Book 3 — CHAPTER 3
Reading edition
Feudal Incidents.
—I shall now proceed to compare the more general obligations of vassals, known under the term of ‘Feudal Incidents’ in Europe, and show their existence in Rajasthan. These were six in number: 1. Reliefs; 2. Fines of alienation; 3. Escheats; 4. Aids; 5. Wardship; 6. Marriage [158].
Relief.
—The first and most essential mark of a feudal relation exists in all its force and purity here: it is a perpetually recurring mark of the source of the grant, and the solemn renewal of the pledge which originally obtained it. In Mewar it is a virtual and
bona fide
surrender of the fief and renewal thereof. It is thus defined in European polity: “A relief
is a sum of money due from every one of full age taking a fief by descent.” It was arbitrary, and the consequent exactions formed a ground of discontent; nor was the tax fixed till a comparatively recent period.
By Magna Charta reliefs were settled at rates proportionate to the dignity of the holder.[2] In France the relief was fixed by the customary laws at one year’s revenue.[3] This last has long been the settled amount of nazarana, or fine of relief, in Mewar.
185
Fine paid on Succession.
—On the demise of a chief, the prince immediately sends a party, termed the
zabti
(sequestrator), consisting of a civil officer and a few soldiers, who take possession of the State in the prince’s name. The heir sends his prayer to court to be installed in the property, offering the proper relief. This paid, the chief is invited to repair to the presence, when he performs homage, and makes protestations of service and fealty; he receives a fresh grant, and the inauguration terminates by the prince girding him with a sword, in the old forms of chivalry. It is an imposing ceremony, performed in a full assembly of the court, and one of the few which has never been relinquished. The fine paid, and the brand buckled to his side, a steed, turban, plume, and dress of honour given to the chief, the investiture
is [159] complete; the sequestrator returns to court, and the chief to his estate, to receive the vows and congratulations of his vassals.
In this we plainly perceive the original power (whether exercised or not) of resumption. On this subject more will appear in treating of the duration of grants. The kharg bandhai, or ‘binding of the sword,’ is also performed when a Rajput is fit to bear arms; as amongst the ancient German tribes, when they put into the hands of the aspirant for fame a lance. Such are the substitutes for the toga virilis of the young Roman. The Rana himself is thus ordained a knight by the first of his vassals in dignity, the chief of Salumbar.
Renunciation of Reliefs.
—In the demoralization of all those States, some of the chiefs obtained renunciation of the fine of
186
relief, which was tantamount to making a grant in perpetuity, and annulling the most overt sign of paramount sovereignty. But these and many other important encroachments were made when little remained of the reality, or when it was obscured by a series of oppressions unexampled in any European State.
It is in Mewar alone, I believe, of all Rajasthan, that these marks of fealty are observable to such an extent. But what is remarked elsewhere upon the fiefs being movable, will support the doctrine of resumption though it might not be practised: a prerogative may exist without its being exercised.
Fine of Alienation.
—Rajasthan never attained this refinement indicative of the dismemberment of the system; so vicious and self-destructive a notion never had existence in these States. Alienation does not belong to a system of fiefs: the lord would never consent to it, but on very peculiar occasions.
In Cutch, amongst the Jareja[6] tribes, sub-vassals may alienate their estates; but this privilege is dependent on the mode of acquisition. Perhaps the only knowledge we have in Rajasthan of alienation requiring the sanction of the lord paramount, is in donations for pious uses: but this is partial. We see in the remonstrance of the Deogarh vassals the opinion they entertained of their lord’s alienation of their sub-fees to strangers, and without the Rana’s consent; which, with a similar train of conduct, produced sequestration of his fief till they were reinducted [160].
Tenants of the Crown may Alienate.
—The agricultural tenants, proprietors of land held of the crown, may alienate their rights upon a small fine, levied merely to mark the transaction. But the tenures of these non-combatants and the holders of fees are entirely distinct, and cannot here be entered on, further than to say that the agriculturist is, or was, the proprietor of the soil; the chief, solely of the tax levied thereon. But in Europe the alienation of the
feudum paternum
was not good without the consent of the kindred in the line of succession.
