Zeigler - Rajputs - The Mughal State, 1526-1750

4
Some Notes on RajpUt Loyalties

During the Mughal Period*
Norman P. Ziegler
Loyalty can be defined as a feeling of altacbment to somedling QUtside the self,

such as a group, an insrillltion, a cause, OI" an ideal The seutin'lelll carries with it
a willingne$ to support and act in behalf of the objeclS of one's loyalty and to
persist in that support over an exlended period of lime and under conditions which
exact a degree of IOOllll, emocional, and material sacrifice from the individual.
Loyalties emerge out of the social matrix, and lbe processes of loyalty
formation, growth, and change are closely ale.in to those involved in the process
I
~of identification. 1
The question of Rljp\it loyalties during the MuL_hal period is a com-

plex and paradoxical one. As dealt with in much of the literature on
Rajpiits and Rljasthln, it partakes of the wider controversy among con-
temporary Indian historians about the nature of Musli.m rule in India
and local reactions to that rule. For some, Muslim and more particularly
Mughal rule ~presents an era
·of l'eligious tole1auce and national
unifit::lfloil.iil which R§jpiits participated under the tl&11R1rs of their
clan leaders, to whom they directed primary allegiances, as soldiers and
administrators because of the prestige and benefits they gained through
association with the Mughal throne.2 For others, Rljpllt struggles for
.--------
*From J.F. Richards, ed. Kingship and Authority in South Asia (Madison:
University of Wisconsin South Asian Studies, 1978.)
1
1.H._~. 'Loyalty', in D.L. Sills (ed.), /111Br11Jliona/ Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences~). vol. 9, p. 484.
2For example, see M. Athar Ali, 71te Mughal Nobility Under Aunzngzeb
(New York, 1970, reprint); lrfan Habib, 71te Agnuian System of Mug Ital India
(New Yort, 1963); S. Nurul Hasan, '7.amindars under the Mughals', in
R.E. Prykenberg (ed.), UJnd Control and Social Sll'lll:tvre in Indian History
(Madison 1969), pp. 17-32 repioduced in lhis volume.
01gitized by Google Original frcm

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Somt Nolts on Rdjpiit L4J(lltits During tht M118!!_al Ptriod 169
independence and their res is tance to chc Mu g!!als ha ve become sym-
bolif'Of general Arnau 1esis&a11ce to Muslinrdonrinatlon:-Tlleytiplatn
Rll~fihon with the Mug!!ais wnri t!l!tthCc to conq ue s t. co-
option and collaboration out of political or economic ncccssity.J
Upon close r examination. the question of loyalties becomes muc h
more diffused than the above views s ugges t. II is the purpose of thi s
cs.Q ytoexamincthenatureoftheseloyatticsandthercasonsbehind
RAj~t fide lity to the Mug!!al throne in some Oe~1 . ancxam. ina-
tion 1.~ of importance for a number of reasons. First ly, c ~
liance with the Mug!!als represents one o f t more prominent
Mug!?! '.wcCc.s.ses, 111 C01mas1, fv example. to the proverbial failure
of Mughal relations in the Deccan. Thi.~ alliance evolved into o ne of
the primary supporu of the empire and its partial dismembe rme m under
Aurangzeb during the RJjpQl wars of the 1680s, histo r i a : 9
often cite as o~e of the contributing causes of decline. Secondly,
Mug!!al penetra!Jon intoRljasthln inthe latesixleenthandse
centuries in volved the-incmpOriltion or a sepa"iiteciltt~ group with
its- own distinct history. myihS i ndCustoms - wiihi"n the large r orbit -of
n0rthindianpolitics.and theg31iiirigofitsacti.,;e-p irticipatioiL! nthe
policies and ~oals ~r the empi~CThe~ljpii ~~~cupied a rel a~ive l y
isolated frontie r region of marginal agricuhurl!J.J..l!!I!2.!li~...~bich is
an extension of the great geographii:oll and -c~ huralJb&UCLbe.ILe.l.lend
ing-across Centra l India from KJi_thi5.vliUQ Qris~a...an area.mink~ by
grear-intemal subdi vision. This area was also a strategic transitional
zone situated between larger cultural cen1res in_Qyj!dl_!ndO n the
1
~a':r'::!~:~. :~i:~;:~=~:~~~l~::~~ie:-.=~~:e~:.:
to broader concerns with the functioning of imperial systems as a whole,
and their problems with integraliOn- and com'rof. au ty and lijiltlm:iey.
-'For example, Re A.C. Banerjee, L«fures Oll Rajpu1 His1ory (Ca l<;UIUI,
1962); V.S . BllargaVI, Marwarandrli.t Mu1lial E"'Pfrot"S (Delhi, 1966); J. Tod.
Allll<lls and A.miquilits of Rajasrlwn or lite Cen1rol and Wes1em Rajpool Sui1ts.
ed . by W. Crooke(London).3vols.
"For1diKUSSionoftN:gcographic1l signific1nceofRljaslhln,andof
«'gions in 1eneral. see 0.H.K.. Spate. India and PakistDn: A. General and
Regional Geo1raplly (London and New Yort, 19S7), pp. l I, 44-S7, S6S-6;
B.S. Col\n, 'Regions Subjective and Objeaive: Their Relation to the Study of
Modem Ind ian History and S«ie1y', in R.I. Crane (ed.), Re1ions and
Rr1ionaliS111 in Sowl! A.sian S1udies: A.11 Exploratory Srudy (Du!N.m, North
C.rolina, 1967),pp.S-38.
Ori9ir.. llrom
170 The Muglu:il Stale, 1526-1750
The specific examination of Riijpiit loyalties is complicated by the
variation in Rlijpiit response, both with respect to particular individuals
and through time. The differing reactions of RliJhor Rio Candrasen
Mlildeot of Jodhpur, Miirvllr. and his paternal nephew, Rlljll Surajsirpgh
Udaisirpghot, to Mu~I rule are symbolic of this variation. Riio
Candrasen succeeded to the rulership of Jodhpur in 1562, shortly after
Akbar's succession to the Mu~I throne in 1556, and spent most of
his life until his death in 1581, fighting Mughal armies which had in-
vaded Marvllr under the initial phases of Mughal expansion into
Rlijasthan.5 In contrast, Rlljll Surajsirpgh spent the whole of his life,
both before his succession to the rulership of Jodhpur in 1595, and after
in active participation in imperial affairs in the Deccan and elsewhere
in north India. His involvement in external affairs was so great that the
Mllrvlifi chronicle of his reign records his having said, when Jahanglr
ordered him home to settle some local problem: 'What will I do if I
go home? I don't know anything about affairs at home. I have left sole
responsibility for their management in the hands of (my Pradhlli:i, Jeso
(
Bhifi) Goyarpdlis [Mlinlivat).~
The differing reactions of these two individuals we can explain to
some degrte with reference, on the one hand, to the Mu~I attack
upon Rio Candrasen's position and land, and on the other, to Rlijll
Surajsirpgh's long period of tutelage and socialization under the
Mu~ls both as a boy and after Akbar personally confirmed his suc-
cession, and to specific obligations and personal attachments he had
developed through this contact. But this does not offer a complete ex-
planation. for Rio Candrasen' s brother, Udaisirpgh, the father of Rlljli
Surajsirpgh, whose lands the Mu~Js also took away, joined the·
Mughal standard even while his brother fought in exile from Mlirvlif.
Other Rlithors, who were clan brothers of Candrasen also did the same.
Why? How do we explain their actions? Socialization and the formation
of personal obligations are important considerations in a few instances.
But for the majoity of Rlijpiits, contact with the Mughals was both
indirect and intermittent, and Rlijpiits, dealt with them and reacted to
them more on the basis of locally derived sentiments.
s. Aitihlisik Bilirp', Parampara. ed. N.S. BhiU (Copisni, Rajasthiini Sodh

Samslhin).pl 11, 1961 . pp. 78--87.
6Naii;isl. Mdrvdr rii Parganiim ri Vigat, ed. N.S. BhAU (Jodhpur Rajasthin
Pnicyavidhyi Prali$IJ!lin). vol. I ( 1968), p. 97. This translation from the Mirviri
chronicle and others 10 follow are mine.
rron1
oig1tlze1lby Google Origi~al
Some Notes on Rlijpiit loyalties During the Mughal Period 171
For an understanding of Rlijpnt loyalties during this period, we must.

therefore, tum to local political culture, that is to the system of empiri-
cal beliefs and the.constellation of nonnative orientations which delined
situations in which political actions took place and which provided a
subjective orientation of the action.7 In turning to aspects of political
culture in an attempt to explain, in a broad sense, Rijpiit cultural
response to Mu~I domination, I am making a series of assumptions
about the nature of loyalties and the functioning of pre-modem political
systems in general. These are:
I. Loyalty- 'the willingness to support and act in behalf of the ob-
jects of one's loyalty'~epends not only upon identification, which
defines who one is with relation to others and one's place among them,
and obligation, which bespeaks of duty and obedience, but also upon
notions of what is ' right' and 'wrong' as defined in cultural tenns.
These aspects speak to questions of integration, of concepts of plai:e
and membership, and of shared values and institutions.'
2. Loyalty also depends upon a community of interest between the
personal aims and aspirations of individuals and the objecl~ of their
loyalty. be they individuals or institutions. Loyalty thus is a product
both of an individual's personal identification and his private satisfac-
tion.9
3. In a broader context, loyalty depends upon •
conceptualizations of
order, upon myth and bodies of 'significantsymbols' which define that
order, and which speak to ultimate goals, to what is as well as to what
ought to be. 10 Such myths and symbols act both to rationalize present
situations and to shape them.
7
S. Verba, 'Comparative Political Culture',. in L.W. Pye and S. Verba (eds).
Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton, 1965), p. S 13; Schaar,
'Loyalty', p. 484.
"E. Shils, 'Deference', in J.A. Jackson (ed.), Social Stratijica1ion
(Cambridge, 1968), pp. 107, 120. See also by Shils, 'Charisma, Order and
Status' , American Sociological Review, 30 (April 1965), no. 2, pp. 199-213;
L. A. Fallers, 'The Predicament of the Modem African Chief: An Instance from
Uganda', Inequality: Social Stra.tification ReconsidLred, (Chicago and London,
1973). pp. 42- 55.
9Schaar, 'Loyalty', p. 485.
10
c. Geertz, 'The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concepc of Man·.
in Y.A. Cohen (ed.), Man in Adapttllion: The Cultural Present, (Chicago. I%!!).
p. 24; and, 'Religion as a Cultural System', in M. Banton (ed.), Anthropolol(ical
Approaches to the Study of Religion (New York and Washington, 1966),
pp. 7- 9; D. Schneider, American Kinship: A Cultural Account (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1968), p. I.
oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

