Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:05:55.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Bureaucratic Lineage in Princely India: Elite Formation and Conflict in a Patrimonial System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Susanne Hoeber Rudolph ,
Lloyd I. Rudolph  and
Mohan Singh
Get access

Extract

Patrimonial politics and administration in princely India from the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth century are the subjects of this essay. The bureaucratic lineage, exemplified here by three related families, is our unit of analysis for understanding elite formation and conflict. The period of the lineage's historical ascendency, a century spanning four generations, is sufficiently long to capture processes of conflict and change as well as more visible and easily accessible features of integration and stability.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , May 1975 , pp. 717 - 753
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 We are aware that conventional usage arising from Max Weber's older interpretation of bureaucracy would oppose rather than unite the terms “bureaucratic” and “Uncage.” Our investigation of administration in India and the United States has led us to be increasingly dissatisfied with Weber's ideal typical distinction between “modern bureaucratic” and “traditional patrimonial.” The existence and authority of offices arc important aspects of administration in Rajputana, just as persons: loyalty and leadership arc aspects of organizational life in contemporary America. “Bureaucracy” captures elements of empirical reality in princely India. For a reasoned elaboration of these views and their implications see our “Authority and Power in Bureaucratic and Patrimonial Administration: A Revisionist Interpretation of Weber.” (Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, September 1074.)

2 The area is now the state of Rajasthan in independent India.

3 Bharatpur and Dholpur were Jat states.

4 Singh, D., Land Reforms in Rajasthan (Pilani: Government, of India, Planning Commission, 1964), P. 44.Google Scholar

5 Others, the ganayais, “foreign” clans, were not bound by kin ties. They often constituted a significant proportion of leading jagirdars.

6 Using concepts derived from a European historical context in a non-European context raises an issue of conceptual imperialism. There arc problems about making European terms or institutions serve as the standard category. The adjective “feudal” threatens to relegate Japanese or Rajputana historical experience to marginal significance, that of being cither like or unlike the European “standard.” The contributors to Rushton Couiborn's effort on comparative feudalism (see below) did not have to confront this relatively new problem in comparative studies. Of course, not every historical phenomenon is unique; indeed, we cannot understand what is unique without reference to shared and non-shared features. The lively debate about feudalism in Rajputana was begun by Colonel james Tod, resident at Mcwar in the early nine-tccnih century and a romantic of the Walter Scott school. He found in Rajputana—particularly in Mewar (Udaipur)—the feudal values, institutions, and life style thai were, tragically, being destroyed in Europe's rush to commercial and industrial wealth. Those who have argued with Tod—notably Lyall, Crooke, Coulborn, Thorner, and Banerjee—have, to varying degrees, done so on the wrong grounds. Working with evolutionary assumptions, they sought to demonstrate that Rajputana. “still” in (he clan and blood tie “wage.” had not yet “advanced” to the contractual ism implicit in true feudalism. We do not find evolutionary explanations per se valid (or institutional forms and change. In any case, kin and “blood,” in reformulated versions, continue to coexist with contractual forms. In Rajputana, clan and contractual relation coexisted among the Rajputs, and together are better understood as a distinct social and political order than as “incompletely evolved” feudalism. Tod, James, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, or the Central and Western Rajpoot Stairs of India (London: Routlcdgc and Kegan Paul [Reprint], 1950,Google Scholar two volumes in one), is an available edition of Tod's work, originally published in 1819 and 1831. For the debate, see Rudolph, Susanne Hocber, “The Princely States of Rajputana: Ethic, Authority and Structure,” The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. XXIV, No. 1 (1903), p. 20;Google ScholarCrooke's, William edition of Tod's Annals and Antiquities (London: Oxford, 1920);Google ScholarLyall, Alfred, “The Rajput States of India” in Asiatic Studies: Religious and Social (London: J. Murray, 1906);Google ScholarCoulborn, Rushton, ed. Feudalism in History (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1956);Google Scholar Daniel Thorner, “Feudalism in India” in Coulborn's volume; Hani-rice, A. C., Rajput Studies (Calcutta: Mukherjee, 1944);Google ScholarQanungo, K. R., Studies in Rajput History (Delhi, 1960).Google Scholar

7 The argument was forcefully advanced by the Jodhpur jagirdars whom Maharaja Man Singh of Jodhpur had ousted from their lands. Sec letter, reproduced in Tod, Annals, Vol. I, pp. 159—160.

8 Samod and Chomu in Jaipur, Bedla in Udaipur.

9 Champawats, sons of Champa, brother of Jodha, founder of the lineage ruling Jodhpur since the 15th century. Sec Tod, Annals. Vol. II, pp. 13 and 14.