This would involve sub-infeudation and frerage, which I shall touch on distinctly, many of the troubles of these countries arising therefrom.
187
Escheats and Forfeitures.
—The fiefs which were only to descend in lineal succession reverted to the crown on failure of heirs, as they could not be bequeathed by will. This answers equally well for England as for Mewar. I have witnessed escheats of this kind, and foresee more, if the pernicious practice of unlimited adoption do not prevent the Rana from regaining lands, alienated by himself at periods of contention. Forfeitures for crimes must, of course, occur, and these are partial or entire, according to the delinquency.
In Marwar, at this moment, nearly all the representatives of the great fiefs of that country are exiles from their homes: a distant branch of the same family, the prince of Idar, would have adopted a similar line of conduct but for a timely check from the hand of benevolence.[8]
There is, or rather was, a class of lands in Mewar appended to the crown, of which it bestowed life-rents on men of merit. These were termed Chhorutar, and were given and taken back, as the name implies; in contradistinction to grants which, though originating in good behaviour, not only continued for life but descended in perpetuity. Such places are still so marked in the rent-roll, but they are seldom applied to the proper purpose.
Aids.
—Aids, implying ‘free gifts,’ or ‘benevolences,’ as they were termed in a European code, are well known. The
barar
(war-tax) is well understood in Mewar, and is levied on many occasions for the necessities of the prince or the head of a clan. It is a curious fact, that the
dasaundh
, or ‘tenth,’ in Mewar, as in Europe, was the [161] stated sum to be levied in periods of emergency or danger. On the marriage of the daughters of the prince, a benevolence or contribution was always levied: this varied. A few years ago, when two daughters and a granddaughter were married to the princes of Jaisalmer, Bikaner, and Kishangarh, a schedule of one-sixth, to portion the three, was made out; but it did not realize above an eighth. In this aid the civil officers of government contribute equally with the others. It is a point of honour with all to see their sovereign’s daughters married, and for once the contribution merited the name of benevolence.
188
But it is not levied solely from the coffers of the rich; by the chiefs it is exacted of their tenantry of all classes, who, of course, wish such subjects of rejoicing to be of as rare occurrence as possible.
“These feudal aids are deserving of our notice as the commencement of taxation, of which they long answered the purpose, till the craving necessities and covetous policy of kings established for them more durable and onerous burthens.”[9]
The great chiefs, it may be assumed, were not backward, on like occasions, to follow such examples, but these gifts were more voluntary. Of the details of aids in France we find enumerated, “paying the relief of the suzerain on taking possession of his lands”;[10] and by Magna Charta our barons could levy them on the following counts: to make the baron’s eldest son a knight, to marry his eldest daughter, or to redeem his person from captivity. The latter is also one occasion for the demand in all these countries. The chief is frequently made prisoner in their predatory invasions, and carried off as a hostage for the payment of a war contribution. Everything disposable is often got rid of on an occasion of this kind. Cœur de Lion would not have remained so long in the dungeons of Austria had his subjects been Rajputs. In Amber the most extensive benevolence, or barar,[11] is on the marriage of the Rajkumar, or heir apparent.
Wardship.
—This does exist, to foster the infant vassal during minority; but often terminating, as in the system of Europe, in the nefarious act of defrauding a helpless infant, to the pecuniary benefit of some court favourite. It is accordingly [162] here undertaken occasionally by the head of the clan; but two strong recent instances brought the dark ages, and the purchase of wardships for the purpose of spoliation, to mind. The first was in the Deogarh chief obtaining by bribe the entire management of the lands of Sangramgarh, on pretence of improving them for the infant, Nahar Singh, whose father was incapacitated by derangement. Nahar was a junior branch of the clan Sangawat, a subdivision of the Chondawat clan, both Sesodias of the Rana’s blood. The object, at the time, was to unite them to Deogarh, though he pleaded duty as head of the clan. His nomination of young Nahar as his own heir gives a colouring of truth to his
189
intentions; and he succeeded, though there were nearer of kin, who were set aside (at the wish of the vassals of Deogarh and with the concurrence of the sovereign) as unfit to head them or serve him.
