In the Hindu word which designates a feud we have another of those striking coincidences in terms to which allusion has already been made: vair is ‘a feud,’ vairi, ‘a foe.’ The Saxon term for the composition of a feud, wergild, is familiar to every man. In some of these States the initial vowel is hard, and [182] pronounced bair. In Rajasthan, bair is more common than vair, but throughout the south-west vair only is used. In these we have the original Saxon word war,[[22]] the French guer. The Rajput wergild is land or a daughter to wife. In points of honour the Rajput is centuries in advance of our Saxon forefathers, who had a legislative remedy for every bodily injury, when each finger and toe had its price.[[23]] This might do very well when the injury was committed on a hind, but the Rajput must have blood for blood. The monarch must be powerful who can compel acceptance of the compensation, or mund-kati.[[24]]
The prosecution of a feud is only to be stopped by a process which is next to impracticable; namely, by the party injured volunteering forgiveness, or the aggressor throwing himself as a suppliant unawares on the clemency of his foe within his own domains: a most trying situation for each to be placed in, yet not unexampled, and revenge in such a case would entail infamy. It was reserved for these degenerate days to produce such an instance.
Amargarh-Shāhpura Feud.
Ummeda was eccentric, if the term be not too weak to characterize acts which, in more civilized regions, would have subjected him to coercion. He has taken his son and suspended him by the cincture to the pinnacle of his little chapel at Shahpura, and then called on the mother to come and witness the sight. He would make excursions alone on horseback or on a swift camel, and be missing for days. In one of these moods he and his foe Dilel encountered face to face within the bounds of Amargarh. Dilel only saw a chief high in rank at his mercy. With courtesy he saluted him, invited him to his castle, entertained him, and pledged his health and forgiveness in the munawwar piyala:[[28]] they made merry, and in the cup agreed to extinguish the remembrance of the feud.
Both had been summoned to the court of the sovereign. The Raja proposed that they should go together, and invited him to go by Shahpura. Dilel accordingly saddled his twenty steeds, moved out his equipage, and providing himself with fitting raiment, and funds to maintain him at the capital, accompanied the Raja to receive the return of his hospitality. They ate from the same platter,[[29]] drank of the same cup and enjoyed the song and dance. They even went together to [184] their devotions, to swear before their deity what they had pledged in the cup—oblivion of the past. But scarcely had they crossed the threshold of the chapel, when the head of the chief of Amargarh was rolling on the pavement, and the deity and the altar were sprinkled with his blood! To this atrocious and unheard-of breach of the laws of hospitality, the Raja added the baseness of the pilferer, seizing on the effects of his now lifeless foe. He is said, also, with all the barbarity and malignity of long-treasured revenge, to have kicked the head with his foot, apostrophising it in the pitiful language of resentment. The son of Dilel, armed for revenge, collected all his adherents, and confusion was again commencing its reign. To prevent this, the Rana compelled restitution of the horses and effects; and five villages from the estate of the Raja were the mund-kati (wergild) or compensation to the son of Dilel. The rest of the estate of the murderer was eventually sequestrated by the crown.
The feuds of Arja and Sheogarh are elsewhere detailed, and such statements could be multiplied. Avowal of error and demand of forgiveness, with the offer of a daughter in marriage, often stop the progress of a feud, and might answer better than appearing as a suppliant, which requires great delicacy of contrivance.[[30]] Border disputes[[31]] are most prolific in the production of feuds, and the Rajput lord-marchers have them entailed on them as regularly as their estates. The border chiefs of Jaisalmer and Bikaner carry this to such extent that it often involved both states in hostilities. The vair and its composition in Mandalgarh will, however, suffice for the present to exemplify these things.
Rajput Pardhans or Premiers.
But these are general duties. In all these States some great court favourite [186], from his talents, character, or intrigue, holds the office of premier. His duties are proportioned to his wishes, or the extent of his talents and ambition; but he does not interfere with the civil administration, which has its proper minister. They, however, act together. The Rajput premier is the military minister, with the political government of the fiefs; the civil minister is never of this caste. Local customs have given various appellations to this officer. At Udaipur he is called bhanjgarh; at Jodhpur, pardhan; at Jaipur (where they have engrafted the term used at the court of Delhi) musahib; at Kotah, kiladar, and diwan or regent. He becomes a most important personage, as dispenser of the favours of the sovereign. Through him chiefly all requests are preferred, this being the surest channel to success. His influence, necessarily, gives him unbounded authority over the military classes, with unlimited power over the inferior officers of the State. With a powerful body of retainers always at his command, it is surprising we have not more frequently our ‘mayors of Burgundy and Dagoberts,’[[34]] our ‘Martels and Pepins,’ in Rajasthan.
We have our hereditary Rajput premiers in several of these States: but in all the laws of succession are so regulated that they could not usurp the throne of their prince, though they might his functions.
When the treaty was formed between Mewar and the British Government, the ambassadors wished to introduce an article of guarantee of the office of pardhan to the family of the chief noble of the country, the Rawat of Salumbar. The fact was, as stated, that the dignity was hereditary in this family; but though the acquisition was the result of an act of virtue, it had tended much towards the ruin of the country, and to the same cause are to be traced all its rebellions.