172 The Mughal Stale, 1526-1750
4. In pre-modem societies, because of the nature of the economy,
technology and the system of communications, which preclude high
degrees of integration and contribute to the distribution of power and
authority amoog various individuals and groups at different levels
within the society, 11 loyalties are channelled both through a variety of
primary and secondary groups, and subject to the influence of compet-
ing norms and standards, making for their multiplicity and the pos-
sibility of conflict. The latter is particularly the case in periods of stress
and change.
CASE HISTORIES
This examination begins, perhaps somewhat arbitrarily, with the

presentation of three case histories of individual Rljpiits who lived
during the Mug!!al period. These cases are meant to provide an initial
perspective on the lives and actions of Rajpiits and will serve as a
backdrop to the following discussion. In addition, they serve the purpose
of 11hifting our focus away from a preoccupation with local RlijpDt rulers
and their actions and policies, which has dominated most studies of
Rljasthlin.
The case histories and much of the following discussion I have
drawn from the genealogies (pf4hiydf!rlvcurasavaliyibfl), clan histories
(/c/iyiir-biit) and administrative chronicles (vigaJ) of the Rl!hor Rajpiits
of Mlrvlr. western Rljasthln. The documents themselves date from
the mid-seventeenth century. They are comprised largely of local oral
tr.iditions, supplemented with infonnation from written documents of
genealogists and various Rljpilt courts, which Mahlrlijl Jasvaipt Silllgh
of Jodhpur (1638-78) had his DlvAi:i. Mulllhata Naii:isI Jaimalot, compile
and submit to writing. They represent part of an extremely important
body of Rljpilt literature, which arose in response to Mug!!al contact
and subsequent Rljpilt efforts both to reinterpret local values and
ideologies, and to defend local positions of rank and authority. 12
11
8.S. Cohn, 'Political Systems in Eighteenth Century India: The Benares
Region ', Journal of thL American OrienJal Society, vol. 82, no. 3, (July-Sepe.
1962). pp. 312.-13.
12
1 have discussed these sources and their importance elsewhere in detail.
See N .P. Ziegler, 'The Seventeenth Century Chronicles of MirVlr: A Study in
the Evolution and Use of Oral Tradition in Western India', History in Africo: A
Joumal of Mtrhod, vol. m (1976); and 'Milrvlrl Historical Chronicles: Sources
for the Social and Cultural History of Rljasthln', Indian Economic and Social
History Review, vol. xm. no. 2, Apr-June 1976, pp. 219-50.

Some Notes on Riijput Loyalties During the Mu!_hal Period 173
Case I: Rii!hor Miifrl{JatJ Kw,apiivat 13
Mii1J14a1.1 was a Riijpiit of the Kii1J1piivat lcJuVrap (twig) of Miirviir
Rii'1!ors, and the son of Kii1J1poji Mahiriijot, from whom this branch of
Rii'1!ors stems. His ancestry goes back in direct line of descent to Rao
Ri1.1maljI CD!J14llvat (c. 1428-38), his great-great-grandfather, who first
consolidated Rii!hor rule in central Miirviir at Ma1J14or and whose son,
Rao Jodhojl RiJ.lffialot (c. 1453-89), founded Jodhpur city. Mii1J14a1.1's
great-grandfather was Akhairij Ri1,1malot, eldest son of Riio Ri1,1malji.
Akhairij received an area around the village of Bagri (I 0 miles east
of Sojhat town in eastern Miirviir) as his patrimonial inheritance shortly
after Riio Jodhojl established his new seat of rulership at Jodhpur, and
he proceeded to consolidate his authority there by capturing the area
from some other Rii'11ors of the Slf!ldha! lcJuVrap.
Akhairaj's son, Mahirlj, and his son, Kli!Jlpo, continued to occupy
villages in the area of eastern Sojhat until the time of Riio Gii1J1go
Viighiivat (ruler of Jodhpur, c. 1515-32). At this time, Kli1J1poji, who
had been a retainer (ciikar) of Rio Viramde Vlighlivat, the younger
brother of Rao Gii!Jlgo and Thiikur of Sojhat, joined Riio Gii!Jlgo. Rio
Viramde had been engaged in considerable hostilities with Riio Gii1J1go
over control of lands in Miirvar until his death around 1530. According
to the Miirviiri khyiits, Kii1J1poji changed sides because of offers from
Riio Gii!JlgO and his son, KU1J1var Miilde, of villages which exceeded
those he held in Sojhat in value. Ku1J1var Miilde, who succeeded Gii!JlgO
lo the rulership of Jodhpur in 1532, particularly valued KCi1J1po's
prowess as a warrior, and KDIJlpojI rose under Miilde to become one
of his foremost Pradhii1,1s (military commander).
Milde granted KCi1J1poji authority over several large tracts of land
in Miirvar and elsewhere, which Miilde's armies had conquered duri.ng
the years of expansion in the early part of his reign. One of these areas
included the village of Xsop (50 miles north-east of Jodhpur city) and
others nearby, which eventually became the !hi/cat.ta (seat of rule) of
the Kurppiivats descended from Mii1J14an Rii!hor.
Ma1J1"81.1 himself was probably born during the latter years of Rao
Gii1J1goji's rule at Jodhpur, and he served along with his three elder
brothers under his father in the armies of Riio Miilde, while growing
up in Asop. Then in 1544, his father and at least two of his elder
1
3For references to Mirp~ Rilhor and his family, see Parpdit Rimkara1,1
Asop, Asop kif ltiltiJs (Jodhpur, n.d.), pp. 16-56; Nai!ISI ri KhylJt, ed. P.V. Muni,
m(Jodhpur 1964), pp. 80-6 124-33, 274; 'AitihlsikBltirp', pp. 40-S, SI, 58-9,
74-S, 91; Naii;isl, Vigat, I, pp. 38, 43-S, 56, 63, 77.
rron1
174 The Muglwl Stale, 1526-1750
brothers were killed in the ba1tle of Same! againsl Sher Shih Siir, whose
viclory here effeclively ended Rllo Mlllde' s expansion in wes1em
Rlljaslhlln and much reduced his authorily 1hroughout Mllrvar.
A.sop was included among the areas over which Malde losl control
10 Sher Shah, and although Mlll'"fl4aJ:i continued 10 serve under Rao
Miilde for a number of years after his fa1her's death, he finally left
Marvar wilh his family and personal retainers somelime around 1555-6.
The reasons behind Mlil'fl~'s migration from Jodhpur are unclear, but
at least one local source indica1es that they were directly rela1ed to
Mlilde's much reduced control within Mlirvar and his inability to pro-
vide his relainers with lands.
When Mirp<;lai;i left Jodhpur, he proceeded lo Delhi, arriving there
al the time of Akbar's succession to the Mu&!!al throne in 1556. He
appears 10 have joined Akbar's service soon thereafler, for the khyiits
record that in 1557, he received Asop and 13 other villages in Mllrvllr
in jt'igir from Akbar. He also held lhe area of Jhiirpjhai;iiirp in central
Rlljasthlln in jt'igir for a short time.
II is unclear how long Mllrp4ar,i inilially remained in Akbar's ser-
vice, for he is nexl mentioned as having joined Rao Candrasen, who
succeeded Rao Malde to the rulership of Jodhpur in 1562. This period
was an extremely unsettled one in Mllrvllr. which came under Mu&!!al
a11ack in the mid- 1560s. In the early 1570s we find MllrpQaQ again
leaving Mllrvllr shortly before Akbar's troops forced Rao Candrasen
himself inlo exile in the Aravalli hills in 1574. This time, Marpc;lai;i
proceeded to Mevar. where he became a retainer of Slsodiyo Rai:io
Udaisirpgh Sarpgllvat (c. 1537- 72). and his son and successor, Rii;io
Pralllp Udaisirpghot (c. 1572-95).
The khyt'its make much of the fact that while MllrpQaQ slayed in
Mevllr he also took revenge for the murder of one of his brothers who
occupied a village near Sojhat in Mirvar. and who had been killed by
a Sil'fldha! Ra!hor named Siho over a dispute aboul the possession of
some horses. Upon learning of his brother's death. Mllip<;lai;i raided inlo
Marvllr and killed Slho in a battle near the village of Jaitllran (some
60 miles due east of Jodhpur city). This battle and the death of Siho
led to further hoslilities with the Sirpdhals who sought lo avenge Slho,
and ended only when Rio Candrasen sent a small force of troops to
assist Marp4ar,i.
Mlll!l4ai:i then rejoined Rao Candrasen during the latter's period of
exile in the Arivallis and southern Rijasthin, returning to Mevllr to
continue serving under Rlli;io Pratap in 1581 , upon the death of Rllo
Candrasen. Rlli;io Pratip was himself involved in a struggle with the

