Influence of Muhammadans and Mahrattas.
In remarking the curious coincidence between the habits, notions, and governments of Europe in the Middle Ages, and those of Rajasthan, it is not absolutely necessary we should conclude that one system was borrowed from the other; each may, in truth, be said to have the patriarchal form for its basis. I have sometimes been inclined to agree with the definition of Gibbon, who styles the system of our ancestors the offspring of chance and barbarism. “Le système féodal, assemblage monstrueux de tant de parties que le tems et l’hazard ont réunies, nous offre un objet très compliqué: pour l’étudier il faut le décomposer.”[[4]] This I shall attempt.
The form, as before remarked, is truly patriarchal in these States, where the greater portion of the vassal chiefs, from the highest of the sixteen peers to the holders of a charsa[[5]] of land, claim affinity in blood to the sovereign.[[6]]
The natural seeds are implanted in every soil, but the tree did not gain [132] maturity except in a favoured aspect. The perfection of the system in England is due to the Normans, who brought it from Scandinavia, whither it was probably conveyed by Odin and the Sacasenae, or by anterior migrations, from Asia; which would coincide with Richardson’s hypothesis, who contends that it was introduced from Tatary. Although speculative reasoning forms no part of my plan, yet when I observe analogy on the subject in the customs of the ancient German tribes, the Franks or Gothic races, I shall venture to note them. Of one thing there is no doubt—knowledge must have accompanied the tide of migration from the east: and from higher Asia emerged in the Asi, the Chatti, and the Cimbric Lombard, who spread the system in Scandinavia, Friesland, and Italy.
Origin of Feuds.
I give this at length to show, that if I still persist in deeming the Rajput system a pure relation of feuds, I have before my eyes the danger of seeming resemblances. But grants, deeds, charters, and traditions, copies of all of which will be found in the Appendix, will establish my opinions. I hope to prove that the tribes in the northern regions of Hindustan did possess the system, and that it was handed down, and still obtains, notwithstanding seven centuries of paramount sway of the Mogul and Pathan dynasties, altogether opposed to them except in this feature of government where there was an original similarity. In some of these States—those least affected by conquest—the system remained freer from innovation. It is, however, from Mewar chiefly that I shall deduce my examples, as its internal [133] rule was less influenced by foreign policy, even to the period at which the imperial power of Delhi was on the decline.
Evidence from Mewar.
Evidence from Inscriptions.
Books of Grants.
Such a collection would be amusing, particularly if the traditionary were added to the engraved laws. They would often appear jejune, and might involve contradictions; but we should see the wants of the people; and if ever our connexion (which God forbid!) should be drawn closer, we could then legislate without offending national customs or religious prejudices. Could this, by any instinctive [136] impulse or external stimulus, be effected by themselves, it would be the era of their emersion from long oppression, and might lead to better notions of government, and consequent happiness to them all.