10 List of Ruling Princes, Chiefs and Leading Personages, Rajputana and Ajmer, Sixth ed. (Calcutta, 1931), P. 7.Google Scholar

11 The pana of bari haveli, now Samha house, was issued Ashoj Budi 6th Bikram Samvat 1922 (1864–65). “In the south [of a minutely described location], the house in which formerly Mertias used to live and now is in the possession of the government of Jaipur state, we arc giving to you by order of the Maharaja.” Kanota Family Archive (here after KFA), Box 20, Document 1160. The Kanora Family Archive at Jaipur is a collection of papers belonging to the Kanota family, dealing with thikana and stale affairs, collected and arranged by Kunwar Mohan Singh. It consists of 34 boxes and 3500 items. The numbers assigned to each item refer to the storage box and document number. Translation by the authors. The titles have been assigned by Kunwar Mohan Singh. Handlist, 1972.Google Scholar

12 A document executed in 1897 by Zorawar Singh of Kanota and Fatch Singh of Naila completes the transfer of the original house to Mukend Singh of Gondher. KFA, Box 20, Document 1160a.

13 Thakur Fateh Singh of Naila built the Naila garden house in the 1870's. The Kanota gardens also date from that time, but the house was built by Thakur Amar Singh of Kanota in the logo's. Santha (Gondhcr) garden house dates from the 1940's Interviews with Daulat Singh of Naila and Shea Nath Singh of Kanota.

14 The curtain wall was a project of Mehtab Singh, cousin of Thakur Roop Singh of Naila, Fateh Singh's son. Mehtab Singh was third son of Abhay Singh, Thakur of Peelva, the estate from which the family came. An estate manager of Naila for many years, he was responsible for most of its outstanding architectural features.

15 General Lord Combermere's successful storming of Bharatpur in 1826 depended on mines, artillery having once again failed.

16 See “The Amar Singh Diary,” Ms. volumes for 1915. Hereafter all references are to the Ms.

17 The origin of the bara Kotri at Jaipur, reckoned to be the main subdivisions of the Kachhawas, the ruling clan of Jaipur, is from the twelve sons of Maharaja Prithvi Raj, 1488–1528. The main Jodhpur noble families also date from the 15th century. Some Sisodia nobles at Udaipur trace their descent to the establishment at Chittor of Rawal Bapa in 734. List of Ruling Princes … , op. cit., pp. 78, 99, 170. Also Tod, Annals, Vol. II, pp. 285, 13; Vol. I, pp. 182–188.

18 The Memorial of THAKUR ZORAWAR SINGH of Kanota. at present a Member of Council of the State of Jeypore, of Thakur Mokkund Singh, Heir and Legal representative of Thakur Shambhn Singh, deceased, of Goner, and of Thakur Roop Singh, Heir and legal representative of Thakur Fateh Singh of Naila. and at present a fudge of the Court of Appeal of the said State of Jeypore (Jaipur: privately printed, 1901), p. 3. Cited hereafter as Memorial to the Resident, 1901.Google Scholar

19 For the facts concerning Jivraj Singh's trip we rely on the family tradition. See also KFA, Box 5, Document 513, “Paper showing the first meeting of Thakur Jeevraj Singh of Peelva with Maharaja Ram Singh at the Fair of Ghat.”

20 Zenana administration was in the hands of women known as badaran, who were not allowed to marry; they cared for treasury and jewels, and were expected to guide new maharanis in the absence of other older women. Their position was important and respectable. They recruited successors by adoption. (Kanota Family Traditions, hereafter KFT. This refers to the tradition as understood by Kunwar Mohan Singh of Kanota, and Colonel Khesri Singh.) Roopa Rai, a badaran during Maharja Ram Singh's minority, was extremely influential, and built Roop Niwas. KFT. The British took a dim view of Roopa, but their reports support the notion of her significance at the court. See Batra's account of the views of the political agent, Lt. Colonel Roper, who saw Roopa as a supporter and suborner of the rani mother in 1825, allegedly keeping the rani under control by means of the administration of drugs and spirits. Batra, H. C., The Relations of Jaipur State with East India Company, 1803–1858 (Delhi, 1958), p. 95.Google Scholar

21 In July-August (Sawan) to celebrate the greenery (Hariali) on the dark day (Mamas) of the moon.

22 Family tradition placed these events in 1851. They probably occurred in 1853. Translation of a letter from Maharaja of Jodhpur to Sir H. M. Lawrence, May 18, 1853. Cited in Batra, The Relations of Jaipur, p. 174.