Some Notes on Riijpiit Loyalties During the Mughal Period 175
Mug!!als at this time, and we find M~ leaving Ml!var sometime
between 1582 and 1583, to join Rio Candrasen's brother, Udaisilpgh
Mlldeot. UdaisiJpgh was then an imperial mansabd4r of Akbar, living
at Samlvall (near Gwllior). to which Akbar had sent him to quell some
disturbances of local Gujars and which Akbar later granted him in jiJgir.
In 1583, Akbar appointed UdaisiJpgh Mlldeot (better known as the
MoJI Rljl) ruler of Jodhpur and granted him the title of 'Rljl' and a
mansab of 1000 t.iil. Mirp4a1.1 then returned to Jodhpur along with the
Mol,I Rljl and served under him and his successor, Rljl Surajsirpgb.
until be was killed in 1603, while leading operations against RIJhors
in far western Mlrvif who refused to submit to the authority of the
Jodhpur ruler. During this latter period, Mirf\4al:I also held a mansab
under Akbar, for the lchyills record that Akbar directly granted him
A.sop and other villages as a separate jiJglr upon bis return to Mlrvlf.
I have little information about Mlql(ia.{t's wives or daughters and
their places of maniage. He did have seven sons, three of whom suc-
ceeded him to the !hakurship of lbikll.18 A.sop and played roles of
varying importance in the history of Mlrvlr. There is also some
14
information about his personal retainers. Several of them were Bhl!I
Rajpilts of the Jeso /chiJtrtp (see Case II concerning the Jesl Bblps),
and at least one was a Sonagara Cahuvai, of the Sllpcor branch. AU
of them were individuals who followed Mlrp481.1 on bis wanderings
through Rijasthln and north India, and at one time or another held
villages under him. The Jeso Bhl!l connection with MiJJ14al.l is of par·
ticular interest because it extends back to the time of M11J14al.l' s
grandfather. Mahirlj Akbairljot. Mahirlj had manied the daughter of
Jeso Bba!I Bhairavdls Jeslvat, and she became the mother of
Mlip481.1's father, Kurppoji. Two of Bhairavdls Jeslvat's brothers' sons
afterwards became retainers of Kurppojl and died with him at the battle
of Samel in 1544. The sons and grandsons of one of these Bhi~s con-
tinued on in the service of MilJ'l4al.l. along with other close relations
who joined them in bis service. The /chyiits contain no further informa-
tion on rnaniages between Mlrpc;la1.1 or his family and the Jesl Bhli!lS,
but it is highly probable that some of these Bhl!is also rnanied their
daughters to either KfllJ'lpo or MilJ'lc;lal.l.
1
"For information on Milplja~'s retainers, see Nait;isl rl Khydl, I ( 1960), p.
243; D (1962), pp. 172, 178, 181, 184, 187, 192.

176 The Mughol Stale, 152~1750
Case 11: Bhil{l Slll'tdlJ MiJn4va115

Su~ was a Bhll!i Rajpnt of the Jeso kJulirip, the second son of Mino
Nlrpblvat and fifth generation in descent from Jeso Kalilcarai;tot, from
whom this W,,.,, stems. His ancestor, Jeso, was the eldest son of a
younger son of Rival Kehar Devrljot, the ruler of Jaisa!mer (c.
1361-94). He had migrated from Jaisalmer 10 Nagaur in late fifteenth
century. Here he apparently entered the service of the Khlnazlda Mus-
lim ruler of the area, 16 from whom he received the village of Bhllurp4o
which he held on patrimonial tenure and which remained in his family
intermittently thereafter until the time of Sunai:i Minlvat. Later on, he
left Nlgaur and went to Mevlf, where he held the villgae of Thli:io
and others from the Sisodiyo Rllio. under whom he served as a retainer.
His descendants did not remain in Mevir long. We find· several of
his sons in Mlrvlf at the time of Rio Slijo Jodhllvat, ruler of Jodhpur
(c. 1492--1515). Sojo had married Jeso' s half-sister while sti.11 a Kurpvar,
and it appears 10 have been this tie which brought the Jesil Bhl!Is 10
Mlrvlr and out bf which the rather enduring relations between them
and the rulers of Jodhpur developed.
Surtlli;t represented a younger son of the elder branch of the Jeso
kJulirip. He was descended from Jeso's eldest son, AJ:tarpd, about whom
the Bhll!I genealogy gives no information. AJ:tarpd appeared 10 have
returned either lo Jaisalmer or to have gone to Nlgaur and Bhiuq11;lo
village from Mevif. AJ:tarpd' s eldest son, Nlrpbo, later migrated into
Mllrvlr at the time of Rio Mllde (c. 1532-62), under whom he took
service. Mllde granted him the village of Lavero (some 35 miles north
of Jodhpur city). Nlrpbo held Lavero until his death in 1544, in the
15For references to the Jesi Bhills, Su~ Minlvat and his family, see
Na~l rf Khyal, n, pp. 75-7, 152- 3, 157-8, 160; m, pp. 7, 103-5; Nai{lsl, Vigat,
I, pp. 96, 99; 'Aitihisik Blllllp', p. 90; Tav4rllch-Jaisal,mer, comp. and ed.
Mwpbata Nathmalji and Sevak La.khmicand (Ajmer, 1891), pp. 42-5, IOI;
BO/flkid4s rf KhyiJt, ed. P. J. Muni (Jaipur, 1956), p. 119; RtJthorom ki KhyiJt
PuriJl:li Kavirdjjl MurifrddnJl Ice Yahmra se Likhl Gal, MS no. 15672, no. 2
(Rlljasthln Prlcyavidbya Prll~thlln, Jodhpur, Rajasthin), p. 418; V.N. Reu,
MiJTvlJr k4 ltiMs (Jodhpur, 1938), I, p. 192, fn. 2; G.H. Ojhl, RtJjpfll4ne k4
ltili4s, JV Ajmer, (1938), pt I, pp. 374-5.
1
6nie Khlnazida Muslims were a minor branch of the Muslim kings of
Gujarlt, and ruled Nigaur between 1400 and 1535, when Rio Milde of Jodhpur
caprured the area. See Nai.\l.Sf, Vigat, n (1969), p. 421 ; M.A. Chaghtai, 'Nagaur,
A Forgotten Kingdom,' Bulletin of the Deccan Collete Post-Grrublate anJ
Research lnstituu, AO. 1 (Poona. 1939), pp. 175-6.
0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

So~ Notes on Rajpiit loyal~s During the Mu8!!fil Period 177
great battle against Sher Shih Snr. His eldest son, Mino, in tum served
under Milde and then Moll Rljl Udaisirpgh, both before Udaisirpgh
succeeded to the rulership of Jodhpur in 1583, and for a short time
thereafter until his death.
Surt11.1 was probably born in the late 1560s or early 1570s, while
his father served under Udaisirpgh at Pha!odhI, the area of northern
Mirvir which Udaisirpgh had received as his inheritance upon Rio
Malde's death. With Surtlf.l at Pha!odhl were also his elder brother,
Goyarpdlls, who later rose to the position of Pradhi{I of Jodhpur
under the Mo!ll Rijll and his successor, Rllja Silrajsitpgh Udaisirpghot
(c. 1595-1619). and a younger brother, Sidnl, who died of gunpowder
bums at the battle of Rlljpipla in Gujarat in 1583. SldCil had accom-
panied the Mo!1 Rljl there to suppress the rebellion of Pltsih Muzaffar
Khan.
When the MoJi Rajll succeeded to the rulership of Jodhpur in 1583,
he granted all three brothers joint possession of Lavero and other sur-
rounding villages. These villages appear to have been divided equally
among the brothers (the texts are not specific here), for the Bhl!I
genealogy records Surtlf.l as holding the villages of Kelivo (some 10
to 12 miles south of Lavero), Viknrpkohar (30 miles west of Lavero)
and 20 others in addition to Lavero, which seems only a general desig-
nation. The genealogy also notes that Surti1.1 held Kelavo specifically
until 1605. Possession of all of these villages continued after the death
of the Mota Rijll in 1595, under his successor, Rlijll Siirajsirpgh.
There is little infonnation about Surt11.1's activities while he served
as a retainer under the Mota Raja. In the early years of Rljl Siiraj-
sirpgh' s rule, he took part in local operations in Marvir connected with
bringing the pargana of Sojhat under Siirajsirpgh' s control. This par-
gana Akbar had taken from Raja Siirajsirpgh's brother, Sakatsirpgh,
and granted to the Raja in 1600, and there were problems associated
with the transfer of authority relating to Sakatsirpgh's unwillingness to
relinquish the land until the arrival of an imperial fanniin from Delhi.
Then in 1605, Surta1.1 accompanied his brother, Goyarpdis, and the
Raja of Jodhpur with an anny to Gujarat, where he took pan in the
battle of Milp(iav against the Kolis. He seems to have perfonned well
in battle, for SCirajsirpgh afterwards re.warded him with the grant of the
important village of Bhadrijii1.1 and 25 others, which he then occupied
instead of those around Lavero. For some unexplained reason, these
villages were taken away in 1607, and he again received his previously
held villages around Lavero.
rron1
178 The Mughal State, 1526-1750
In 1611, SurtilJ accompanied lUji Surajsirpgh to the Deccan. While
away from Mirvir. Riji Surajsirpgh had given Surtao's brother,
Goyaqidis, and his own son Kurpvar Gajsirpgh Siirajsirpghot, authority
over Jodhpur. Goyaqidas, who was pradluit:i of Jodhpur, employed the
services of one of Surtii:i's !hikiit,la administrators, a man by the name
of Murphata Keso, during SurtllJ absence. Murphata Keso' s actions em-
bittered Surtii:i, for when he learned about his Murphata' s 'defection',
he left his post in the Deccan, returned to Marvar and killed Keso. In
response to this murder, SurtlilJ's brother, Goyarpdas, drove him out of
Mlirvlir.
Surtio then fled to Nigaur, where he became a retainer of Kachviiha
Madhosirpgh Bhagvaqitdasot, the brother of Raja Mansirpgh of Arpber.
Midhosirpgh, an imperial mansabdiir with a rank of 300012000, held
17
this area in jagir from Jahiinglr between 1606 and 1616. Surtii:i also
received his ancestral village of Bhiurp(lo from Madhosirpgh at this
time, where he settled.
Surtio' s receipt of this village immediately brought him into conflict
with IU~or Narsirpghdlis Kalylodisot, who occupied the village prior
to Sunao's arrival. Ri~f Narsirpghdlis was the son of Kalyaodas
Riymalot (see Case DI below), and a great-grandson of Rao Miilde
Girpglivat of Jodhpur. According to the Marvlifi sources, there were
several outbreaks of hostilities between Narsirpghdis and Surtil), both
at the time Surtio took possession of Bhliurp(lo village and shortly
thereafter, when Narsirpghdiis brought a small contingent of retainers
including his two brothers, lsardiis and Madhodis, several Mertiyli
Rithors and other Rajpiits, against Surtil). During the latter attack,
which took place in May 1613, both Surtio and Narsirpghdiis were
killed.
17
The Mlirvafi sources all note that Sunar:i settled in the land of Sisodiyo
Bano Sagar Udaisi1J1gho1, but this assenion seems incorrect. Sagar held Nigaur
in jdglr for only one year between 160 I and 1606. He was one of the younger
sons of IUr:io Udaisirpgh Sarpgavat of Mevar. Jah3ngir had given him the title of
'IUi;io' and the jagir of Citor and Nligaur at the time he sent Prince Parviz into
Mevlir against Rll;lo Prallp. Sligar held the title and thejdglrofCitor until 1619,
when Jahinglr took away the title and replaced it with that of 'Rival' and
granted him a jdgir outside of Mevir. See Naii;isl, Vigat, n, p. 422; Naiiµi rt
Khydt, 1. p. 391; Ojhli, RdjpwtaM led /tihds, n (1932), pp. 796, 815; Kaviraj
MuriJrddnji kl Khydt /c4 Tarjuma, MS no. 25658. no. I, (IUjaslhin Pricyavidhyll
Prati~!hin. Jodhpur, Rlijasth3n), p. 608; Abu' 1-Fazl, The A 'in-i-Alcbarl, trans. H.
Blochmann, ed. S.L. Gloomer (Delhi, 1971), pp. 46(}...I.

