opinions coincide entirely with my own regarding this race. See vol. i. p. 270,Trans. Soc. of Bombay. [For accounts of the Kāthi seeBG, ix. Part i. 252 ff., viii. 122 ff. Under the Mahrattas Kāthiāwār, the name of the Kāthi tract, was extended to the whole of Saurāshtra (Wilberforce-Bell,Hist. of Kathiawad, 132 f.).]

133. It is needless to particularise them here. In the poems of Chand, some books of which I have translated and purpose giving to the public, the important part the Kathi had assigned to them will appear.

134. [In the form of a symbol like a spider, the rays forming the legs (BG, ix. Part i. 257).]

135. It is the Rajput of Kathiawar, not of Rajasthan, to whom Captain Macmurdo alludes.

136. Of their personal appearance, and the blue eye indicative of their Gothic or Getic origin, the author will have occasion to speak more particularly in his personal narrative.

137. ‘Princes of Tatta and Multan.’

138. [The origin of the Bālas is not certain: they were probably Gurjaras (Ibid.495 f.).]

139. [Chotila in Kāthiāwār (BG, viii. 407).]

140. His son, Madho Singh, the present administrator, is the offspring of the celebrated Zalim and a Ranawat chieftain’s daughter, which has entitled his (Madho Singh’s) issue to marry far above their scale in rank. So much does superiority of blood rise above all worldly considerations with a Rajput, that although Zalim Singh held the reins of the richest and best ordered State of Rajasthan, he deemed his family honoured by his obtaining to wife for his grandson the daughter of a Kachhwaha minor chieftain.

141. [Ghumli in the Barda hills, about 40 miles east of Porbandar (Wilberforce-Bell,Hist. of Kathiawad, 49 f.;BG, viii. 440).]

142. [The terms Kamār and Kamāri seem to have disappeared.]

143. A compound word from goh, ‘strength’; Ila, ‘the earth.’ [This is out of the question: cf. Guhilot.]

144. [For Kher, ‘the cradle of the Rathors,’ see Erskine iii.A.199.]

145. [For the island of Piram in Ahmadabad district seeIGI, xx. 149 f., and for the tradition Wilberforce-Bell,op. cit.71 f.;BG, iv. 348, viii. 114.]

146. [The ancient Nandapadra in Rājpīpla, Bombay (IGI, xviii. 361;BG, i. Part ii. 314).]

147.Sarwaiya Khatri tain sar.

148.Su, as before observed, is a distinctive prefix, meaning ‘excellent.’ [The derivation is impossible. Lāta was S. Gujarāt.]

149. [For the Dābhi tribe, seeIA, iii. 69 ff., 193 f.; Forbes,Rāsmāla, 237 f.]

150. In 1807 the author passed through this territory, in a solitary ramble to explore these parts, then little known; and though but a youngSub., was courteously received and entertained both at Baroda and Sheopur. In 1809 he again entered the country under very different circumstances, in the suite of the British envoy with Sindhia’s court, and had the grief to witness the operations against Sheopur, and its fall, unable to aid his friends. The Gaur prince had laid aside the martial virtues. He became a zealot in the worship of Vishnu, left off animal food, was continually dancing before the image of the god, and was far more conversant in the mystical poetry of Krishna and his beloved Radha than in the martial song of the bard. His name was Radhikadas, ‘the slave of Radha’; and, as far as he is personally concerned, we might cease to lament that he was the last of his race.

151. [Only two sub-clans are named inRajputana Census Report, 1911, i. 255. Gaur Rājputs are numerous in the United Provinces, and the Gaur Brāhmans of Jaipur represent a foreign tribe merged into Hindu society (IA, xi. 22). They can have no connexion with the Pāla or Sena dynasty of Bengal (Smith,EHI, 397 ff.).]

152. SeeTransactions of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. i. p. 133. [They are found in the Upper Ganges-Jumna Duab, and are Musalmāns.]

153. Benares.

154. [For the Gaharwār, see Crooke,Tribes and Castes N.W.P. and Oudh, ii. 32 ff., and for the Gaharwār dynasty of Kanauj (Smith,EHI, 384 ff.).]

155. Slain at the instigation of Prince Salim, son of Akbar, afterwards the emperor Jahangir. See this incident stated in the emperor’s ownCommentaries[Āīn, i. Introd. xxiv. ff.].

156. [For Subhkaran Singh, see Manucci (i. 270, 272). Dalpat was one of his patients (Ibid.ii. 298).]