23 KFT. That Henry Lawrence, then Agent to the Governor General to Rajputana, proposed to deny Maharaja Ram Singh any honors on his passage through British India if he married first at Rewa also, presumably, changed the maharaja's mind. Batra, , The Relations of Jaipur, pp. 174–175.Google Scholar

24 Peelva in the twentieth century is listed as having an income of Rs. 2850 on 2 7/8 villages (sic). Its jagirdar was, however, a tazimi sardar, an honored status among jagirdars. Supplement to the Marwar Gazette dated 12 April, 1924 (Jodhpur, no date), p. 23, in KFA.

25 KFT, and genealogical record in KFA.

26 Singh's, Zorawar account to Singh, Amar, “The Amar Singh Diary” XXIV. A Talk with My Grandfather, in “Notes about My Last Stay at Kanota,” 16 June, 1905. Zorawar Singh's first wife was also of the Inda clan, niece of the Indi jee who adopted him. The marriage of conquering clans, such as the Rathores, with locally dominant clans, is exemplified by the marriage of Chunda Rathorc—grandfather of Jodha, founder of Jodhpur—to the daughter of Inda Raja, who gave Mandore, the original capital of Jodhpur, in dowry. Dhola Rae, the founder of Jaipur, married the daughter of a locally dominant Bargujar chief. Tod, Annals, Vol. IT, p. 281.Google Scholar

27 See KFA., Box I, Documents 67 and 71 as examples of hundreds of loan documents reflecting the family's business. Evidence for loan activities by the thikana are contained in the following: “The court decision about the loan given to Thakur Jaswant Singh of Akheypura,” Urdu, 1919, KFA., Box 2, Document 133; “The documents about the loan given to Thakur Kalyan Singh of Mohanpura and the agreement of the important persons of the village,” Urdu, 1913, Box 2, Document 134; “The documents of the loan given to Majinlal,” Hindi, 1914, Box 2, Document 135; “The document of the loan given to Thakur Mangal Singh of Bhojpura,” Urdu, 1919. These arc merely illustrative of the seventeen major loans issued by the thikana of Kanota between 1910 and 1920.

28 It was the practice at Jaipur that the recipient of a sub-grant might pass on such land to his son, or to an adoptee drawn from the sub-grantee's own line. See KFA, Box a, Documents 121 (“Copy of the grant to Chiman Singh”) and 122 (“Copy of a grant to Guman Singh”); both were younger relations in the Gondhcr and Naila families.

29 It was conventional to give some land, but how much was discretionary. For a discussion of disputes concerning two villages given to younger brothers of the Naila and Gondhcr families, see KFA, Box 2, Documents no, 114, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126—including grants and the correspondence pertaining to them.

30 “The Amar Singh Diary,” June 16, 1905, subhead XXIV cited above.

31 Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne Hocbcr, “The Political Modernization of an Indian Feudal Order: An Analysis of Rajput Adaptation in Rajasthan,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. XXIV, no. 4 (1908), pp. 93–128.Google Scholar

32 KFT. See also The Jaipur Stale versus I. The Representative of THAKUR FATEH SINGH, deceased fagirdar, 2. The Representative of THAKUR SHAMBHU SINGH, deceased fagirdar. 3. THAKUR ZORAWAR SINGH, Jagirdar, 4. The Representative of PROHIT RAM PRASAD, deceased. Translation of the Decision of His Highness The Maharajah of Jaipur, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., (Jaipur: privately printed, 1900) p. 9. Hereafter cited as Jaipur Decision, 1900.Google Scholar

33 KFT.

34 Jaipur Decision, 1900, p. 31.

35 Report of the Political Aduiinistrauon of the Rajputana States, 1897–98. These reports begin in 1865 and arc variously printed at Bombay (1865–67) and Calcutta (1868–1907). 1867–68 is missing from the Abu collection of the University of Rajasthan. and its place of publication cannot be ascertained. Hereafter, R.P.A.R.S. After 1907 it is superseded by administration reports of individual states.Google Scholar

36 Jaipur Decision, 1900, p. 23.

37 Champuwat, Faich Singh, Thakur of Naila, A Uriel History of Jeypore (Jaipur: privately published, 1899), p. 208. Hereafter cited as Naila, History of Jeypore.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 254.