So~ Notes on Riijput loyalties During IM Mughal Period 179
Surtli1)' s brother, GoyalJlcfls, and Kulpvar Gajsilpgh of Jodhpur im-
mediately took revenge for the death of Surtlii:i by killing one Rathor
Rajpilt who had taken part in the attack on Surtli:i. The hostilities did
not end here. They can be traced in the Mirvlfi genealogies two more
generations and led al least to two other deaths. In order to escape
further retribution from Surtlii:i's brother, RAthor Narsilpghdis's
brothers, Isardis and Mlhodls, apparently left M!rvlr sometime around
1616. for Burhinpur in the Deccan. There they met Rlija Surajsilpgh
and entreated him to end the hostilities, for which they claimed no
fault. At the same time, they declared the Rijiji to be their father and
further entreated him to retain them. Surajsilpgh in tum prevailed upon
Mohabat Khan to accept them as retainers, which he did. Isardis was
later killed in lhe Deccan fighting under the command of Mohabat
-over -
Khan's son, while Mohabat Khan himself killed Mlidhodis in Kabul,
an insult relating to the imperial family.
While Isardis and Mldhodis escaped the revenge of the Bhli!Is,
lsardis's son, Narhardis, did nO(. The last trace of hostilities I have
come across relates to his death at the hands of Bhli!I Goyalpdis
Manavat's son, who killed him while he was on his way from the Dec-
can to Marvar. when they happened to cross paths along the way.
I have no information on Surtlii:i's wives or daughters. He had six
sons. five of whom remained in Mlirvlir and served under the Jodhpur
rulers. There are also references to two Rlijpilts who were his personal
retainers. One of these men was Bhl!i Madho Rii:imalot, the son of
Surtai:i' s father's brother, RiJ:imal Nilpblvat. The other was a Jodho
Ra!hor named Jasvalfll Hamlrot. It is significant with regard to RA!hor
Jasvalfll, that his brother. Bhopal Hamlrot, had married one of Surtai:i's
sisters, whomSurtai:i's brother, GoyalJldas, had given to him in marriage
after the death of their father. 18
Case Ill: Riifhor Kalyiitµliis Riimalot19

Kalylindas was a Rajplit of the Jodho khiif!lp of Marvar Ra1hors stem-
ming from Rao Jodhoji Rii:imalot, the founder of Jodhpur city. He was
18
For information on Sunil'.I' s personal retainers. and on the Rajpilts
involved in hostilities with him and his family, see Nai~i ri Khyiil, n, p. 161;
RiJ/horof!I kI KhyiJt. pp. 417-18, 531-2; KaviriJj Murdrd4nJi ki Khyiit.
pp. 606-10.
1
9For references to Kalyill'.ldlls and his family, see Kavirdj Murard4n1i ki
Khya~ p. 605; RiJfhorO'fl ki KhyiJt, pp. 188-90; Nail'.151, Vigat, II, p. 77; Ojha,
RiJjpiiliJM kiJ ltihiJs, IV. pl I, p. 360.

180 TM M11ghal Stale, /526-1750
the son of .Rlymal Mildeot and the grandson of .Rlo Mllde Giqlglvat,
the ruler of Jodhpur. According to the ~r genealogy, Kalyil}dis' s
father, Riymal, became a retainer of Akbar shortly after Akbar' s suc-
cession ot the Mug!!al throne in 1556. Why .Rlymal left his father, Rio
Mlilde, and joined Mug!!al service is unclear, but his migration from
Mlirvlir occurred during the period of Mlilde's much restricted rule in
Mlirvlir after the battle with Sher Shih Sor in 1544. IUymal was also
a younger son of Rio Milde, born of a minor queen, Rini Hiride Jhill,
the daughter of Jhilo Mlinsimgh of Halod. 20 which may have influenced
his decision to leave. I have no information about the village or villages
he held from Mlilde in Mlirvlir. nor the extent of his patrimony.
Rliymal appears to have been only a low-ranking mansabddr in
Akbar's service, but Akbar did grant him the fort of S1vlino (60 miles
south-west of Jodhpur city) and surrounding villages in jiigir. He held
these until his death around the time that Motl Rijli Udaisimgh suc-
ceeded to the rulership of Jodhpur in I 583.
From all indications, Rliymal's son, Kalylindlis, continued in Akbar's
service after his father' s death and also received Sivil)o in jiigir. It is
also likely that he had been born at Sivll)o during the early pan of his
father's tenure there, but the Mlirvliri texts supply no details. They men-
tion only that Kaly1Qdlis was an imperial servant at Uhor, and that he
was killed around 1589, by his paternal uncle, Molli .Rljli Udaisimgh.
Two different versions of events leading up to his death exist. Ac-
cording to one, Kalyindlis became angry one day while engaged in
imperial duties (presumably at Uhor), and killed a Sayyid, who was a
mansabdiir of Akbar. When Akbar learned of the murder, he ordered
the Mali Rlijli to kill KalyiQdlis, who had meanwhile fled to Sivlil)O
and taken refuge in the fort there. According to the other version,
KalyliQdis took offence at the Moll Rlijli 's marriage of his daughter,
Jodh Bil, to Prince Salim, shortly after the Mota Rlijli succeeded to
the Jodhpur throne.2 1 The Rl!hor genealogy records that Kalyindlis
threatened to kill both Mo!li Rlijli Udaisirpgh and Prince Salim on ac-
count of this marriage to the 'Turks'. When news of Kalyll)dis' s threats
reached Alcbar, he ordered the MOii Riji to kill him. In agreement
with the first account, this version also states that Kalylndls fled to
20
Nai!!Sl rf Khylll, n, p. 256; R4!ho/'Of!I ki Khyiil, p. 142.
21
For details regarding this marriage, see Bhargava, Mwwar and the Mughal
E~rors, pp. 58-9.