157. On the death of Mahadaji Sindhia, the females of his family, in apprehension of his successor (Daulat Rao), sought refuge and protection with the Raja of Datia. An army was sent to demand their surrender, and hostility was proclaimed as the consequence of refusal. This brave man would not even await the attack, but at the head of a devoted band of three hundred horse, with their lances, carried destruction amongst their assailants, neither giving nor receiving quarter: and thus he fell in defence of the laws of sanctuary and honour. Even when grievously wounded, he would accept no aid, and refused to leave the field, but disdaining all compromise awaited his fate. The author has passed upon the spot where this gallant deed was performed; and from his son, the present Raja, had the annals of his house.

158. Amber or Jaipur, as well as Macheri, were comprehended in Dhundhar, the ancient geographical designation [said to be derived from an ancient sacrificial mound (dhūndh), on the western frontier of the State, or from a demon-king, Dhūndhu (IGI, xiii. 385).]

159. The ruins of Rajor are about fifteen miles west of Rajgarh. A person sent there by the author reported the existence of inscriptions in the temple of Nilkantha Mahadeo.

160. [They are numerous in the United Provinces, but their origin and traditions are uncertain.]

161. [See Crooke,Tribes and Castes N.W.P. and Oudh, iv. 263 ff.]

162. [They are almost certainly of mixed origin (Crooke,op. cit.i. 118 ff.).]

163. [They lived east of the Caspian Sea, and can have no connexion with the Indian Dahia (Sykes,Hist. of Persia, i. 330).]

164. [Their origin is very uncertain; in Bahāwalpur they now repudiate Rājput descent, and claim to be descendants of the Prophet (Rose,Glossary, ii. 410 ff.; Malik Muhammad Din,Gazetteer Bahawalpur, i. 23, 133 ff.).]

165. [The Malloi (Skt. Mālava) occupied the present Montgomery District, and parts of Jhang. They had no connexion with Multan (Skt. Mūlasthānapura), (Smith,EHI, 96; McCrindle,Alexander, 350 ff.).]

166. [They are a mixed race, early settlers in Alwar (Crooke,Tribes and Castes N.W.P. and Oudh, iv. 86 ff.).]

167. The final syllablekais a mark of the genitive case [?].

168. ‘Chief of a country,’ fromdes, ‘country,’ andpati, ‘chief.’ (Qu.δεσπότης?)

169. [Āīn, ii. 344 f. Dāhir was killed in action: the real tragedy was the death of Muhammad bin Kāsim in consequence of a false accusation (Elliot-Dowson i. 292).]

170. [Elliot (Supplemental Glossary, 262) writes the name Dhāhima, and says they are found in Meerut District.]

171. Chand, the bard, thus describes Bayana, and the marriage of Prithwiraja with the Dahimi: “On the summit of the hills of Druinadahar, whose awful load oppressed the head of Sheshnag, was placed the castle of Bayana, resembling Kailas. The Dahima had three sons and two fair daughters: may his name be perpetuated throughout this iron age! One daughter was married to the Lord of Mewat, the other to the Chauhan. With her he gave in dower eight beauteous damsels and sixty-three female slaves, one hundred chosen horses of the breed of Irak, two elephants, and ten shields, a pallet of silver for the bride, one hundred wooden images, one hundred chariots, and one thousand pieces of gold.” The bard, on taking leave, says: “the Dahima lavished his gold, and filled his coffers with the praises of mankind. The Dahimi produced a jewel, a gem without price, the Prince Rainsi.”The author here gives a fragment of the ruins of Bayana, the ancient abode of the Dahima.

The author here gives a fragment of the ruins of Bayana, the ancient abode of the Dahima.

172. [Many names in the following list are not capable of identification, and their correct form is uncertain. Those of the mercantile tribes are largely groups confined to Rājputāna.]

Having thus taken a review of the tribes which at various times inhabited and still inhabit Hindustan, the subject must be concluded.

In so extensive a field it was impossible to introduce all that could have been advanced on the distinctive marks in religion and manners; but this deficiency will be remedied in the annals of the most prominent races yet ruling, by which we shall prevent repetition.

The same religion governing the institutions of all these tribes operates to counteract that dissimilarity in manners, which would naturally be expected amidst so great a variety, from situation or climate; although such causes do produce a material difference in external habit. Cross but the elevated range which divides upland Mewar from the low sandy region of Marwar, and the difference of costume and manners will strike the most casual observer. But these changes are only exterior and personal; the mental character is less changed, because the same creed, the same religion (the principal former and reformer of manners), guides them all.

