Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:40:06.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imperial Impact on Rajputana: The Case of Alwar, 1775–1850

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Edward S. Haynes
Edward S. Haynes
Affiliation:
Skidmore College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the functions of any imperial system is to stabilize the subordinate political structures over which it exercises suzerainty. Without such a role for the central authority, control of local politics becomes impossible and, without such centralization, the stability of the entire empire is threatened. This policy has often acted to support or maintain local socio-economic relationships which, in the absence of overarching centralization, would show greater instability and flux. The precise nature of these relations can best be seen in an examination of the interregnum period between the decline of one imperial power and the imposition of a new generation of centralized stability.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 1978 , pp. 419 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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 Powlett, P. W., Gazetteer of Ulwur (London, 1878), p. 13;Google ScholarGehelōt, Jagdīshsingh, Rājpūtāne kā itihās, Vol. 3, Jeypur wa Alwar rājyōn kā itihās (Jodhpur, 1966), pp. 60, 252–3;Google ScholarChanpawat, Futeh Singh, A Brief History of Jeypore (Agra, 1899), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar Powlett suggests that Bar Singh was excluded because of a quarrel with his father over who would get a particular woman. Throughout, the names Amber and Jaipur are both used; Amber is the earlier name, although less recognizable today.

2 Powlett, , Gazetteer, pp. 120–1.Google Scholar

3 One bīghā (in Alwar) equals ¼ hectare or approximately ⅝ acre. See Ibid., pp. 13–15. See also Maps I and II of this essay. The total area of Alwar State was approximately 1,209,600 bīghās.

4 Ibid., pp. 120–1.

5 For more information on the Meos and Mewat, see Aggarwal, Pratap C., Caste, Region and Power: An Indian Case Study (New Delhi, 1971),Google Scholar and Amir-Ali, Hashim, The Meos of Mewat: Old Neighbors of New Delhi (New Delhi, 1970). For a map of this entire area, see Map I of this essay.Google Scholar

6 Rao, M. S. A., ‘Rewari Kingdom and the Mughal Empire,’ Realm and Region in Traditional India (ed. Fox, Richard G.; Monograph Number Fourteen, Duke University Program in Comparative Studies on Southern Asia: Durham, 1977), pp. 79–89.Google Scholar

7 Powlett, , Gazetteer, pp. 1–15;Google ScholarJennings, R. H., A Short Account of the Alwar State, 1899 (rev. edn, Alwar, 1899), p. 2;Google ScholarJarrett, H. S. (trans.), ‘Ain-i-Akbari of Abul Fazl-i‘Allami, Vol. 2, A Gazetteer and Administrative Manual of Akbar's Empire and Past History of India (2nd edn, Calcutta, 1949), p. 202.Google Scholar

8 Powlett, , Gazetteer, pp. 14–15;Google ScholarIndia, Foreign Department, Chiefs and Leading Families of Rajputana (Calcutta, 1894), p. 82.Google Scholar

9 Gehelōt, , Rājpūtanē kā itihäs, 3: 225;Google ScholarFaulkner, Alex S., An Historical Sketch of the Naruka State of Ulwar in Rajputana (Calcutta, 1895), p. 10;Google ScholarPowlett, , Gazetteer, p. 15.Google Scholar

10 Shymaldās, Vir Vinōd, pp. 1377–78, quoted in Gehelōt, , Rājpūtānē kā itihās, 3:255;Google ScholarSharma, M. L., History of Jaipur State (Jaipur, 1969), p. 189;Google ScholarTod, James, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, or the Central and Western Rajput States of India (ed. Crooke, William, 3 vols, London, 1920), 3:1360.Google Scholar

11 Gehelōt, Rājpūtānē kā itihās, 3: 255–56, Sarkar, Jadunath, Fall of the Mughal Empire (4 vols, Calcutta, 1950), 3: 116, 232;Google ScholarIndia (Republic), Rajasthan, Rajasthan District Gazetteers, Vol. 6, Alwar (comp. Maya Ram: Jaipur, 1968), p. 61.Google Scholar

12 Tod, , Annals and Antiquities, 3: 1361–2.Google Scholar

13 Sarkar, , Fall of the Mughal Empire, 3: 232.Google Scholar

14 Lyall, Alfred C., Asiatic Studies: Religious and Social (London, 1884), p. 218.Google Scholar This chapter, ‘The Rajput States of India’ was originally published anonymously in Edinburgh Review, 144 (1876): 169–203.Google Scholar The entire issue of Kachhawaha lineage dynamics and of Rajput lineage formation lies outside the scope of this present essay, but might well be examined with an eye to Maurice Freedman's research on lineage formation and political participation in China, especially his Lineage Organization in Southeastern China (London, 1958),Google Scholar and Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung (London, 1966).Google Scholar