39 At Jaipur the Rajawats and some of the bara kotri (twelve houses) jagirs, regarded as the leading families of Jaipur, and reckoned as belonging to the Kachhawa clan, held the most substantial amounts of land. Thus in the nineteenth century, among the clans indigenous to Jaipur, 60 Rajawat jagirs held Rs. 312,915 worth of jagir lands; 98 Nathawat jagirs Rs. 411,353; 86 Khangcrot jagirs Rs. 468,780 worth of jagir lands; 12 Pichanot jagirs Rs. 50,000; 60 Kilanots Rs. 186,764. All these are bara kotri except the Rajawats. By comparison, the “foreign clan” Champawat jagirs amounted to Rs. 134,482. KFA. Kitab Jagirdaron Ka Paita Kahal Mukdgar (“Book Giving a Complete Description of Jagir Grants”), Ms., no date, no place. The Ms. in the KFA is hand copied into a school notebook. It is likely that while Zorawar Singh was jagir bakshi (head of the jagir department) after 1876, he caused the list to be copied. The Champawat figures refer to the four tazimi jagirdars only (those honored with gold anklets). The Khaschauki jagirs have lower values, are few in number, and would not much expand the total for Champawats. The Rathorcs, largest of the foreign clans with estates in Jaipur, together occupied estates values at Rs. 270,597. The book docs not include the thikanas in Shckhawat. The translation and computations of this document arc those of the authors.

40 Memorial to the Resident, p. 3. This is the jumma, or actual income. But the three thikanas claimed, at the time these villages were exchanged for others, that the jumma underestimated the income of the estates because of the rise in the price level since the estate lands and villages were first granted.

41 The calculations concerning the estates of Jaipur are based on Kitah Jagirdaron Ka Patta Kahal Mukdgar (sec footnote 39). The salaries of collectors are from Government of India, The India List and Indian Office List (London: Harrison, 1903), p. 176A. For Kanota real income, sec footnote 108 below.Google Scholar

42 Jaipur Decision, 1900, p. 23. Aristocratic values can be distinguished from commercial (or a status group distinguished from a class) by the degree to which honor is independent of wealth. That there remains a relationship between wealth and honorific status is apparent from the pleas of the three thiltanas when they became tazimi sardars in 1873, that they had too little landed property to sustain that status. This plea resulted in the grants of 1873.

43 KFT. For an account of the dominance of Bairi Sal of Samod, his brother Lakshman Singh of Chomu, and his son Sheo Singh of Samod, see Batra, The Relations of Jaipur, pp. 59ff.

44 KFT and Naila, History of Jeypore, p. 301. Dr. T. H. Hendly was in charge of the Jaipur Agency in the absence of Colonel W. H. Beynon. The official British account docs not envision a difference between the Champawats and Chomu, nor does it suggest that the maharaja was in any but the clearest state of mind, or Hendley moved by anything more valuable than the opinion of those present.

On the subject [of succession] being mooted to the dying Chief, who was in full possession of his faculties, he was content to express his wish that the nearest of kin according to the “Shas-tras” should be selected; but on being reminded by Thakoor Fatteh Singh that he had omitted to name any individual, he said, in the presence of Dr. Hendley and many of the leading nobles and officials of the state, who were gathered around his couch, “I adopt Kaim Singh, the younger brother of Pertab Singh, the Thakoor of Isarda, therefore after me Kaim Singh is master of the state.”

This statement was at once recorded by the Durbar Munshi and signed, in the presence of Dr. Hendlcy, by many of those present.… Efficient arrangements were at once made by Thakoor Fatteh Singh, the Thakoor of Chomoo, the Rawal of Samodh, and the Members of the Council for the safety of the zenana, the maintenance of order, and the protection of the State property…

R.P.A.R.S.,1880–81, pp. 114–115. Kaim Singh was Madho Singh's name before he become maharaja.

45 Naila, , History of Jeypore gives no indication that any factional opposition was anticipated, but also suggests much activity prior to 4 a.m., pp. 302–304.Google Scholar

46 “The Amar Singh Diary,” Bagar is grazing and compound ground for animals.Google Scholar

47 For a discussion of Rajput marriage, see Plunkett, Francis, “A Note on Royal Marriage in Rajasthan” forthcoming in Contributions to Indian Sociology.Google Scholar

48 See below, p. 743.

49 “The Amar Singh Diary,” XI. My Father, in “Notes About My Last Vacations,” October 21, 24, 27, and 31, 1904.Google Scholar

50 Other examples are the two-gcneration, quarter-century struggle between Sir Sukhdeo Prasad—and his son—at Jodhpur with Sir Pratap Singh and hit natural son, Narpat Singh; between the families of Ram Singh Mehta and Sher Singh Mehta at Udaipur in the first half of the nineteenth century; between Sir Pratap at Jodhpur and the family of Faiz Ullah Khan earlier in the nineteenth century; and between Rawal Bain Sal of Samod and Jhota Ram at Jaipur in the first half of the nineteenth century. For material on rivalry between the Mehta Ram Singh family and that of Mehta Sher Singh, see Shyameldas, Kaviraj, Vir Vinod (Udaipur, 1886), pp. 1806–7, dealing with the competition between Mehta Ram Singh and Mehta Sher Singh; also 1745, 1747, 1789, 1890.Google Scholar

