Chapter 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Footnote 3.5.1:

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

Footnote 3.5.2:

As in Deogarh.

Footnote 3.5.3:

[Umara, plural of Amīr, ‘a chief.’]

Footnote 3.5.4:

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

Footnote 3.5.5:

_Ek bap ka beta._

Footnote 3.5.6:

A.D. 1792.

Footnote 3.5.7:

That of the clan of Deogarh.

Footnote 3.5.8:

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

Footnote 3.5.9:

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

Footnote 3.5.10:

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

Footnote 3.5.11:

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

Footnote 3.5.12:

_Yamaloka._

Footnote 3.5.13:

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

Footnote 3.5.14:

Hallam, vol. i. p. 323.

Footnote 3.5.15:

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

Footnote 3.5.16:

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

Footnote 3.5.17:

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

Footnote 3.5.18:

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

Footnote 3.5.19:

Aurangzeb.

Footnote 3.5.20:

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

Footnote 3.5.21:

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

Footnote 3.5.22:

Sindhia.

-----