Distinctions between the Rājput States.—We have the same mythology, the same theogony, the same festivals, though commemorated with peculiar distinctions. There are niceties in thought, as in dress, which if possible to communicate would excite but little interest; when the tie of a turban and the fold of a robe are, like Masonic symbols, distinguishing badges of tribes. But it is in their domestic circle that manners are best seen [122]; where restraint is thrown aside, and no authority controls the freedom of expression. But does the European seek access to this sanctum of nationality ere he gives his debtor and creditor account of character, his balanced catalogue of virtues and vices? He may, however, with the Rajput, whose independence of mind places him above restraint, and whose hospitalityand love of character will always afford free communication to those who respect his opinions and his prejudices, and who are devoid of that overweening opinion of self, which imagines that nothing can be learned from such friendly intercourse. The personal dissimilarity accordingly arises from locale; the mental similarity results from a grand fixed principle, which, whatever its intrinsic moral effect, whatever its incompatibility with the elevated notions we entertain, has preserved to these races, as nations, the enjoyment of their ancient habits to this distant period. May our boasted superiority in all that exalts man above his fellows, ensure to our Eastern empire like duration; and may these notions of our own peculiarly favoured destiny operate to prevent us from laying prostrate, in our periodical ambitious visitations, these the most ancient relics of civilization on the face of the earth. For the dread of their amalgamation with our empire will prevail, though such a result would be opposed not only to their happiness, but to our own stability.

Alliances with the British.—With our present system of alliances, so pregnant with evil from their origin, this fatal consequence (far from desired by the legislative authorities at home) must inevitably ensue. If the wit of man had been taxed to devise a series of treaties with a view to an ultimate rupture, these would be entitled to applause as specimens of diplomacy.

There is a perpetual variation between the spirit and the letter of every treaty; and while the internal independence of each State is the groundwork, it is frittered away and nullified by successive stipulations, and these positive and negative qualities continue mutually repelling each other, until it is apparent that independence cannot exist under such conditions. Where discipline is lax, as with these feudal associations, and where each subordinate vassal is master of his own retainers, the article of military contingents alone would prove a source of contention. By leading to interference with each individual chieftain, it would render such aid worse than useless. But this is a minor consideration to the tributary pecuniary stipulation which, unsettled and undetermined, leaves a door open to a [123] system of espionage into their revenue accounts—a system not only disgusting, but contrary to treaty, which leaves ‘internal administration’ sacred. These openings to dispute, and the general laxity of their governments coming in contact with our regular system, presentdangerous handles for ambition: and who so blind as not to know that ambition to be distinguished must influence every viceregent in the East? While deeds in arms and acquisition of territory outweigh the meek éclat of civil virtue, the periodical visitations to these kingdoms will ever be like the comet’s,

Foreboding change to princes.

Our position in the East has been, and continues to be, one in which conquest forces herself upon us. We have yet the power, however late, to halt, and not anticipate her further orders to march. A contest for a mud-bank has carried our arms to the Aurea Chersonesus, the limit of Ptolemy’s geography. With the Indus on the left, the Brahmaputra to the right, the Himalayan barrier towering like a giant to guard the Tatarian ascent, the ocean and our ships at our back, such is our colossal attitude! But if misdirected ambition halts not at the Brahmaputra, but plunges in to gather laurels from the teak forest of Arakan, what surety have we for these Hindu States placed by treaty within the grasp of our control?

But the hope is cherished, that the same generosity which formed those ties that snatched the Rajputs from degradation and impending destruction, will maintain the pledge given in the fever of success, “that their independence should be sacred”; that it will palliate faults we may not overlook, and perpetuate this oasis of ancient rule, in the desert of destructive revolution, of races whose virtues are their own, and whose vices are the grafts of tyranny, conquest, and religious intolerance.[1]

To make them known is one step to obtain for them, at least, the boon of sympathy; for with the ephemeral power of our governors and the agents of government, is it to be expected that the rod will more softly fall when ignorance of their history prevails, and no kind association springs from a knowledge of their martial achievements and yet proud bearing, their generosity, courtesy, and extended hospitality? These are Rajput virtues yet extant amidst all their revolutions, and which have survived ages of Muhammadan bigotry and power; though to the honour of the virtuous and magnanimous few among the crowned headsof eight centuries, both Tatar and Mogul, there were some great souls [124]; men of high worth, who appeared at intervals to redeem the oppression of a whole preceding dynasty.