51 Fateh Singh of Naila lists him as a memifer of council for 1873, immediately after himself. History of Jeypore, p. 253. The Jaipur Agency Report for 1882–3 lists the babu as third member in the military, foreign, and miscellaneous departmem; see R.P.A.R.S., 1882–83. The same report for 1883–4 lists him in the same department as number two, and 1886–7 lists him as number one. The report for 1896–7 speaks of him as chief member of council, a designation not mentioned in the earlier years, although it may well have obtained.Google Scholar

52 Pandit Sheo Din, a brahman from Rewah controlled the administration from 1852. After hi death in 1864 he was succeeded first by his soi Bishemberdin and then by Nawab Faiz Ali Khan a U.P. Muslim; he was succeeded in 1873 by Fatch Singh of Naila. Babu Kamì Chandcr Mukhen virtually, though not formally, took over when Fateh Singh's office was abolished in 1881; he wa succeeded after his death in 1901—following an interim in which his son was vetted and found wanting, and the Nawab returned briefly—by an other Bengali, Sanser Chander Sen. Thus fron 1852, all Jaipur dewans were outsiders. R.P.A.R.S 1865–67; Naila, History 0f Jeypore, p. 254; Jaipu Decision, 1000, p. 23: R.P.A.RS., 1901–2. See also Annual Report on the Administration of the Jaipur State, 1905–1906. These reports begin in 1905 and are variously published at Abu (Volumes for 1905–1911); Allahabad (Volumes for 1922–1932); (no volumes for intervening years were in the Abu collection of the University of Rajasthan); Ajiner (Volumes for 1937–1940) (no intervening years in Abu collection); Jaipur (1940–1943).Hereafter cited as JaAR.

53 The family of Sir Sukhdeo Prasad at Jodhpur; the Aul family at Jaipur in the twentieth century.

54 Interview with Ramji Kak, grandson of Sir Sukhdco Prasad, Jaipur, December, 1970.

55 Naila, , History of Jeypore, p. 204. Sansar Chandcr Sen was Third Master, Maharaja's College; in 1867 he was appointed headmaster of the Rajput school.Google Scholar

56 Interview with A. C. Mukherji, grandson of Babu Kanti Chander, Jaipur, December, 1971.

57 Ibid.

58 Naila, , History of Jeypore, pp. 190–91.Google Scholar

59 loc. cit.

60 R.P.A.R.S., 1896–7, p. 37. A. C. Mukherji, his grandson, believes Kanti Chander was born between 1836 and 1838.

61 R.P.A.R.S., 1901–2, and interview with A. C. Mukherji. Ishan Chander was enormously fat, hence (presumably) “Hathi Babu” (Hathi = elephant).

62 Interview with A. C. Mukherji, December, 1971.

63 Wan, R. B. van discusses the departure in The Life of Lieutenant General H. H. Sir Pratap Singh (London, 1926), p. 122.Google Scholar

64 Naila, History of Jeypore, p. 253; R.P.A.R.S., 1881–2 reports the abolition of the vice-president–s post.

65 R.P.A.R.S., 1897–8 asserts that his brother, Zorawar Singh, was appointed member of council to replace Fateh Singh of Naila, p. 40.

66 One day in the beginning of July 1881, Colonel Bannerman, the Resident, and Captain Talbot, after the General Meeting of the Council, had a private interview with H.H. the Maharaja at Chunder Mahal [i.e., they interviewed, at the house of Babu Kanti Chander, the twenty-year-old maharaja, who was the new successor], and a short time after, sent for me. Colonel Banner-man asked me whether I had taken a number of Currency Notes worth Rs. 175,000 from Kishen Lall Chella after the Late Highness' demise… Then he told me that the Agent, Governor-General, had written him to say that information had reached him that the notes above referred to (the property of His late Highness) had thus been taken away by me, and consequently the Agent, Governor-General, was very much displeased with me.

Chand, Munshi Triloke, Private Secretary to Singh, Thakur Fateh (of Naila), translator and editor, Thakur Futteh Singh's Case (Ajmer, 1901), p. 1. The volume continues with an extremely complicated account and defense.Google Scholar

67 One family event may have indirect bearing on the matter. When Thakur Patch Singh died, he made over Rs. 100,000 and a great deal of jewelry to his second son, Guman Singh. Guman Singh's wife attempted to give the jewelry to charity, to the Kalyan temple, and was prevented from doing so by the maharaja's police, apparently on the request of Roop Singh of Naila and Zorawar Singh of Kanota. But the money was then confiscated to the state treasury and not returned, on the plea that Guman Singh and his wife were not responsible.