s~ .\·ores on Riijplil l.oyallies Dr.uin~ the .W11t_hal Perit>d 181
Siv~. Both acc01.alls indica1e lh31 the fort fell 10 ~lot3 Raji l"d.aisil!lgil
in 1589. and dw KalyiJ:M13s died here in banJe along " ·id! his se,·eraJ
wives. "ilo performed ja.Jror from the fort " ·alls.
I ha'·e no infonnation on Kalyandas"s " ·ives or daugh1ers. He had
several sons. mentioned in connection "ith Bba!i Surtin Mlina,·a1 (see
Case D. abo\e ). I also find one reference to a personal retainer of bis.
a Jeso Bbaµ named Khctsi l!dival. Khctsi look part in the banle of
Si,·ano fon and " ·as " ·ounded there. AfteNards. Klinha Kisnavat. the
son of one of Ketsf s father" s brothers. who '''as a sef\·an1 of the P.i~
Riji. picked him up from the field and cared for him. Khctsi then also
joined lhe service of lhe M0!-1 Riji. under whom he held lhe village
of JiJjvas near Jodbpur ci1y.:!2
-·-- ----------
PkJMARY loYALT1ESA.,1>11fE STATE
During 1be Mughaij>criod, there were two primary URit!J f)f ref«cnce
~~n~i~c~t!<?" f~r_!_Rljp_iit, 'l)le~~ .we~ his bro«hert.ood (.Miiiba~h)
300 his re lations b~ marria£C (saga). lA &he widesl li8AS8r~ brother-
·bood was · a pa1rilineal unit_ 9 f des~e!]t_ .IP,prcseo•ed ..by lhe clan
"{v~l:ll11!), which included all those related by tics of male blood 10 a
..eeanuon anccsto·r Cva4ero). However,_the ~Ian was _g_i.n~rally widely
dispersed over different 1erri1ories will!in ~jastb~. ~~<! ~~as !'IOI itself
a'"l:'Orporate groop ·in the sense .tbal.it eajoyed j9in1 conuol over a
, specific territory. The func1ionally corporale units were smaller brother-
hom1s, namely. in1cmal st'gmen1s of the wider clan (kJiiimp or nak).2.\
consisting of from three 10 five or six generations and including all
22
For references to Kalylil:idas · s retainer and Jeso Bhi!l Klnha Kisnlval. see
Nail)si ri Khyiil, n, pp. 164-S. 173.
23
Rajp01 clans are internally segmenled firs I inlo branches (sdklt/sakhiim).
and then into lesser divis ions of lchdf!!P (twig), and nak (bud). Each unit is
designated by a particular name which may be eilher thal of an anceslor. from
whom the line descends. or thal of a local territory. where the line firs! became
established. Gotra affiliations are generally found al the level of kJulirip. Bui in
Rlijasthan. a clan or several branches of a clan often have the same gotra
designation. 111e gotra name determines the boundaries of exogamy.

members related by close ties of male blood, their wives,24 sons and
unmarried daughters. lS
Territory which the brotherhood controlled often carried the name
of the brotherhood itself, with the suffix vaf or vafi (share/ponion) at-
tached to the name and indicating lands obtained through the division
of shares among brothers (bhai v<»rif). This territory the brotherhood
also referred to as its binhplace or homeland (vatanljanm-bhom). It was
both the centre of the brotherhood's origin and expansion, and the land
from which it was felt to derive its sustenance and strength. The two
entities, brotherhood and land, were felt to be inse arabl linked and
rriiirua y suppon1ve. e sy!ll o t_}~ 1}.~~a~ ~~~-~he pi'l14a.~all
01 fooo or claymade either from the sustenance of the land or the land
itself, which the brotherhood offered up to its ancestors. who had con-
quered and enjoyed mastery over the land before them. One finds ref-
erences to mortally wounded Rijpiits mixing their blood with the land
to form pi'l14as and offering these up before death. 26 Such acts repre-
sented the return of llrength to the land and its nourishment of the brother-
hood, which preserved the 'body' and enabled it to continue to rule.
While these corporate brotherhood acknowledged ties to the wider
clan and paid varying degrees of .deference to 'senior· or 'ruling' line
by descent within the clan, 27 in general they looked upon themselves
2
4wives are included as members of the brotherhood. because it is felt that
upon marriage a woman becomes transformed into a person related by male
blood to her husband and his brothers. See Nai!ISi rl Khyiit, n pp. 327-8; m,
p. 163; Brandrelh's Trea1ise on the l.Aw of Adoplion in Rajpootana (with notes
by Col. J.C. Brooke), (Calcutta, 1871), pp. 5, 22; 'Law and Practice in Cases of
Adoption and Succession to Sovereignties in Rajputana ', Rajputana Agency
Office Historical Record 27, 75/General, vol. I (1846, 1853, 1859) (National
Archives of India, New Delhi), p. 11.
lSNai!15I r1 Khyiit, I, pp. 64, 119; 'Vat Ti4ai Ch&4ivat ri', Viitii1r1 ro
Jhumalcho, ed. M. Sarma (Bisau. n.d.). pt 3, p. 40.
26
Aitihlsik Bitlm'. p. 43. Pilft4a can mean both 'ball (of food or clay)' and
'bod •
2
rThis expression of deference applied primarily to brotherhoods not too far
removed genealogically from the senior or ruling line. Those which had
branched off many generations back generally granted no deference at all and
considered themselves totally independent of the authority of the senior line.
This hierarchical differentiation of territorial units and settlements based on
ilescent is similar to that Kashi Nath Singh discusses with reference to Rajpllt
settlements in eastern Uttar Pradesh. See Kashi Nath Singh, 'The Territorial
Basis of Medieval Town and Village Settlement in east.em Uttar Pradesh',
An11als oflht: l.ssociation of1.-ricQl'I Gt:ORropht:rs, LVUI (1968), pp. 203-20.
01g1tizea by Google Origlr.al from

Somt Notts on Rdjpiit Loya/tits During tht Mul'!:al Ptriod 183
as separate and distinct uniL~ . Each claimed equal prerogatives and
rights lo precedence over land by descent. Other brotherhoods of the
0
same clan comprised more distantly related brothers' , occupying ter-
ritories separate from their own, and were no different from the brother-
hoods of other Rlj pUt clans located nearby.
The otherpi'imary unit of reference and identification fOI'" the RljpUt
was .his so~se to whom he gave .dau~ters and/or fi:c'm whom he
received wives m marriage. This relat10nsh1p was of pamcular impon-
ance. for at the same time that the act of marriage was .~een to unite
a woman with her husband·s brotherh66d, I( was also seen to create
aw111iance. TI!e 1erminM&r~RajasthariL)lor bOlhbet rothaf -
anO-alti:m~gm;-rdertv:ntve-DI Sdgd. Ahi!!f m:m1age, the
husband' s fatherusually-ga~son s wile a 11ew name. wlticli .•Jill
bonttd·tter•btnh .. lntcrthe-~tirnie membe rs ol her ialh!T"'s
brothe rhood still cc:mtimred-to-eatther"SisteHbaiJ, and !iifOrig relahOhs
of suppt)rriliilli!Tectmn between a mother s brul&f QM/till) aud his
s~ler's son (bh~qr t1 gure prominentfy"lnhe RajpiilTitcF.ilme".1' In
addition:tndividual lf:ijjii:illl thtmselteS«ere 1denUhed not only by the
name of their father and his brotherhood. but also by the name of their
mother'sfatherorbrotherand his brotherhood. Genealogical entries in
panicutar display this feature, listing individuals as daughter's son
(dohi1ro) or siste r's son of a certain RlljpUt clan. one of its subdivisions,
ora panicular individual.
The importance of bhiiibti,,Wh and saga as primary or primordial
units of reference and identificationpersistedduringtheMug!!al period
becau.'>C of their centrality in defining who a Rijpllt was. There were
also units of natural affinity which called fonh immedia1e sentimenL~
of reciprocity, suppon and assistance, and in this sense ocganized the
basic loyalties of most Rlj pU ts. 19 They did not necessarily command
all his allegiances, however, fOI'" the complex of loyallies within terri-
tories whic h panicular brotherhoods dominated display complexities
generated by structural features of these groups themselves. We can
21
Fore~ample.seeNait;1sl riK.liyd1 , m. pp.63-4.6S-9.
19
C. GeelU.. 'The lmegntion Revolulion: Primordial Senliments and Civil
Poli1ics intheNewS1.ates' . inC. Geeru.(ed.J,OldSodtritstmdNtwS101t:>: Tht
Quts/ /~ MO<Umiry in Asia (JN/ Africa (New York. 1963). pp. 10&-29: Shils.
·Deference'. pp. l07- l5. Shils dennes centres u those posilions which
·exercise earthly powers and wh ich media1e mllll's relationship 10 the order of
uis~n«'(p. 107).
Originollrom
"""'" • Google UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
distinguish several different institutions or organizational principles
which governed these groups and influenced the direction of loyalty.
Among some brotherhoods, which remained relatively undifferenti-
ated during this period, kinship remained the dominant institution. This
characteristic is particularly true, for example of semi-independent
Rli!hor brotherhoods in far western Mlirvlir, in the desert tracts of
Maheva and Baharmer (modem Millini), which remained largely out-
side the influence and control of more powerful groups in central
Mlirvlir and had limited contact with the Mughals, either directly or
indirectly. Within them, unilineal descent and the principle of equality
among brothers with regard to right of access to land prevailed. 30 In-
ternal differentiation among brothers concerning positions of rank and
authority also remained minimal, there being only a nominal leader or
chief (dha~i) and respected and influential members (pQJic lok) besides
the brothers, their wives and children. In addition, though positions of
lea<lership within the group passed to candidates, which the brothers
as a whole selected from among identified 'senior' blood Jines, these
candidates were only first among equals (primus inter pares), and their
positions depended totally upon both their generosity and the will and
acquiescence of their brothers.31
Elsewhere, however, brotherhoods were more highly stratified and
their membership internally differentiated on the basis of wealth and
access to positions of power and authority. The organization of these
brotherhoods was also greatly influenced by two additional institutions,
namely rulership and clientship. These institutions were closely inter-
related and in contrast to the relatively undifferentiated, corporate
brotherhood, were not defined in terms of kinship and associated ter-
ritory, but in terms of hierarchical ties and common allegiance among
residential groups and individuals to a superior--the local ruler
(Jhiikur). It was these ties and allegiances which both defined a local
kingdom (riiJ) of a Rajpiit ruler and determined the extent of his ter-
ritory. They also formed the primary basis of solidarity within that
kingdom.
Local rulers of these kingdoms were often representatives of senior
lines by descent within particular clans. But one also finds examples
of junior lines, such as the Jodhli Rli!hors of Mlirvlir, which had super-
ceded senior line,s through conquest of strategic territories and risen to
greater prominence, maintaining for themselves the right to provide
30
Nai!ISI rf Khydl, n1, p. 161.
31
Ibid., n. pp. 43, 32~30.
rron1
Some Notes on RiijpUI Loyalties During the Mughal Period 185
successors to the position of local rulership. Kinship and descent as
principles of organization were operative primarily within the families
of these rulers, in the determination of succession and rights to positions
of authority, and in matters of inheritance. Generally, a ruler designated
his heir (pafVf} from among his immediate sons, and in tum transmitted
to him greater authority and status than accorded other sons. This heir
was not necessarily the eldest son, but more often the son of either a
favourite wife or the chief queen (parra1,1i), who held customary right
to provide the successor. This son always received the major share of
land in his inheritance, while other sons received only minor shares for
their maintenance. 32
Outside the immediate family of the ruler, clientship was the prime
determinant of both access to land and to positions of authority.33
Clients as a body included not only IUjpiits of the same clan and
brotherhood as that of the ruler, but also other Rajpilts from different
clans and brotherhoods. The texts generally refer to them as caJcar,
which carries the general meaning of servant. but in Mlrvifi usage,
designates a 'military retainer,' one who held rights over villages on
the condition of provision of arms to a superior, or who was included
as a member of his patron's personal household. The latter was referred
to as residing in the vas (residence, ward) of the patron. Examples of
the movement of individual Rajpllts from area to area within Rajasthln
and outside appear frequently in the RajpQt literature, as the history of
MIJp~ Rithor attests (see Case I), and point to an imponant and
enduring feature of this society.
The relationship between a local ruler and a client consisted of a
set of obligations incumbent upon each pany. The client generally owed
both allegiance and service to his patron, which he acknowledged with
a vow, sworn before a devaJa in a local temple. 34 Service entailed both
the provision of arms or military service, and other forms of attendance
upon the person of the patron himself.35 This obligation a client addi-
tionally acknowledged because he had eaten the salt (/iii)) or the grain
(mUlflgldhOJ:i) of his patron, which symbolized both his dependence upon
and indebtedness to the patron, who maintained him. In return for this
allegiance and suppon, the patron was obliged both to protect his client
and to favour him with land and other forms of remuneration. 36
32Nai1,1sl, Vlgat, I, p. 95.

