“It was a powerful feeling,” says an historian[[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;[[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;[[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?”[[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,[[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,[[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.
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[[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[[22]] of a cultivator in the province of Khandesh held the descendants of Timur pensioners on his bounty’ [197].
[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.]
[2]. As in Deogarh.
[3]. [Umara, plural of Amīr, ‘a chief.’]