Another instance of the danger of permitting wardships, particularly where the guardian is the superior in clanship and kindred, is exemplified in the Kalyanpur estate in Mewar. That property had been derived from the crown only two generations back, and was of the annual value of ten thousand rupees. The mother having little interest at court, the Salumbar chief, by bribery and intrigue, upon paying a fine of about one year’s rent, obtained possession—ostensibly to guard the infant’s rights; but the falsehood of this motive was soon apparent. There were duties to perform on holding it which were not thought of. It was a frontier post, and a place of rendezvous for the quotas to defend that border from the incursions of the wild tribes of the south-west. The Salumbar chief, being always deficient in the quota for his own estate, was not likely to be very zealous in his muster-roll for his ward’s, and complaints were made which threatened a change. The chief of Chawand was talked of as one who would provide for the widow and minor, who could not perform the duties of defence.
The sovereign himself often assumes the guardianship of minors; but the mother is generally considered the most proper guardian for her infant son. All others may have interests of their own; she can be actuated by his welfare alone. Custom, therefore, constitutes her the guardian; and with the assistance of the elders of the family, she rears and educates the young chief till he is fit to be girded with the sword [163].[12]
The Faujdar, or military manager, who frequently regulates the household as well as the subdivisions of the estate, is seldom of the kin or clan of the chief: a wise regulation, the omission of which has been known to produce, in these maires du palais on a small scale, the same results as will be described in the larger. This officer, and the civil functionary who transacts all the pecuniary concerns of the estate, with the mother and her family, are always considered to be the proper guardians of the minor. ‘Blood which could not inherit,’ was the requisite for a guardian 190in Europe,[13] as here; and when neglected, the results are in both cases the same.
Marriage.
—Refinement was too strong on the side of the Rajput to admit this incident, which, with that of wardship (both partial in Europe), illustrated the rapacity of the feudal aristocracy. Every chief, before he marries, makes it known to his sovereign. It is a compliment which is expected, and is besides attended with some advantage, as the prince invariably confers presents of honour, according to the station of the individual.
No Rajput can marry in his own clan; and the incident was originated in the Norman institutes, to prevent the vassal marrying out of his class, or amongst the enemies of his sovereign.[14]
Thus, setting aside marriage (which even in Europe was only partial and local) and alienation, four of the six chief incidents marking the feudal system are in force in Rajasthan, viz. relief, escheats, aids, and wardships.
Duration of Grants.
—I shall now endeavour to combine all the knowledge I possess with regard to the objects attained in granting lands, the nature and durability of these grants, whether for life and renewable, or in perpetuity. I speak of the rules as understood in Mewar. We ought not to expect much system in what was devoid of regularity, even according to the old principles of European feudal law, which, though now reduced to some fixed principles, originated in, and was governed by, fortuitous circumstances; and after often changing its character, ended in despotism, oligarchy, or democracy.
Classes of Landholders.
—There are two classes of Rajput landholders in Mewar, though the one greatly exceeds the other in number. One is the Girasia Thakur, or lord; the other the Bhumia. The Girasia chieftain is he who holds (
giras
) by grant (
patta
) of the [164] prince, for which he performs service with specified quotas at home and abroad, renewable at every lapse, when all the ceremonies of resumption,
the fine of relief,
and the investiture take place.
The Bhumia does not renew his grant, but holds on prescriptive 191possession. He succeeds without any fine, but pays a small annual quit-rent, and can be called upon for local service in the district which he inhabits for a certain period of time. He is the counterpart of the allodial proprietor of the European system, and the real zamindar of these principalities. Both have the same signification; from bhum and zamin, ‘land’: the latter is an exotic of Persian origin.
