6. Bapji, ‘sire,’ is the appellation of royalty, and, strange enough, whether to male or female; while its offsets, which form a numerous branch of vassals, are called babas, ‘the infants.’

7. Hallam’s Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 200.

8. Sanskrit, Sūla.

9. See Appendix, No. XII.

10. See Appendix, No. XIII.

11. See Appendix, No. XIV.

12. ‘Full moon’ (See Appendix, No. XIII.).

13. It is customary, when officers of the Government are detached on service, to exact from the towns where they are sent both bed and board.

14. Seized for public service, and frequently to exact a composition in money.

15. Hallam, vol. i. p. 197.

16. Some of these, of old date, I have seen three feet in length.

17. Hallam, vol. i. p. 199.

18. Hallam notices these laws by this technical phrase.

19. Sesodia is the last change of name which the Rana’s race has undergone. It was first Suryavansa, then Grahilot or Guhilot, Aharya, and Sesodia. These changes arise from revolutions and local circumstances.

20. [The Rāthor dynasty of Kanauj is a myth (Smith, EHI, 385).]

21. Nala and Damayanti.

22. Relations anciennes des Voyageurs, par Renaudot.

23. It is generally admitted that armorial bearings were little known till the period of the Crusades, and that they belong to the east. The twelve tribes of Israel were distinguished by the animals on their banners, and the sacred writings frequently allude to the ‘Lion of Judah.’ The peacock was a favourite armorial emblem of the Rajput warrior; it is the bird sacred to their Mars (Kumara), as it was to Juno, his mother, in the west. The feather of the peacock decorates the turban of the Rajput and the warrior of the Crusade, adopted from the Hindu through the Saracens. “Le paon a toujours été l’emblême de la noblesse. Plusieurs chevaliers ornaient leurs casques des plumes de cet oiseau; un grand nombre de familles nobles le portaient dans leur blazon ou sur leur cimier; quelques-uns n’en portaient que la queue” (Art. “Armoirie,” Dict. de l’ancien Régime).

24. I was the first European who traversed this wild country, in 1807, not without some hazard. It was then independent: about three years after it fell a prey to Sindhia. [Several ancient dynasties used a crest (lānchhana), and a banner (dhvaja): see the list in BG, i. Part ii. 299.]

25. The monkey-deity. [Known as Bajrang, Skt. vajranga, ‘of powerful frame.’]

26. The Khichis are a branch of the Chauhans, and Khichiwara lies east of Haravati.

27. [Quintus Curtius, viii. 14, 46; Arrian, Indika, viii.]

28. See Annals of Mewar, and note from D’Anville.

29. The Pamir range is a grand branch of the Indian Caucasus. Chand, the bard, designates them as the “Parbat Pat Pamir,” or Pamir Lord of Mountains. From Pahār and Pamir the Greeks may have compounded Paropanisos, in which was situated the most remote of the Alexandrias. [?]

30. The space between the grand rivers Ganges and Jumna, well known as the Duab.

31. Domestic habits and national manners are painted to the life, and no man can well understand the Rajput of yore who does not read these. Those were the days of chivalry and romance, when the assembled princes contended for the hand of the fair, who chose her own lord, and threw to the object of her choice, in full court, the barmala, or garland of marriage. Those were the days which the Rajput yet loves to talk of, when the glance of an eye weighed with a sceptre: when three things alone occupied him: his horse, his lance, and his mistress; for she is but the third in his estimation, after all: to the two first he owed her.

32. Charsa, a ‘hide or skin’ [see p. 156 above].

33. ‘Ministers,’ from Mantra, ‘mystification’ [‘a sacred text, spell’].

34. It is probably of Teutonic origin, and akin to Mantri, which embraces all the ministers and councillors of loyalty (Hallam, p. 195). [?]

35. Hallam, p. 193.

36. One I know, in whose family the office has remained since the period of Prithwiraja, who transferred his ancestor to the service of the Rana’s house seven hundred years ago. He is not merely a nominal hereditary minister, for his uncle actually held the office; but in consequence of having favoured the views of a pretender to the crown, its active duties are not entrusted to any of the family.

37. The numeral eighty-four. [In the ancient Hindu kingdoms the full estate was a group of 84 villages, smaller units being called Byālisa, 42, or ChaubīsaChaubīsa, 24 (Baden-Powell, The Village Community, 198, and see a valuable article in Elliot, Supplemental Glossary, 178 ff.)178 ff.)]

38. Now each chief claims the right of administering justice in his own domain, that is, in civil matters; but in criminal cases they ought not without the special sanction of the crown. Justice, however, has long been left to work its own way, and the self-constituted tribunals, the panchayats, sit in judgment in all cases where property is involved.

39. See Appendix, No. XX.

40. [They are heads of the Rānāwat sub-tribe. The latter enjoys the right, on succession, of having a sword sent to him with full honours, on receipt of which he goes to Udaipur to be installed (Erskine ii. A. 92).]

42. Oxen and carts are chiefly used in the Tandas, or caravans, for transportation of goods in these countries; camels further to the north.

43. [On the mines of Mewār, see IA, i. 63 f.]

44. The privilege of coining is a reservation of royalty. No subject is allowed to coin gold or silver, though the Salumbar chief has on sufferance a copper currency. The mint was a considerable source of income, and may be again when confidence is restored and a new currency introduced. The Chitor rupee is now thirty-one per cent inferior to the old Bhilara standard, and there was one struck at the capital even worse, and very nearly as bad as the moneta nigra of Philip the Fair of France, who allowed his vassals the privilege of coining it. [For an account of the past and present coinage of Mewār, see W. W. Webb, Currencies of the Hindu States of Rajputana, 3 ff.]

45. Enemy.

46. Numbering of houses.

47. A measure of land [usually 55 English yards]

48. Hallam, vol. i. p. 232.

49. Hume describes the necessity for our earlier kings making these tours to consume the produce, being in kind. So it is in Mewar; but I fancy the supply was always too easily convertible into circulating medium to be the cause there.

50. See Appendix, No. X.

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[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[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] 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,[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,[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[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[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[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.[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[10] and Saktawat,[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;[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.[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[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.[15] Besides this acknowledgment of supremacy, they offered nazarana[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.[17] Its Raja Bhagwandas gave his daughter to Humayun;[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;[19] Kambakhsh,[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,[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:[22] exactly one-tenth of the united Mansabdars of the empire, or five hundred and thirty thousand horse.[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[24] of a Rajput. It was the only ovation the Sesodia[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,”[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[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.”[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;[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.[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[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;[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.