15 Sharma, , Jaipur, pp. 188–91;Google ScholarSarkar, , Fall of the Mughal Empire, 3: 225.Google Scholar

16 Faulkner, , Ulwar, pp. 16–18; Powlett, , Gazetteer, p. 16;Google ScholarGehelōt, , Rājpūtāne kā itihās, 3: 267–8;Google ScholarSharma, , Jaipur, p. 190.Google Scholar Hereafter, Macheri and Alwar are used as synonyms for the state established by Pratap Singh Naruka; Macheri is the earlier name. A distinction, however, should be made between the state and city of Alwar. Throughout, information on the Naruka jāgīrs of Alwar has been drawn from Alwar (Rajputana), Jagir History showing Naruka Clan of His Highness' Government, Alwar (Alwar, 1932).Google Scholar

17 Ṭan is a measure of the value of a grant at the time of award; one ṭan equals approximately six annas (⅜ rupee). In the sānads awarding the jāgīrs, the value of the land at the time is expressed in terms of ṭan and represents the revenue lost to the state by the award of the jāgīr, which would then not pay taxes, but rather supply troops. Thus, ṭan can be used as a rough measure of the value of the jāgīrs. See Map III for the various jāgīrs. This map indicates only jāgīrs awarded to Naruka Rajputs and ignores other jāgīrs and land held under other tenurial systems.

18 Mean area 4,431 bighās, mean cultivated area 3,691 bīghās, mean ṭan 10,887.

19 Pratap Singh granted jāgīrs, as follows: Para thikānā, 2; Khora thikānā, Palwa thikānā, 2; non-bārah kōtri, 2. Only Khora ṭhikānā had held a jāgīrs in Narukhand before 1775. Five jāgīrs were near Rajgarh, 3 near Alwar, and 1 near Lachmangarh. For the distribution of jāgīrs by area and era, see Map III.

20 [Lyall, ], ‘The Rajput States of India,’ p. 172. A slightly revised version is in Lyall, Asiatic Studies, pp. 207–8.Google Scholar

21 Fox, Richard G., Kin, Clan, Raja and Rule: State-Hinterland Relations in Preindustrial India (Berkeley, 1971), p. 80.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., pp. 91–7.

23 To avoid probable confusion, Pratap Singh (Alwar/Macheri) has been referred to as Pratap Singh Naruka or simply as Pratap Singh, whereas Pratab Singh (Jaipur) has been called Sewai Pratab Singh or Pratab Singh. In actuality, the names are the same (Pratāp Singh), but this would be too confusing.

24 Tod, , Annals and Antiquities, 3: 1361–2.Google Scholar

25 Sarkar, , Fall of the Mughal Empire, 3: 116.Google Scholar

26 Tikkiwal, H. C., Jaipur and the Later Mughals (Jaipur, 1974), pp. 144–6;Google ScholarSarkar, , Fall of the Mughal Empire, 3: 118–19;Google ScholarGehelōt, , Rājpūtānē kā itihās, 3: 258.Google Scholar

27 Sharma, , Jaipur, p. 194.Google Scholar

28 Ibid.; Tikkiwal, Jaipur and the Later Mughals, pp. 146–7; Sarkar, , Fall of the Mughal Empire, 3: 119–20.Google Scholar

29 Tikkiwal, , Jaipur and the Later Mughals, pp. 147–52;Google ScholarSarkar, , Fall of the Mughal Empire, 3: 120–1;Google ScholarSharma, , Jaipur, pp. 190–1;Google ScholarTod, , Annals and Antiquities, 3: 1362–3.Google Scholar

30 This has been argued, for example, by Cohn, Bernard S., ‘Political Systems in Eighteenth Century India: The Banaras Region,’ Journal of the American Oriental Society, 82 (1959), 313.Google Scholar

31 Sarkar, , Fall of the Mughal Empire, 3: 125–31, 233.Google Scholar

32 Sharma, , Jaipur, pp. 196–7; Tikkiwal, Jaipur and the Later Mughals, pp. 156–62.Google Scholar

33 Saxena, R. K., Maratha Relations with the Major States of Rajputana (1761–1818 A.D.) (New Delhi, 1973), pp. 97–130;Google ScholarSharma, , Jaipur, pp. 198–9; Tikkiwal, , Jaipur and the Later Mughals, pp. 164–78;Google ScholarBanerjee, Anil Chandra, Rajput Studies (Calcutta, 1944), pp. 205–6.Google Scholar

34 Sharma, , Jaipur, p. 199; Tikkiwal, , Jaipur and the Later Mughals, pp. 178–9.Google Scholar

35 Bhattacharyya, Sukhumar, The Rajput States and the East India Company from the Close of the 18th Century to 1820 (New Delhi, 1972), p. 23.Google Scholar

36 Powlett, , Gazetteer, p. 19;Google ScholarGehelōt, , Rājpūtāne kā itihās, 3: 264.Google Scholar

37 Forty-three percent of the total Alwar Naruka jāgīrdārs were awared their jāgīrs during the reign of Bakhtawar Singh. Seventy percent of his grants were in Thana Ghazi or Bansur tehsīls (which border Jaipur) or in the Naruka heartland of Alwar and Rajgarh tehsīls. See Map III of this essay.