The high ground we assumed, and the lofty sentiments with which we introduced ourselves amongst the Rajputs, arrogating motives of purity, of disinterested benevolence, scarcely belonging to humanity, and to which their sacred writings alone yielded a parallel, gave such exalted notions of our right of exerting the attributes of divinity, justice, and mercy, that they expected little less than almighty wisdom in our acts; but circumstances have throughout occurred in each individual State, to show we were mere mortals, and that the poet’s moral:

’Tis distance lends enchantment to the view,

was true in politics. Sorrow and distrust were the consequences—anger succeeded; but the sense of obligation is still too powerful to operate a stronger and less generous sentiment. These errors may yet be redeemed, and our Rajput allies yet be retained as useful friends: though they can only be so while in the enjoyment of perfect internal independence, and their ancient institutions.

“No political institution can endure,” observes the eloquent historian of the Middle Ages, “which does not rivet itself to the heart of men by ancient prejudices or acknowledged merit. The feudal compact had much of this character. In fulfilling the obligations of mutual assistance and fidelity by military service, the energies of friendship were awakened, and the ties of moral sympathy superadded to those of positive compact.”

We shall throw out one of the assumed causes which give stability to political institutions; ‘acknowledged merit,’ which never belonged to the loose feudal compact of Rajwara; but the absence of this strengthens the necessary substitute, ‘ancient prejudices,’ which supply many defects.

Our anomalous and inconsistent interference in some cases, and our non-interference in others, operate alike to augment the dislocation induced by long predatory oppression in the various orders of society, instead of restoring that harmony and continuity which had previously existed. The great danger, nay, the inevitable consequence of perseverance in this line of conduct, will be their reduction to the same degradation with our otherallies, and their ultimate incorporation with our already too extended dominion [125].

It may be contended, that the scope and tenor of these alliances were not altogether unfitted for the period when they were formed, and our circumscribed knowledge; but was it too late, when this knowledge was extended, to purify them from the dross which deteriorated the two grand principles of mutual benefit, on which all were grounded, viz. ‘perfect internal independence’ to them, and ‘acknowledged supremacy’ to the protecting power? It will be said, that even these corner-stones of the grand political fabric are far from possessing those durable qualities which the contracting parties define, but that, on the contrary, they are the Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, the good and evil principles of contention. But when we have superadded pecuniary engagements of indefinite extent, increasing in the ratio of their prosperity, and armed quotas or contingents of their troops, whose loose habits and discipline would ensure constant complaint, we may certainly take credit for having established a system which must compel that direct interference, which the broad principle of each treaty professes to check.

The inevitable consequence is the perpetuation of that denationalising principle, so well understood by the Mahrattas, ‘divide et impera.’ We are few; to use an Oriental metaphor, our agents must ‘use the eyes and ears of others.’ That mutual dependence, which would again have arisen, our interference will completely nullify. Princes will find they can oppress their chiefs, chiefs will find channels by which their sovereign’s commands may be rendered nugatory, and irresponsible ministers must have our support to raise these undefined tributary supplies; and unanimity, confidence, and all the sentiments of gratitude which they owe, and acknowledge to be our due, will gradually fade with the national degradation. That our alliances have this tendency cannot be disputed. By their very nature they transfer the respect of every class of subjects from their immediate sovereign to the paramount authority and its subordinate agents. Who will dare to urge that a government, which cannot support its internal rule without restriction, can be national? that without power unshackled and unrestrained by exterior council or espionage, it can maintain self-respect, the corner-stone of every virtue with States as with individuals? This first of feelingsthese treaties utterly annihilate. Can we suppose such denationalised allies are to be depended upon in emergencies? or, if allowed to retain a spark of their ancient moral inheritance, that it [126] will not be kindled into a flame against us when opportunity offers, instead of lighting up the powerful feeling of gratitude which yet exists towards us in these warlike communities?