Girāsia.
—Girasia is from
giras
, ‘a subsistence’; literally and familiarly ‘a mouthful.’ Whether it may have a like origin with the Celtic word
gwas
,
said to mean ‘a servant,’
and whence the word vassal is derived, I shall leave to etymologists to decide, who may trace the resemblance to the
girasia
, the vassal chieftain of the Rajputs. All the chartularies or pattas
commence, "To ...
giras
has been ordained."
Whether Resumable.
—It has always been a subject of doubt whether grants were resumable at pleasure, or without some delinquency imputable to the vassal. Their duration in Europe was, at least, the life of the possessor, when they reverted
to the fisc. The whole of the ceremonies in cases of such lapse are decisive on this point in Mewar. The right to resume, therefore, may be presumed to exist; while the non-practice of it, the formalities of renewal being gone through, may be said to render the right a dead letter. But to prove its existence I need only mention, that so late as the reign of Rana Sangram,
the fiefs of Mewar were actually movable; and little more than a century and a half has passed since this practice ceased. Thus a Rathor would shift, with family, chattels, and retainers, from the north into the wilds of Chappan;
while the Saktawat relieved would
192
occupy the plains at the foot of the Aravalli;
or a Chondawat would exchange his [165] abode on the banks of the Chambal with a Pramara or Chauhan from the table-mountain, the eastern boundary of Mewar.
Since these exchanges were occurring, it is evident the fiefs (pattas) were not grants in perpetuity. This is just the state of the benefices in France at an early period, as described by Gibbon, following Montesquieu: “Les bénéfices étoient amovibles; bientôt ils les rendirent perpétuels, et enfin héréditaires.”[25] This is the precise gradation of fiefs in Mewar; movable, perpetual, and then hereditary. The sons were occasionally permitted to succeed their fathers;[26] an indulgence which easily grew into a right, though the crown had the indubitable reversion. It is not, however, impossible that these changes[27] were not of ancient authority, but arose from the policy of the times to prevent infidelity.
We ought to have a high opinion of princes who could produce an effect so powerful on the minds of a proud and turbulent nobility. The son was heir to the title and power over the vassals’ personals and movables, and to the allegiance of his father, but to nothing which could endanger that allegiance.
A proper apportioning and mixture of the different clans was another good result to prevent their combinations in powerful families, which gave effect to rebellion, and has tended more than external causes to the ruin which the State of Mewar exhibits.
193
Nobility: Introduction of Foreign Stocks.
—Throughout the various gradations of its nobility, it was the original policy to introduce some who were foreign in country and blood. Chiefs of the Rathor, Chauhan, Pramara, Solanki, and Bhatti tribes were intermingled. Of these several were lineal descendants of the most ancient races of the kings of Delhi and Anhilwara Patan;
and from these, in order to preserve the purity of blood, the princes of Mewar took their wives, when the other princes of Hind assented to [166] the degradation of giving daughters in marriage to the emperors of Delhi. The princes of Mewar never yielded in this point, but preserved their ancient manners amidst all vicissitudes. In like manner did the nobles of the Rana’s blood take daughters from the same tribes; the interest of this foreign race was therefore strongly identified with the general welfare, and on all occasions of internal turmoil and rebellion they invariably supported their prince. But when these wise institutions were overlooked, when the great clans increased and congregated together, and the crown demesne was impoverished by prodigality, rebellions were fostered by Mahratta rapacity, which were little known during the lengthened paramount sway of the kings of Delhi. This foreign admixture will lead us to the discussion of the different kinds of grants: a difference, perhaps, more nominal than real, but exhibiting a distinction so wide as to imply grants resumable and irresumable.
Kāla Pattas.
—It is elsewhere related that two great clans, descendants of the Ranas Rae Mall and Udai Singh, and their numerous scions, forming subdivisions with separate titles or patronymics, compose the chief vassalage of this country.