38 India, Foreign Department, A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads: Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, Vol. 3, The Treaties &c., Relating to the States of Rajputana (comp. C. U. Aitcheson: Calcutta, 1932), pp. 400–1.Google Scholar See also Banerjee, A. C., The Rajput States and the East India Company (Calcutta, 1951), p. 411.Google Scholar

39 India, Foreign Department, Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, 3: 401–2;Google ScholarPowlett, , Gazetteer, pp. 19–20. See Map II.Google Scholar

40 Panikkar, K. N., British Diplomacy in North India: A Study of the Delhi Residency, 1803–1857 (New Delhi, 1968), pp. 44–5;Google ScholarBhattacharyya, , Rajput States and East India Company, pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

41 India, Foreign Department, Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, 3: 402.Google ScholarSee also Panikkar, , British Diplomacy, p. 47;Google ScholarMaheshwary, Sudarshan Chandra, ‘British Relations with the States of Rajputana (1815–1835)’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rajasthan; Jaipur, 1963), pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

42 Panikkar, , British Diplomacy, pp. 45–7; Powlett, , Gazetteer, p. 20.Google Scholar

43 India, Foreign Department, Report on the Political Administration of the Rajpootana States, 1871–72, No. C in Selections from the Records of the Government of India, Foreign Department (Calcutta, 1872), p. 177;Google ScholarPowlett, , Gazetteer, p. 20;Google ScholarGehelōt, , Rājpūtānē kā itihās, 3: 268–9.Google Scholar

44 Maheshwary, , ‘British Relations,’ pp. 180–1; Powlett, , Gazetteer, p. 21.Google Scholar

45 Maheshwary, , ‘British Relations,’ pp. 183–7; Powlett, , Gazetteer, p. 21.Google Scholar

46 India, Foreign Department, Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, 3: 403. See Map IV of this essay.Google Scholar

47 Asst. AGGR to AGGR, Alwar, November 18, 1859, Part A Progs, October 1860, 22.Google Scholar

48 Petition, Prithee Singh, Raja of Nimrana, to AGGR, Nimrana, July 1840, FC, August 24, 1840, 27.Google Scholar

49 ‘Bhaswar to Ajmere: Lt. Col. A. Lockett's Narrative of a journey from Buswar in Bhurtpore territory to a part in the North-West States (Ajmer), April-June 1831,’ Foreign Department Miscellaneous Series, No. 272, National Archives of India, New Delhi, p. 30.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., pp. 29–31, and Powlett, Gazetteer, pp. 21–2. This provides an interesting parallel to the similar policies of ‘hamletization’ carried out by the United States in Vietnam.

51 ‘Bhaswar to Ajmere,’ Foreign Department Miscellaneous Series, No. 272, pp. 31–3.Google Scholar

52 Malcolm, John, A Memoir of Central India, Including Malwa, and Adjoining Provinces (2 vols: London, 1823), I: 549–50.Google Scholar

53 Report by Sutherland on the administration and conditions of Alwar, March 1842, RA, 16-Alwar (1842–1849), D I. See also Powlett, , Gazetteer, pp. 22, 92.Google Scholar

54 AGGR to FSGoI, Camp near Dig, March 5, 1842, FC, March 30, 1842, 165.Google Scholar

55 See a description of this process in [Lyall], ‘Rajput States,’ p. 194.Google Scholar

56 AGGR to Resident at Delhi, September 26, 1831, in ‘Delhi and Alwar: Copies of correspondence with the Resident at Delhi and the Agent at Ajmer concerning Alwar's intrigue with Jaipur and his hostility toward certain other chiefs, May 1831–December 1832,’ Foreign Department Miscellaneous Series. No. 279, pp. 126–7;Google ScholarIndia, Foreign Department, Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, 3: 400.Google Scholar

57 Note by Asst. AGGR on Alwar-Tijara relations, ca. June 1840, FC, August 17, 1840, 23.Google Scholar

58 AGGR to Secretary to Government, North-Western Provinces, March 17, 1843 in [India, Rajputana Agency], Papers relating to the Ruparel Dispute Between Alwar and Bharatpur States, Rajputana (Ajmer, 1903), p. 29.Google Scholar

59 Khureeta, Pirthi Singh Chauhan and sixteen other Tijara state officials to AGGR, Tijara, January 22, 1845, and FSGoI to AGGR, Ft. William, February 28, 1845, both in RA, 18-Alwar (1845), Ds 1 and 3.Google Scholar

60 Asst. AGGR to AGGR, Alwar, November 18, 1859, Part A Progs, October 1860, 22.Google Scholar

61 RA, 75-General-I (1846, 1853, 1859). Alwar's answers are D 34.Google Scholar

62 RA, 18-General (1870).Google Scholar

63 FC, December 30, 1848, 328.Google Scholar