Like us they were the natural foes of that predatory system which so long disturbed our power, and our preservation and theirs were alike consulted in its destruction. When we sought their alliance, we spoke in the captivating accents of philanthropy; we courted them to disunite from this Ahrimanes of political convulsion. The benevolent motives of the great mover of these alliances we dare not call in question, and his policy coincided with the soundest wisdom. But the treaties might have been revised, and the obnoxious parts which led to discord, abrogated, at the expense of a few paltry lacs of tribute and a portion of sovereign homage. It is not yet too late. True policy would enfranchise them altogether from our alliance; but till then let them not feel their shackles in the galling restraint on each internal operation. Remove that millstone to national prosperity, the poignant feeling that every increased bushel of corn raised in their long-deserted fields must send its tithe to the British granaries. Let the national mind recover its wonted elasticity, and they will again attain their former celebrity. We have the power to advance this greatness, and make it and its result our own; or, by a system unworthy of Britain, to retard and even quench it altogether.[2]

Never were their national characteristics so much endangered as in the seducing calm which followed the tempestuous agitations in which they had so long floated; doubtful, to use their own figurative expression, whether ‘the gift of our friendship,or our arms,’ were fraught with greater evil. The latter they could not withstand; though it must never be lost sight of, that, like ancient Rome when her glory was fading, we use ‘the arms of the barbarians’ to defend our conquests against them! Is the mind ever stationary? are virtue and high notions to be acquired from contact and example? Is there no mind above the level of £10 monthly pay in all the native legions of the three presidencies of India? no Odoacer, no Sivaji, [127] again to revive? Is the book of knowledge and of truth, which we hold up, only to teach them submission and perpetuate their weakness? Can we without fresh claims expect eternal gratitude, and must we not rationally look for reaction in some grand impulse, which, by furnishing a signal instance of the mutability of power, may afford a lesson for the benefit of posterity?

Is the mantle of protection, which we have thrown over these warlike races, likely to avert such a result? It might certainly, if imbued with all those philanthropic feelings for which we took credit, act with soporific influence, and extinguish the embers of international animosity. ‘The lion and the lamb were to drink from the same fountain’; they were led to expect the holy Satya Yug, when each man reposed under his own fig-tree, which neither strife nor envy dared approach.

When so many nations are called upon, in a period of great calamity and danger, to make over to a foreigner, their opposite in everything, their superior in most, the control of their forces in time of war, the adjudication of their disputes in time of peace, and a share in the fruits of their renovating prosperity, what must be the result; when each Rajput may hang up his lance in the hall, convert his sword to a ploughshare, and make a basket of his buckler? What but the prostration of every virtue? It commences with the basis of the Rajput’s—the martial virtues; extinguish these and they will soon cease to respect themselves. Sloth, low cunning and meanness will follow. What nation ever maintained its character that devolved on the stranger the power of protection! To be great, to be independent, its martial spirit must be cherished; happy if within the bounds of moderation. Led away by enthusiasm, the author experienced the danger of interference, when observing but one side of the picture—the brilliant lights which shone on their long days of darkness, not calculating the shade which would follow the sudden glare.

On our cessation from every species of interference alone depends their independence or their amalgamation—a crisis fraught with danger to our overgrown rule.

Let Alexander’s speech to his veterans, tired of conquest and refusing to cross the Hyphasis, be applied, and let us not reckon too strongly on our empire of opinion: “Fame never represents matters truly as they are, but on the contrary magnifies everything. This is evident; for our own reputation and glory, though founded on solid truth, is yet more obliged to rumour than reality.”[3]

We may conclude with the Macedonian conqueror’s reasons for showing the [128] Persians and his other foreign allies so much favour: “The possession of what we got by the sword is not very durable, but the obligation of good offices is eternal. If we have a mind to keep Asia, and not simply pass through it, our clemency must extend to them also, and their fidelity will make our empire everlasting. As for ourselves, we have more than we know what to do with, and it must be an insatiable, avaricious temper which desires to continue to fill what already runs over.”[4][129]

1. [The present relations of the States to the Government of India justify these expectations.]

2. If Lord Hastings’ philanthropy, which rejoiced in snatching these ancient States from the degradation of predatory warfare, expected that in four short years order should rise out of the chaos of a century, and “was prepared to visit with displeasure all symptoms of internal neglect, arising from supineness, indifference, or concealed ill-will”; ifhesignified that “government would take upon itself the task of restoring order,” and that “all changes” on this score “would be demanded and rigidly exacted”: in fine, that “such arrangements would be made as would deprive them of the power of longer abusing the spirit of liberal forbearance, the motives of which they were incapable of understanding or appreciating”; what have they to hope from those without his sympathies?

3. Quintus Curtius, lib. ix. [ii. 6].

4.Ibid.lib. viii. [viii. 27].

Back to Index Next