Exogamy.
—Chondawat and Saktawat are the stock; the former is subdivided into ten, the latter into about six clans. Rajputs never intermarry with their own kin: the prohibition has no limit; it extends to the remotest degree. All these clans are resolvable into the generic term of ‘the race’ or Kula Sesodia. A Sesodia man and woman cannot unite in wedlock—all these are therefore of the blood royal; and the essayists on population would have had a fine field in these quarters a century ago, ere constant misery had thinned the country, to trace the numerous
194
progeny of Chonda and Sakta in the Genesis
of Mewar. The Bhat’s genealogies would still, to a certain extent, afford the same means.
Descent gives a strength to the tenure of these tribes which the foreign nobles do not possess; for although, from all that has been said, it will be evident that a right of reversion and resumption existed (though seldom exercised, and never but in cases of crime), yet the foreigner had not this strength in the soil, even though of twenty generations’ duration. The epithet of kala patta, or ‘black grant,’ attaches to the foreign grant, and is admitted by the holder, from which the kinsman thinks himself exempt. It is virtually a grant resumable; nor can the possessors feel that security which the other widely affiliated aristocracies afford [167]. When, on a recent occasion, a revision of all the grants took place, the old ones being called in to be renewed under the sign-manual of the reigning prince, the minister himself visited the chief of Salumbar, the head of the Chondawats, at his residence at the capital, for this purpose. Having become possessed of several villages in the confusion of the times, a perusal of the grant would have been the means of detection; and on being urged to send to his estate for it, he replied, pointing to the palace, “My grant is in the foundation of that edifice”: an answer worthy of a descendant of Chonda, then only just of age. The expression marks the spirit which animates this people, and recalls to mind the well-known reply of our own Earl Warenne, on the very same occasion, to the quo warranto of Edward: “By their swords my ancestors obtained this land, and by mine will I maintain it.”
Hence it may be pronounced that a grant of an estate is for the life of the holder, with inheritance for his offspring in lineal descent or adoption, with the sanction of the prince, and resumable for crime or incapacity:[30] this reversion and power of resumption being marked by the usual ceremonies on each lapse 195of the grantee, of sequestration (zabti), of relief (nazarana), of homage and investiture of the heir. Those estates held by foreign nobles differ not in tenure; though, for the reasons specified, they have not the same grounds of security as the others, in whose welfare the whole body is interested, feeling the case to be their own: and their interests, certainly, have not been so consulted since the rebellions of S. 1822,[31] and subsequent years. Witness the Chauhans of Bedla and Kotharia (in the Udaipur valley), and the Pramar of the plateau of Mewar, all chiefs of the first rank.
The difficulty and danger of resuming an old-established grant in these countries are too great to be lightly risked. Though in all these estates there is a mixture of foreign Rajputs, yet the blood of the chief predominates; and these must have a leader of their own, or be incorporated in the estates of the nearest of kin. This increase might not be desirable for the crown, but the sub-vassals cannot be turned [168] adrift; a resumption therefore in these countries is widely felt, as it involves many. If crime or incapacity render it necessary, the prince inducts a new head of that blood; and it is their pride, as well as the prince’s interest, that a proper choice should be made. If, as has often occurred, the title be abolished, the sub-vassals retain their sub-infeudations, and become attached to the crown.
Many estates were obtained, during periods of external commotion, by threats, combination, or the avarice of the prince—his short-sighted policy, or that of his ministers—which have been remedied in the late reorganization of Mewar; where, by retrograding half a century, and bringing matters as near as possible to the period preceding civil dissension, they have advanced at least a century towards order.
Bhūmia, the Allodial Proprietor.