331bid., n, pp. 61, 63.
~d .. n.p.61.
35
Na~i ri Klrytil, D, p. 273.
0191t1zed by Google Original from

' Pt '·
186 The Mughal Stale, 152().1750

Within a kingdom, only clients who maintained direct ties with a
ruler were designated (ha/curs, the term which also defined a local
37
ruler. But hierarchical ties of patronage and clientship extended
throughout all levels of Rajpiit society, a feature which all three case
histories presented above display. Clientship was an imponant institu-
tion in Rlijasth!n because it superseded kinship as a basis of organiza-
tion. In addition, it not only regulated access to land and to positions
of authority, but also made available to a local ruler, upon whom clients
depended for favours and rewards, a coercive force which he could in
tum employ to support and to strengthen the local hierarchy itself. 31
While the institutions of rulership and clientship existed in Rlijasth!n
prior to the Mug!!al period, they developed greatly during the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries at the expense of kinship as a basis of or-
ganization. Their development was a direct function of Mug!!al policy
of indirect rule, which both assumed the right to appoint successors to
positions of rulership in Rajaslhlin, and in tum supported them with
arms and resources in the form ofjagrrs of ancestral lands (vatanjagirs)
inside Rlijasthlin and other lands outside.39 These added resources and
support allowed local rulers to consolidate their own spheres of author-
ity and to greatly centralize their own administrations. It is in this
period, by the early seventeenth century, that we see the first true
Rlijpiit 'states' so much discussed in the literature on Rajasthlin, in the
sense that there was a defined and institutionalized locus of power (the
local ruler), from whom regulations emanated with appropriate sanction
36 'AitihisikBlltlm'. p. 52.
37 . •
Ibid., p. 51·8.
38
Scholars are just beginning to give the institution of clientship in Rlljptlt
kingdoms of Rlijasthlin and its importance for political development the
anention it deserves. African studies of this institution are much more complete
and offer good models for similar detailed studies in IUjasthlin. For example,
see L. Mair, Primitive GovernmenJ (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 166-89; and also
'Clientship in East Africa', Cahiers d' itudes A.fricaines, n, no. 6 (1961 ), pp.
315--25; J. Goody, 'Feudalism in Africa?', Journal of African History, IV, no. I,
(1963), pp. 1·18; L.A. Fallers. Bantu Bureaucracy(Chicago, 1965).
39
JiJglrs outside Rljaslhlin were particularly desired because of their greater
value than the desert lands of Rlljasthlin. For an example of the comparaiive
value of these lands, see the list of jiigirs that Rllfior Mahlirija JasvAl!llSiQ18h
Gajsimghot of J~pur held between 1638 and 1678: Sri MalulriJjiJ Sn
Jasvtllfllsilfaghjl kl KhyiJI, MS no. 15661 (Rljasthlin Pricyavidhyli PratiWtln,
Jodhpur, Rljaslhlin pp. 3--13.
Digitized by Google Ong1nal from

So~ Notes on Riljput Loyalties During the Mughal Period 187
and enforcement.40 Through the late sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
turies, the Mughal Emperors also granted local rule~ more extensive
authority over local areas, thus effecting through time a shift in the
centres of authority. This shift in tum allowed local rulers increasing
control over the primary source of honours and rewards in the local
hierarchical system-access to land.
An example from Mlirvlir is instructive here. When Moll Rijli
Udaisirpgh succeeded to the rulership of Jodhpur in I 583, Akbar
granted him only four and one-half parganas of Mirvir in jagir: Jodh-
pur, Sojhat, Poka~ (over which he had no authority due to Bhliti
41
possession), Sivi(lo (in 1589), and one-half of Jaitirai;t. Other areas
of Mirvir he granted on separate tenures to Rithors and other Rlijpnts
alike. However, by th_e.rime of Riijii Gajsirrigh Surajsirpghot ( 1619-38).
the Mofli Rlijli's grandson, the Mug!!al Emperor had granted the Jodhpur
ruler control over nine parganas of Miirvlir, including Jodhpur, Sojhat,
all of JaitArai:i, PokaraJJ (over which there was still no authority),
Phalodhi, Merto. Sivai:i·o, Jlitor (between 1620 and 1626) and Sarricor
(between 1622 and 1636).42
As local rulers gained wider control over lands which representa-
tives of their own clans had traditionally dominated, they sought to
transform relationships on these lands from those based on kinship and
customary access by birthright, to inter-relationships based on service
and exchange. The resistance they met with from clan brothers in their
attempts, the khyats attest to at great length. This resistance generally
took the form of challenging the basis upon which a ruler claimed
dominance over an area or his right to precedence at all, and often
ended in armed conflicts. Tell us, who has the authority to give or to
take [this land].? He who has granted you Jodhpur has also given [this
land] to us43 is the classic response of clan brothers, meant to evoke
sentiments of the brotherhood and values of equality and rights to in-
heritance of and dominance over land by birth. These sentiments and
values form an undercurrent during the Mughal period which resurfaced
periodically, and it is imponant to note that differing interpretations of
rights to particular lands play a role not only locally, but also in con-
nection with Rijpnt adherence to the Mughal throne.
40
See E.R. Service, Origins of the State and CiviliZJJtion: The Processes nf
Cuhura/ Evollllion. (New York, 1975). pp. 14-15, 71 - 102.
41
Naii:isl. Vigat, 1. pp. 73,76-7.
42
1bid., I, p. 95 IOS-9, 124.
Na~l rl KhyiJl, m, pp. I 17-18.
43

The process of transforming relationships on the land also included
the increasing bureaucratization of these relationships as administrative
procedures became more sophisticated in these local kingdoms. An in-
dication of this bureaucratization with regard to Marvlir. for example,
is the beginning issuance of written titles or deeds (pa!olpa!a) to vil-
lages. Already by the early Mug!!al period, the possession of such deeds
had acquired a legitimacy which superseded prior claims to land based
on descent or based on verbal grant.
The pafo in contrast was modelled upon Mug!!al prototypes for the
granting of jiigirs and purported to be a movable grant based on preben-
dal tenure. It gained wide usage in Marvlir during the late sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries and included not only the writ legitimizing
access to a village or villages, but also a valuation (re/ch) of these vil-
lages for the determination of the number of troopers and animals
!hlikurs were to supply to the ruler for military service. In addition,
local rulers also initiated a fee of investiture (nauiina), which they
charged upon all fhiilcurs at the time of succession, based upon a
percentage of the total re/ch valuation of their villages.
These innovations began during the rule of Moll Raja Udaisirpgh,
the first Ra!hor ruler of Jodhpur to come into close and enduring contact
with the Mug!!als. and his son, Raja Sllrajsirpgh. 44 Under Mo!! Raja
Udaisiingh, pafiis appear to have been issued for the most part only to
heads of families and to have designated particular villages which were
handed down in these families. But by the time of Mahiirlijli
Jasvarptsirpgh ( 1638-78), deeds were issued not only to heads of
families, but also to junior members, and individual IUjpilts were
regularly transferred from one village to another in a similar fashion
to Mug_hal mansabdiirs holding jiigirs. From genealogical evidence, it
also appears that while in the early years, local rulers confined grants
to particular local areas where individual brotherhoods were concen-
trated, later on they moved their ca/cars about over increasingly wider
areas, effecting by this mechanism the breakup of local lineage ter-
ritories.45 In addition, the Miirvliri texts indicate that ciilcars, whether
clan brothers of the local ruler or not, all performed service as
44-ebargava, Marwar and the Mughal Emperors, p. 78. Munsi Hardayila,

Majmul HiJJ01 va ltrrlizJlm RIJj MllrvlJr, 1883- 1884, (Jodhpur 1885), I, pp. 353,
440.
4
5For some examples from one such genealogy, see Naini;I rl KhyiJt, 11.
pp. 155-60.

Some Notes 011 RiijpiU Loyalties During IM Mughal Period 189
candidates for the receipt of pa/aS (umedviiri ri ciikri) before they ac-
tually gained access to lands.46
We frankly do not know enough about the effect of such bureau-
47
cratization upon the allegiances of individual RajpDts. I have alluded
to instances of RajpDt discontent and disregard for the authority of local
rulers above. Infonnation from the reign of Mahlrlji Jasvarptsirpgh of
Jodhpur adds further corroboration. A Mirvifl text notes, for example,
with reference to the pargana of Poltanu;t in north-western Ml.rvir:
In the pargtJNJ of PokaraQ, the descendancs (pd/ii) of RIJho( Jagmil Milivat

are local land holders (blwmiyas). In the ma11:a of Clr!lpo ... they have taken
over and enjoy the rule of much land. ~y do noc perfonn much service
(cilkrf) .... Together they total about 100 horsemen (asvdr) and 400 footmen
(pd/iJ)...
Despite the above indication of problems of control and of the ful-

filment of obligations, one of the direct results of these administrative
changes was the increase in the availability of positions of rank and
prestige, both on a local and supra-local level. On the whole. thei;e
changes contributed to the institutionalization and strengthening of
dyadic, personalized bonds between a ruler and clients, at the same
time that they furthered the breakup of territorial brotherhoods. They
also acted to channel loyalties and allegiances more through local
hierarchies of authority, and thus to counteract the prior diffusion of
primary loyalties to individual brotherhoods. These structural changes
have additional cultural implications of imponance for understanding
~or a reference to this custom. see M~yd{ rf Rafhortvra rf Khyat. Ms. no.
15635. no. 2 (Rijaslhin Prlcyavidbyi Prati~!han. Jodhpur, Rijasthin), p. 143.
47
There are also indications from actual figures given in the administrative
texts that local administrations consistently overvalued many villages. This
problem, which is one among many involved in the process of
bureaucratization, and the effeccs in general of structural and administrative
changes in the RijpOt polities require detailed attention scholars have not yet
given them. A number of these problems are the subject of present research of
this writer. based on the analysis of several rather detailed genealogies of
different RijpOt brotherhoods contained in the seventeenth-century chronicles.
An example of such a genealogy is the 'Jeso Bhi!iri Pl41tt,' Nail,ui ri KhyiJt, II,
pp. 152-95. This genealogy covers nine generations of Bhltls present in
Mirvilr during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and provides a wealth of
information on villages held and local activities.
'"Naii:isl, Viga1, 11. p. 234.

190 The Mughal State, /52fr/750
Rijpiit loyalties, which I will discuss in detail in the final section of

this essay.
The interplay of these varying principles of organization and the
complex of overlapping loyalties and affiliations built up around them
is illustrated in the pattern of territorial relationships within the fhilcaJ:ia
9
of Bhlidrlijiii:i. pargana Jodhpur, Mirvir, in the seventeenth century.4
The internal organization of this fhikaJ:io is representative on a smaller
scale, of the organization of larger territorial states under local Rlljpiit
rulers during the Mughal period.
Jn the seventeenth century, the {Ira/curs of Bhlidrlijiil}, who belonged
to the RatanSilflghot Jodhll khiif!IP of Mllrvllr R1i!hors. held their lands
from the rulers of Jodhpur, also Jodho Rll!hop•. Although members of
the senior line of Ratansirrighots had held these landc; since the time of
Rao Milde, the !hiikurs date the beginning of their real possession from
1596, when Raja Siirajsirrigh of JodhE,ur iss ued the first paro of
Bhlidrlljiil} to Rll!hor Mukalfldis Siidiilot. The lands of Bhlldriijiii:i con-
sisted of the head village of Bhiidriijiil} itself, plus a number of other
surrounding villages, which the .t hiikurs referred to as their cauriisi
(literally, 'eighty-four villages ' ), and as the janm -bhom (birthplace) of
the Ratansirrighot Jodhiis . Along the outer margins of the fhilciif)Q were
designated villages, which the {hakurs of Bhiidriijiil} granted to Rajpiits
of clans different from the RiiJhor. These Rajpiits were all personal
ciikars of Bhiidrlljiil}, who held land!i on informal 'patrimonial' tenure
and owed loyalty and service directly to the rhakurs. Some of these
Rlljpiits were also the saga of the fhiikurs, having given their daughters
to them in marriage. This outer ring of villages under non-RiiJhor
Rlljpiits the !hakurs of Bhlldrajiii:i considered the first line of defence
of the fhilcaJ:ia, based significantly upon ciikars who held no local claims
to land and were solely dependent upon the fhakurs of Bhlldriijiil).
49
1 ob«ained most of my infonnation about this !hiluli;ta from the present
Kurpvar of BhidrijQ(I, Sri Gopa!sirpghjl, and from a family history of the
!hikaJ;UJ.
»rhe first Jodho IU!hor Thakur of Bhlidrijiii:i was Ratansirpgh Maldeot. a
younger son of Rio Milde of Jodhpur, to whom Mlilde gave this land after its
conquest from the Sirridhal Ri!hors in the t 530s. Ratansirpgh held the area for a
time, then left and entered Mus!!al service under Akbar, from whom he received
a jiJgir in the pargana of Ajmer. The lands of Bhlidliijiii:i later returned to his
family, when his son, SlidDI, received them in patp from Rliji SDrajsirpgh
Udaisirpghot,Kavirdj Muriifddnji ki Khydl, pp. 613-16; Rd{hordm ri Khydl evam
BhlldriJjiin ri Khya1 (private MS of the Thikurs of !hi/cibµJ Bhlidrajll(I, MirvarJ.
pp. 31- 57.

Some Notes on Rtijpilt f.qyalries During the Mughal Period 191
Internally, the best and most defensible lands and villages the
Bhldrijiii:i fhli/wrs held themselves. Other villages internal to the area
passed to cadet lines of the fhilcti~ which received shares by right of
birth, but whose members also held their lands on the basis of service
and loyalty to the 'senior' line. These areas they in tum divided among
the members of their immediate families, larger shares as well as
greater rank being conferred on those chosen to succeed to the head-
ships of families. Often, individual members of these cadet families
received separate lands directly from the Bhiidrajlli:i 1biikurs in return
for special services they had performed. In addition, some Ratansi1Pghot
Jodhiis from these cadet lines held certain villages within the boundaries
of the fhilcti~ in pafo directly from the ruler of Jodhpur, which he had
awarded them for direct services to the throne. There is also evidence
that in fhi~s like this one, some members of the brotherhood held
additional jtigirs directly from the Mug!!.al emperors.s1 Finally, many
of the descendants of the Bhiidrijiir:i fhiikurs. principally sons who either
decided to seek their fonunes elsewhere. or who did not succeed to
positions of authori~'. left the area and became ca/cars of other Rajpiits
or of the Mughals.s
Over and above these ties of loyalty and service structured around
descent and patron-client relationships, the senior !hakurs of Bhadriijiii:i
also had ties of alliance through marriage which ell.tended beyond the
fhilcti~. Their saga included several different khtif!lpS of Rajpiits such
as those of the Bhiitis of Jaisalmer, the Solaqlki Ciihuva1.1s of Slimdor
and others.Sl Many of their brothers from cadet lines also appear to
have taken wives and given daughters to the same brotherhoods that
they did.s.
The inter-relationship one sees among Rijpiits between marriage
and clientship, noted not only here in connection with fhilcti~
Bhld.rajii1.1, but also in the case histories of Rii!hor Mii1P<,lai:t Kiilflplvat
SI Rilt"'1ro'!f kl KhyiJJ, pp. 465--8.

s2Bh4drdj"1) ri Khyiit, p. 49.
sl. Ibid .. pp. 48, SS, 16.
S41 have not personally been able to trace these marriage ties and am
indebted both to Klll!lvar ArjunsiQlghji of village 0Qlkall, a member of one of
the cadet lines of the BhidrijOn lbakurs, and to Henri Stem of the CNRS,
Paris, for collaborative information. Stem in particular has traced marital
networks among Mertiya Rl!hors of the Go41iv1r. Mlrvar. and notes that senior
11uJJcurs by descent both regulate the marriages of members of junior branches
and arrange them with lines with which there are already established alliances.

(Case I) and Bhiµ Surtll;I Mlnlvat (Case ll), points to another important
feature of marriage and relations among saga which must be mentioned
here. The rite of marriage not only acted to form an alliance between
two families and brotherhoods, which entailed mutual suppon and as-
sistance; it also created a fundamental spatial or territorial relationship
among sagd. This relationship appears to have developed out of the
custom known in Rljasthln as sa(a ~iiri. according to which a sister's
husband (bahanoi) presented special gifts of clothing and/or land
(kafQri-literally 'dagger') to his wife's brothers (sa/Q) in a separate
ceremony at the end of the wedding itself. A sister's husband' s pre-
sentation of gifts fulfilled his obligation to return a gift to his wife's
brothers who had given him a woman in marriage.
The clearest reference I have to this custom is a note in one of the
Mlrvlfi texts about two sons of Rio Jodhoji Rii;tmalot (c. 1453-89),
the founder of Jodhpur city, Mlrvlf, who married their uterine sister
to the Muslim Khln of Nligaur in order to acquire some land:
Karamsi and Riypil Jodhivat were uterine brothers (saga bhii11. sons of RIJ:li
Bhlitiyinl POra and daughter's sons ofB~iRlio Vairsal Cliclivat.ss Rlio Jodho
had given them the village of Niha4hsar. Later on, they went to Nigaur and
married their uterine sister, Bhigiilp. to (Khinazida) Salhai Khin. Salhai then
gave them Asop and Khhpvsar in siJ/iJ lca!t'Jri and since that time, these lands
57
have been incorporated within the territory of Jodhpur.
It is unclear from either Mlirvlifi chronicles or genealogical references,

whether in this case, lands received in sala . were combined with
. luuiiri
clientship. Most frequently, however, it is clear that individual Rljpilts
us~d marriage ties to gain access to land from their sister' s husband or
other family memebrs. On having become the client of some fhiilwr,
tpey customarily married a sister or a daughter to him in exchange
for land already granted.58 The important point here is that marriage
SS A Kelhai;t BhlJI, ruler of POgal and the founder of Vairsalpur, some 100
miles east of Jaisalmer city, Rljasthin, in the early sixteenth century, NaU;isl ri
Khyt'Jl, n. p. 117.
~ihai,thsar is located near BillJO, some 40 to 45 miles east of Jodhpur city,
Mirvir.
7
S Naif,ISI, Vigal, I. p. 40.
58
Several of the sons of Jodho Ri!hor SidOI Ratansi111ghot, for example, who
did not succeed him to the !hlkurship of BhidrljOf.l, are recorded in the Rl!hor
genealogy as having lived at the 'home of the Solupkis'. their saga. Rt'Jl/torofTI
kl Khydt, pp. 615-16. See also, fn 51 above.

Some Notes on Rajput Loyalties During tM Mughal Period 193
all~s provided another institutionalized means of gain~~ access to
land, rank and prestige, and seems to have created more effective and
durable bOndS ihan vows of allegiance on rtse pan of a client 10 his
patron. - --..
..--:Jbe specific sentiment regarding territory and territoriality which
derived from this relationship and its potential importance for under-
standing Rljpllt loyalties, is expressed in a passage from a seventeenth-
century Mirvifi text relating to the time of Mahlrljl JasvBJptsiJpgh of
Jodhpur. JasvBJptsiJpgh had received the pargana of Pokarai:i (north-
western Miirvlr) in jagir from Pitsih Shih Jahin upon his succession
to rulership in Mirvif in 1638. His father, grandfather and great-
grandfather had also all held Pokarai:i in jagir from Mu~I emperors.
But for a period of more than 50 years, they had possessed no authority
over this area and derived no revenue from it because it was under the
control of the Bhi!lS of Jaisa!mer. 59 However, in 1649, Bbi!i Rival
Manobardlis Kalyiipdisot611 died childless and Rlmcarpd Sirpghot, a
Bhliti from a distant collateral line of the ruling family, succeeded him.
When Jaswarptsirpgh learned of Riva! Manobardiis's death and
Rimcarpd's succession, he immediately petitioned Shih Jahan both
directly and through bis paternal aunt, Bil Sri ManbbiivaUjJ,61 who was
resident in Shih Jahin' s harem, to allow the conquest of Pokarai:i from
the BbitJs. He gave the following reasons:
The pargana of Pokar~ is pan of my Imperial jlJglr, but J have no authority
over the area. For many years, !Uva! Manohardls, who was my saglJ. held it,
and for this reason, I made no complaints. Now, however, Bhl!l Rlmcarpd
Silpghot has succeeded to the throne of Jaisa!mer. He is someone whom I have
no reason to leave in control of Pokaran. If you will allow me, J will attack
Polcara(i and assen niy authority over it. 62
9shi!l rule over Polca~ dates from 1575--1576, when Rio Candrasen
5
mongaged it to them while in exile from Mirvir. See Nai1;1sl, Vigat, I, p. 70;
n, p. 297; 'Aitihlsik BltlJp', p. 78; Reu, MiJrviJr lc4 ltih4s, 1, p. 157; Ojha,
R4jpilldneJc4 /tih4s, IV, pl I, p. 347.
~ulerof Jaisalmer, c. 1633-49. TaviUilch-Jaisa/mer. pp. 56-8.
61
ManbhlvaUjl was the daughter of Riji SOrajsilpgh Udaisirpghot of
Jodhpur, and was married to Prince Parviz. brother of Shih Jahln, in 1623, in
return for Parviz' s grant of Merto pargana in Mlrvlr to Rijl Gajsilpgh
Surajsilpghot of Jodhpur, whose uterine sister she was. She remained a resident
of Shih Jahln's harem after the death of Parviz in 1626. Nail;lsl, Vigat, I, p. 108;
R4/horom kf KhyiJJ, p. '1JJ7.
62
Nail;lsl, VigaJ. D, p. 298.

Marriage relations between the ~thor rulers of Jodhpur and the
Bblµ rulers of Jaisalmer go back over many generations. Those most
pertinent here are Jasvarptsirpgh's father, Gajsirpgh's, marriage both to
a daughter of Bhi!i Riva! Kalyi1.1dis Harrijot (1623-33), and to one
of his son, Riva! Manohardas Kalyi1.1disot ( 1633-49), and
Jasvarptsirpgh's own marriage to a daughter of Raval Manohardis. 63
These alliances acted to create a sentiment of corporate territoriality
which cross-cut that of the brotherhood, but was in many respects strik-
ingly similar to it. 64 Inherent in both were expected rights of access to
and use of land.
To su~ 1u;11 _\Ye m11~t~9nceive of Rijpiit loyalties and identifications
on a loc~eyel in terms of bolb. ~cenL iij>crative within_~-~rother-
- hood among those related by ties of male blood, and sets of hierarchical,
dyadic relationships based on service- an(!" ~xchange;-i'.>pei ati te within
a kingdom between a ruler and his servantS. Each oftfiese" iil~itutions
or sets of relationships also possessed a temtonaraspetr, based on the
extent of kin recognition which defined ffie"vatan ·ora b101h1J1tood, and
based OD Structural ties between a ruler and his reiainers; whi.cn defined
the territory of the kingdom. Cros~-cuttili&_ all le.".els a~d included within
th~ conc.ept O'f'lerritory' were also affiliations dveiigli-tieii of alliance
and marriage with sagti. .__
-Many-or ifiese local institutions and the sentiments surrounding them
-~,..,.--~~--.~~-=-~~
/ }1!e Rajputs were ab.le to transfer· d1re.c;:.tly to mm m1flo~~~ 'Y!!h the
Mug!!als, wltll whom they formed not _p_njy patmu~li~nt . ties, l?ut also
!!!_aijiage alliances. This transference does much to explain Riijpiit
loyalty to the· Mu~als. Howevet, it 111asr·1>e- nofe<f that althougli the
·different-pnnclpTe·sororgan1zation among Riijputs were.often mutually
supportive, they wert-a1s·o often in dfrect conflici "with "each otlie'r. This
conflict-is pantcularly eviifeiiced between corpofale ·egalitananiSm and
hierarchy, and centred most directly upon questions of access to and
control over land and the direction of allegiances. Such conflict arose
especially when local groups manipulated these alternative and incon-
sistent principles, one local and the other gained through contact with
63For a complete list of Jodhpur rulers' marriages with the Bhilfs of

Jaisalmer from the time of Rio Milde, see Tavarilch-Jaisa/mer, pp. 5~3. 56,
RtJJltorol'fl kl KhytJt, pp. 138, 142, 164-5, 193, 198, 212; Nai(ISi ri Khy/Jl, n,
p. 98; Mwri4lytJrrl Khydt, pp. 100, 138.
~ sentiment of corporate territoriality within the brotherhood is
ellpressed in one Mllrvlri tradilion in the words of a RajpDt: 'If [the land) is
under my paternal uncle, it is also my land.' Nail.isl rl KhytJt, n. p. 141.

Some Notes on Rlijpiit Loyalties During the Mu£.._hal Period 195
more sophisticated, outside authorities and reinterpreted in tenns of
local ideology, for their own ends during periods when powerful rulers
of their own clans dominated or attempted to subordinate them.6!!
The overlapping nature of jurisdiction and loyalties and the incon-
sistent and often incongruent nature of norms of conduct and rights are
typical of this frontier region in a process of transition. The conflict
over the direction of loyalty is logically reflected within Rijpiits them-
selves. This type of internal conflict explains much about the seemingly
quixotic movements of Rlt}lo~ MlrpQan Kiirpplvlt (Case I) back and
forth between the Mughals, non-RIJhor Rajpiit rulers and Rlthor rulers
of Jodhpur. The lives of many other minor Rajpiils of this period display
the same disconnected quality in their sean:h to reconcile the demands
of brotherhood with those of a servant, and at the same time fulfil
personal desires for achievement. This conflict is also reflected in the
cyclical nature of Rljplit political organization over time, and its fluc-
tuation between more and less centralization. Stability gained during
the Mughal period rested primarily upon Mughal support of local rulers,
who in tum were able to enforce their authority and to command the
allegiance of s ubordinates.
SociETY MOVIN<l TOWARDS AN IMAGE OF ITSELF
The conflict over principles of organization among Rlijplits also

reflects itself significantly in a corresponding conflict over norms of
conduct and values, and the appropriateness of certain kinds of be-
haviour in contexts which called for different standards. This conflict
shaped both local interactions among Rlijpiits themselves and individual
Rlijpiit responses to the Mughals. In spite of these conflicts. however,
what is interesting about Rijpiit relations with the Mughals is the
Mfor example, see Nair;isl, Vigal, n, pp. 48-51. This phenomenon is not
particular to Rajaslltin. A number of scholars studying marginal. frontier
regions have commented about similar conflicts and llteir bases at lengllt. See
M . Fried. 'On lite Evolution of Social Stratification and the Stale', in S Diamond
(ed.), Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin (New York, 1960). pp.
723-4; E.R. Leach. