There were other objections to the proffered treaty of no small weight. The Jaipur court justly deemed one-fifth (eight lakhs) of the gross revenues of the crown, a high rate of insurance for protection; but when we further stipulated for a prospective increase[[7]] of nearly one-third of all surplus revenue beyond forty lakhs, they saw, instead of the generous Briton, a sordid trafficker of mercenary protection, whose rapacity transcended that of the Mahratta.
Independent of these state objections, there were abundance of private and individual motives arrayed in hostility to the British offer. For example: the ministers dreaded the surveillance of a resident agent, as obnoxious to their authority and influence; and the chieftains, whom rank and ancient usage kept at court as the counsellors of their prince, saw in prospect the surrender of crown-lands, which fraud, favour, or force had obtained for them. Such were the principal causes which impeded the alliance between Amber and the Government-general of British India; but it would have marred the uniformity of Lord Hastings’ plan to have left a gap in the general protective system by the omission of Jaipur. The events rapidly happening around them—the presence of Amir Khan—the expulsion of the orange flag of the Mahratta, and the substitution of the British banner on the battlements of Ajmer—at length produced a tardy and ungracious assent, and, on the 2nd of April 1818, a treaty of ten articles was concluded, which made the Kachhwaha princes the friends and tributaries in perpetuity of Great Britain.
Disputed Succession.
Law of Succession in Rājputāna.
On the demise of a prince without lawful issue of his body, or that of near kindred, brothers or cousins, there are certain families in every principality (raj) of Rajwara, in whom is vested the right of presumptive heirship to the gaddi. In order to restrict the circle of claimants, laws have been established in every State limiting this right to the issue of a certain family in each principality. Thus, in Mewar, the elder of the Ranawat clans, styled Babas, or ‘the infants,’ possesses the latent right of heir-presumptive. In Marwar, the independent house of Idar, of the family of Jodha; in Bundi, the house of Dagari,[[11]] in Kotah, the Apjis of Pulaitha[[12]]; in Bikaner, the family of [381] Mahajan[[13]]; and in Jaipur, the branch Rajawat (according to seniority) of the stock of Raja Man. Even in this stock there is a distinction between those prior, and those posterior, to Raja Madho Singh; the former are styled simply Rajawat, or occasionally conjoined, Mansinghgot; the other Madhani. The Rajawats constitute a numerous frerage, of which the Jhalai house takes the lead; and in which, provided there are no mental or physical disabilities, the right of furnishing heirs to the gaddi of Jaipur is a long-established, incontrovertible, and inalienable privilege.
We have been thus minute, because, notwithstanding the expressed wish of the government not to prejudge the question, the first exercise of its authority as lord-paramount was to justify a proceeding by which these established usages were infringed, in spite of the eighth article of the treaty: “The Maharaja and his heirs and successors shall remain absolute rulers of their country and dependants according to long-established usage,” etc. “C’est premier pas qui coute”; and this first step, being a wrong one, has involved an interference never contemplated, and fully justifying that wariness on the part of Jaipur, which made her hesitate to link her destiny with ours.
Both the sixth and seventh articles contain the seeds of disunion, whenever it might suit the chicanery or bad faith of the protected, or the avarice of the protector. The former has already been called into operation, and the ‘absolute rulers’ of Jaipur have been compelled to unfold to the resident Agent the whole of their financial and territorial arrangements, to prove that the revenues did not exceed the sum of forty lakhs, as, of the sum in excess (besides the stipulated tributary fifth), our share was to be three-sixteenths.[[14]]
While, therefore, we deem ourselves justified in interfering in the two chief branches of government, the succession and finances, how is it possible to avoid being implicated in the acts of the government-functionaries, and involved in the party views and intrigues of a court, stigmatised even by the rest of Rajwara with the epithet of jhutha darbar, the ‘lying court’? While there is a resident Agent at Jaipur, whatever [382] his resolves, he will find it next to impossible to keep aloof from the vortex of intrigue. The purest intentions, the highest talents, will scarcely avail to counteract this systematic vice, and with one party at least, but eventually with all, the reputation of his government will be compromised.
This brings us back to the topic which suggested these remarks, the installation of a youth upon the gaddi of Jaipur. We shall expose the operation of this transaction by a literal translation of an authentic document, every word of which was thoroughly substantiated. As it presents a curious picture of manners, and is valuable as a precedent, we shall give it entire in the Appendix, and shall here enter no further into details than is necessary to unravel the intrigue which violated the established laws of succession.