—It is stated in the historical annals of this country that the ancient clans, prior to Sanga Rana,
had ceased, on the rising greatness of the subsequent new division of clans, to hold the higher grades of rank; and had, in fact, merged into the general military landed proprietors of this country under the term
bhumia
, a most expressive and comprehensive name, importing absolute identity with the soil:
bhum
meaning ‘land,’ and being far more expressive than the newfangled
196
word, unknown to Hindu India, of
zamindar
, the ‘land-holder’ of Muhammadan growth. These Bhumias, the scions of the earliest princes, are to be met with in various parts of Mewar; though only in those of high antiquity, where they were defended from oppression by the rocks and wilds in which they obtained a footing; as in Kumbhalmer, the wilds of Chappan, or plains of Mandalgarh, long under the kings, and where their agricultural pursuits maintained them.
Their clannish appellations, Kumbhawat, Lunawat, and Ranawat, distinctly show from what stem and when they branched off; and as they ceased to be of sufficient importance to visit the court on the new and continually extending ramifications, they took to the plough. But while they disdained not to derive a subsistence from labouring as husbandmen, they never abandoned their arms; and the Bhumia, amid the crags of the alpine Aravalli where he pastures his cattle or cultivates his fields, preserves the erect mien and proud spirit of his ancestors, with more tractability, and less arrogance and folly, than his more [169] courtly but now widely separated brethren, who often make a jest of his industrious but less refined qualifications.[33] Some of these yet possess entire villages, which are subject to the payment of a small quit-rent: they also constitute a local militia, to be called in by the governor of the district, but for which service they are entitled to rations or peti.[34] These, the allodial[35] tenantry of our 197feudal system, form a considerable body in many districts, armed with matchlock, sword, and shield. In Mandalgarh, when their own interests and the prince’s unite (though the rapacity of governors, pupils of the Mahratta and other predatory schools, have disgusted these independents), four thousand Bhumias could be collected. They held and maintained without support the important fortress of that district, during half a century of turmoil, for their prince. Mandalgarh is the largest district of Mewar, and in its three hundred and sixty towns and villages many specimens of ancient usage may be found. The Solanki held largely here in ancient days, and the descendant of the princes of Patan still retains his Bhum and title of Rao.[36]
Feudal Militia.
—All this feudal militia pay a quit-rent to the crown, and perform local but limited service on the frontier garrison; and upon invasion,
when the
Kher
is called out, the whole are at the disposal of the prince on furnishing rations only. They assert that they ought not to pay this quit-rent and perform service also; but this may be doubted, since the sum is so small. To elude it, they often performed service under some powerful chief, where faction or court interest [170] caused it to be winked at. To serve without a
patta
is the great object of ambition.
Ma ka bhum
, ‘my land,’ in their Doric tongue, is a favourite phrase.
198Circumstances have concurred to produce a resemblance even to the refined fiction of giving up their allodial property to have it conferred as a fief. But in candour it should be stated, that the only instances were caused by the desire of being revenged on the immediate superiors of the vassals. The Rathor chief of Dabla held of his superior, the Raja of Banera, three considerable places included in the grant of Banera. He paid homage, an annual quit-rent, was bound to attend him personally to court, and to furnish thirty-five horse in case of an invasion. During the troubles, though perfectly equal to their performance, he was remiss in all these duties. His chief, with returning peace, desired to enforce the return to ancient customs, and his rights so long withheld; but the Rathor had felt the sweets of entire independence, and refused to attend his summons. To the warrant he replied, “his head and Dabla were together”; and he would neither pay the quit-rent nor attend his court. This refractory spirit was reported to the Rana; and it ended in Dabla being added to the fisc, and the chief’s holding the rest as a vassal of the Rana, but only to perform local service. There are many other petty free proprietors on the Banera estate, holding from small portions of land to small villages; but the service is limited and local in order to swell the chief’s miniature court. If they accompany him, he must find rations for them and their steeds.
So cherished is this tenure of Bhum, that the greatest chiefs are always solicitous to obtain it, even in the villages wholly dependent on their authority: a decided proof of its durability above common grants. The various modes in which it is acquired, and the precise technicalities which distinguished its tenure, as well as the privileges attached to it, are fully developed in translations of different deeds on the subject [171].[39]
Rajas of Banera and Shāhpura.
—We have also, amongst the nobility of Mewar, two who hold the independent title of prince or raja, one of whom is by far too powerful for a subject. These are the Rajas of Banera and Shahpura, both of the blood royal. The ancestor of the first was the twin-brother of Rana Jai Singh; the other, a Ranawat, branched off from Rana Udai Singh.
They have their grants renewed, and receive the khilat of investiture; but they pay no relief, and are exempt from all but personal attendance at their prince’s court, and the local 199service 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
which exhibit the rights, privileges, and honours, as well as the sources of income, while they also record the terms on which they are granted. Many royalties have been alienated in modern times by the thoughtless prodigality of the princes; even the grand mark of vassalage, the fine of relief, has been forgiven to one or two individuals; portions of transit duties, tolls on ferries, and other seignorial rights; coining copper currency; exactions of every kind, from the levy of toll for night protection of merchandise and for the repairs of fortifications, to the share of the depredations of the common robber, will sufficiently show the demoralization of the country.
Division of Pattas, or Sub-infeudation.
—Many years ago, when the similarity of the systems first struck my attention, I took one of the grants or
pattas
of a great vassal of Jaipur, and dissected it in all its minutiae, with the aid of a very competent authority who had resided as one of the managers of the chief. This document, in which the subdivision of the whole clan is detailed, materially aided me in developing the system [172].
The court and the household economy of a great chieftain is a miniature representation of the sovereign’s: the same officers, from the pardhan, or minister, to the cup-bearer (paniyari), as well as the same domestic arrangements. He must have his shish-mahall,[41] his bari-mahall,[42] and his mandir,[43] like his prince. 200He enters the dari-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 his sim or boundary. Allegiance is as hereditary as the land: “I am your child; my head and sword are yours, my service is at your command.” It is a rare thing for a Rajput to betray his Thakur, while the instances of self-devotion for him are innumerable: many will be seen interspersed in these papers. Base desertion, to their honour be it said, is little known, and known only to be execrated. Fidelity to the chief, Swamidharma, is the climax of all the virtues. The Rajput is taught from his infancy, in the song of the bard, to regard it as the source of honour here, and of happiness hereafter. The poet Chand abounds with episodes on the duty and beauty of fidelity; nor does it require a very fervid imagination to picture the affections which such a life is calculated to promote, when the chief is possessed of the qualities to call them forth. At the chase his vassals attend him: in the covert of the forest, the ground their social board, they eat their repast together, from the venison or wild boar furnished by the sport of the day; nor is the cup neglected. They are familiarly admitted at all times to his presence, and accompany him to the court of their mutual sovereign. In short, they are inseparable.[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; 201where 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.
Four hides constituted one knight’s fee,
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 in 202disagreements 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 termed
bhayyad
,
or brotherhood, synonymous to the tenure by frerage of France, but styled only an approximation to sub-infeudation.
"Give me my
bat
(share)," says the Rajput, when he attains to man’s estate, ‘the bat of the bhayyad,’ the portion of the frerage; and thus they go on clipping and paring till all are impoverished. The ‘customs’ of France
preserved the dignities of families and the indivisibility of a feudal homage, without exposing the younger sons of a gentleman to beggary and dependence. It would be a great national benefit if some means could be found to limit this subdivision, but it is an evil difficult of remedy. The divisibility of the Cutch and Kathiawar frerage, carried to the most destructive extent, is productive of litigation, crime, and misery. Where it has proper limits it is useful; but though the idea of each rood supporting its man is very poetical, it does not and cannot answer in practice. Its limit in Mewar we would not undertake to assert, but the vassals are careful not to let it become too small; they send the extra numbers to seek their fortunes abroad. In this custom, and the difficulty of finding
daejas
, or dowers, for their daughters,
203
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.