68 Memorial to the Resident, p. 7.

69 When Madho Singh turns against Narain Singh eighteen years later, he disavows the possibility of the initial appointment, noting that Narain Singh was “appointed to that post during my minority by the Resident…” Letter from Madho Singh to A. H. T. Martindale, Agent to the Governor General for Rajputana, August 4, 1900, KFA. See also letter-book of copies of Narain Singh's correspondence from Jhunjhunu 1881–2, KFA, unnumbered. A series of letters suggests Narain Singh has already taken charge of the post of Nazim, and is offered the post of Superintendent of Cirai (Police) in 1881: Chapra, 20th August, 1881 Babu Kanty Chander jee, Jeypor Sir, I beg to inform you that all the pending cases between Loharoo and Jeypoor state has been settled fairly with the Mahmad of Loharoo state [across ihc border of Shckhawati] and a proper arrangement has been proposed for the future for which I will make a detailed report to the Council by tomorrow's post. Further 1 beg to say that a kaifiat has been just handed over to me from Capt. Talbot stating me that the Supt. of Geerayee Dept. has been suspended from his office and requesting me to assume charge of the said superintendency with further orders. I have also informed Col. Banncrman about this same thing.

In a subsequent letter (August 26) he accepts the appointment. Most of his correspondence is in duplicate, one letter to Mukherji and one to Colonel Hannerman, the resident, who is also designated in the correspondence as “Joint President” to the Council, meaning he is directing the government during Madho Singh's minority.

70 “The Amar Singh Diary,” XI. My Father, “Notes About My Last Vacations,” October 21, 27. 31. 1904.Google Scholar

71 R.P.A.R.S., 1885–6, p. 39.

72 The correspondence cited in footnote 71 places as Nazim of Shekhawati in 1881. He is listed General Superintendent, Gerai (police) in 1882–3. (R.P.A.RS.. 1882–3). In 1898–9 Thakur Hari Singh [Ladhkhani], his rival and Babu Kami Chandcr's ally in the struggle of the cightccn-nine-ties, succeeds him. (R.P.A.R.S., 1898–9). The dismissal is foreshadowed in a letter from G. R. Irwin, Resident at Jaipur, to Maharaja Madho Singh, January 1, 1898. KFA.

73 Letter from Maharaja Madho Singh or Jaipur to G. R. Irwin, Resident at Jaipur, January 1, 1898. Copy of the letter in KFA.

74 Letter from Maharaja Madho Singh to A. H. T. Martindale, Agent to the Governor General for Rajputana, August 4, 1900, attached Memo 3. Copy in KFA.

75 The Kanota family archive contains a copy of a letter from Colonel William Lock to Major Kcitlcwcll, guardian to the Maharaja of Alwar and thus associate of Narain Singh, native guardian to Alwar, dated Etawah, December 12, 1899: I wish so much I could have seen Narain Singh and relieved his mind sooner about Udaya Singh's bearing towards him. The boy is as staunch a friend as possible. He came to me for advice saying that K. C. (Kanti Chander) had sent for him to certify that three letters (I think it was three) which he (K. C.) had in his possession were given him by (Udaya Singh). The boy naturally refused whereupon K. C. presumably told him that these documents with a covering letter, stating that he (Udaya Singh) had furnished these papers, had been sent up to the A.G.G.…

However, the intimidation had, of course, no effect. These letters are purported to have been written by Narain Singh to the Khetri Raja inciting him to ignore the Jaipur Chief.

K. C. has showed them to Udaya Singh and I say for the very best of reasons that even spurious ones don't exist except in that person's imagination. Udaya Singh was perfectly prepared to interview the A. C. G. but my advice was to sit tight and don't speak a word until you arc called for an explanation and then tell the whole truth hiding nothing. …

76 Interview with A. C. Mukherji, December, 1971.

77 “The Amar Singh Diary,” IX. H. H. Jaipore, in “Noics About My Last Vacations,” October 21, 24, 27, and 31, 1904.Google Scholar

78 “The Amar Singh Diary,” XI. My Father, “Notes About My Last Vacations,” October 31, : 27, and 31, 1904.Google Scholar

79 In Jodhpur it was known as hukamnama, and is said to have been introduced in the sixteenth century on the Mughal pattern. At that time it was known as peshkashi. The hukamnama was regularized under British influence in 1869, after Maharaja Takhat Singh had enhanced it to four times the net annual income of an estate. It was fixed at three-fourth of rekh (annual income) of a jagir. Vyas, R. P., Role of Nobility in Marwar (1880–1837), (New Delhi, 1969), pp. 186–7.Google Scholar

80 Memorial to the Resident, 1901, p. 3.

81 Fateh Singh had been put in charge of the zenana office in 1867. Naila, , History of Jeypore, p. 208,Google Scholar Shambhu Singh was de facto head of the bakshi khana—the jagir-granting office—from 1867, and became actual head in 1869. Jaipur Decision, 1900, p.Google Scholar 9 mentions 1868; family tradition speaks of the actual appointment in 1869.

82 The chronology is not entirely dear, in part because the “elevation” appears to have had that indeterminate quality frequent in changes of personnel in the princely states. Fateh Singh of Naila, in his history, notes that the previous first member of council, Khan, Nawab Faiz AH, resigned in 1873 and “I was ordered in S. 1929 by the Maharaja to work in the Council.” (The reference is to the Sambat calendar.) History of Jeypore, p. 254.Google ScholarJaipur Decision, 1900, says he was premier in 1873. P. 23.Google Scholar

83 In 1875. Naila held villages at a jumma or “actual income” (the words are those of the summary contained in the thakurs' Memorial to the Resident) of Rupees 14,953-29-6; Gondher of 12,353-10-3; and Kanota 11,002-14-0. Memorial to the Resident, 1901, pp. 2–3.

84 Jaipur Decision, 1900, p. 7.Google Scholar

The higher the karar, the lower the obligation, because the karar is divided into a multiple of the tun, reducing the value on which obligations are calculated.

‘Karar’ is defined as the number of months specified in the grant on the basis of which, taken in connection with the “tun” [annual land-revenue of a village], an imaginary or assumed yearly income is attributed to the grant on which the quota of sowars [horsemen] and footmen to be provided by the Tagirdar for Raj service is calculated. For each Rs. 500 of this imaginary income, the Jagirdar has to provide one sowar, and for each Rs. 100 … he has to provide one footman. … Jaipur Decision, 1900, p. 5.

85 Jaipur Decision, l900, p. 31.

86 Jaipur Decision, 1900, pp. 23 and 25.

87 Jaipur Decision, 1900, pp. 29–30.

88 Memorial to the Resident, p. 7.

89 “Reports of the Committee on the Relationship Between the Paramount Power and the States” (Butler Committee), Parliamentary Papers (Great Britain: Reports of the Commissioners, 1928–1929), Vol. VI, Cd. 3302. The standard works on the British period of paramountry are Warner, Sir William Lee, The Native States of India (London, 1910),Google Scholar and Panikkar, K. M., Introduction to the Study of the Relations of Indian States with the Government of India (London, 1927).Google Scholar We have explored some of these issues in an earlier essay, “Rajputana Under British Paramountry: the Failure of Indirect Rule,” Journal of Modern History, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1966), pp. 138–160.Google Scholar

90 Panikkar, , The Maharaja of Bikaner (London, 1937), pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar

91 Later from Maharaja Madho Singh to A. H. T. Martindale, Agent to the Governor General for Rajputana, August 4, 1900, attached Memo.

92 Ibid., letter and Memo.

93 Letter to Maharaja Madho Singh of Jaipur from G. R. Irwin, Resident in Jaipur, January i, 1898. Copy in KFA.

94 Extract from a letter from G. R. Irwin, Resident at Jaipur, to Maharaja Madho Singh of Jaipur, dated November 12, 1898; annexure to letter from Maharaja Madho Singh to A. H, T. Martindalc, Agent to the Governor General for Rajputana, August 4, 1900. Also Memo 1, Anncxure to the same letter. Copy in KFA.

95 Ibid., Memo 1.

96 Ibid., Memo 2.

97 Letter from G. R. Irwin, Resident at Jaipur, to Babu Kami Chander Mukherji, September 25, 1899. Copy in KFA, Box 23, item 1286.

98 Memo 1, annexure to letter from Maharaja Madho Singh of Jaipur to A. H. T. Martindale, A.G.G., August 4, 1900.

99 Ibid.

100 W. H. C. Wyllie, Acting A.G.G., to Maharaja Madho Singh of Jaipur, August 17, 1900. Copy in KFA.

101 Maharaja Madho Singh of Jaipur to W. H. C. Wyllic, Acting A.G.G., August 29, 1900. Copy in KFA.

l02 Babu Kami Chancier Mukherji to W. H. C Wyllie, Acting A.C.G., October 18, 1900. Wyllie's subsequent reply confirms this version. Wyllie to Mukherji, October 21, 1900. Copies in KFA.

l03 W. H. C. Wyllie to Babu Kanti Chancier Mukherji, October ai, 1900. Copy in KFA.

104 For Sir Pralap's standing with the raj, see R. B. van Wart, The Life of Sir Pratap Singh; Lord Curzon, who did not admire Sir Pratap, yet expressed the common view: “A brave Rajput Reis and fearless soldier, a lover of sport, a first-class gentleman, and one staunchly loyal to the British Government, whose good example ought to be followed by the youthful princes and Reiscs in India” (van Wart, p. 120). Sir Walter Lawrence devotes the better part of a chapter to an admiring sketch of Pratap, Sir in his widely read The India We Served (London, 1928). Sir Pratap persuaded Major Turner, the senior British officer of the Imperial Service Forces with the Jodhpur Lancers in China, and Major General Sir Stuart Bcatson, Inspector General of the Imperial Service Forces, to write. “The Amar Singh Diary,” December I, 1900.Google Scholar

105 Memorial to the Resident, 1901.

106 ldquo;Opinion of Sir Griffith Evans, February 12, 1901.” Copy in KFA. For details on Griffith, Sir, consult Who Was Who, 1897–1916 (London, 1920) p. 231.Google Scholar

107 R.P.A.RS., 1900–01.

108 KFA contains an undated memo, “Memo concerning the jagir case of the thikans of Gondher, Kanota and Naila,” which claims that the prcscni (1901?) value of ihe villages had risen substantially over their value when granted in 1875, and thus new villages of the 1875 valuation would constitute a loss, The previous and 1901 annual yields of the 1875 villages are reported as follows: Gondher, 8,872 (1875), 10,530 (1901); Kanota, 6,872 (1875), 17,490 (1901); Naila, 6,995 (1875). (1875), 13,689 (1901).

109 The Amar Singh Diary,” XV. Bhoj Raj Singhjee, in “Notes About My Last Vacation,” April 26, 28, 30 and May 2, 1904.

110 KFT

111 In a speech at Kanota House on 30 October, Maharaja Man Singh announced restoration of the villages Sitarampura-Bas-Delawas and Sitapura-Bas-Sonjaria ki Patti. Copy in KFA.

112 “The Amar Singh Diary,” Wednesday, Wednesday, I February, 1905.

113 “The Amar Singh Diary,” XXIII. Visit to Agra, in “Notes About My Seventh Term in the Cadet Corps,” May 27, June 1 and 12, 1905.

114 KFT

115 JaAR, 7922–7926 (one volume).

116 JaAR, volumes for the periods 1105–1911 and 1922–1932

117 Udaipur is much less affected because the mature Bhupal Singh takes the place of his aging father Fateh Singh, Bhupal Singh was 46 at the time of his succession in 1930.

118 Prominent among these, in addition to those mentioned below, were: K. M. Panikkar, who served at Bikancr, V. P. Menon, Sir C. P. Ramaswami Aiyer, and C. S. Venkatachar, who rose to national prominence after independence.

119 JaAR, 1922–1926, 1928–1929, 1930–1931. Coventry is succeeded by two other Englishmen, L. C. B. Glascock and F. S. Young.

120 “The Amar Singh Diary,” numerous entries after 1931. He remains Commander of the Jaipur Corps until 1936, when he retires. JaAR, 1934–35.

121 The Presidents of the Council from 1923, the beginning of Maharaja Man Singh's minority, are as follows: R. I. R. Clancy (1923); L. W. Reynolds (1924); Major G. D. Ogilvic (1925); L. W. Reynolds (1926–1928); Lt. Colonel H. R. Lawrence (1929); Lt. Colonel I. S. Meek and B. J. Clancy (1929); B. J. Glancy (1930). Thereafter Maharaja Man Singh, taking his full powers, takes over the presidency of council. In 1933 he acquires a vice-president (prime minister): Lt. Colonel H. Bcauchamp St. John until 1938..He is succeeded by Raja Gyan Nath, until 1941 when he is in turn succeeded by Sir Mirza Ismail until 1945. The last prime minister is again an Indian, Sir V. T. Krishnamachari (1946). The source of these items is: Government of India, Rajputana and Ajmer-Merwara list (Calcutta, various years), Numbers 3 through 23. Numbers 24–26, 29, 31–32, 34–41 were published in New Delhi. For the background of some of these officers, see History of Services of Officers Holding Gazetted Appointments Under the Foreign and Political Department (Calcutta, various years).

122 “The Amar Singh Diary,”XXXIII. Notes About My Cousin's Marriage.

123 Lord Roberts, Commander-in-Chief, Indian Army, thought “the Jaipur troops were much on a par with those of Bhopal and Udaipur,” whose “men were relics of a past age.” He compared them unfavorably with those of Jodhpur. Roberts, F. S. R., Forty-One Years in India, from Subaltern to Commander in Chief (London, 1904), p. 430.Google Scholar