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 in Europe,[[13]] as here; and when neglected, the results are in both cases the same.
Marriage.
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.
Classes of Landholders.
The Bhumia does not renew his grant, but holds on prescriptive possession. 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.
Whether Resumable.
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.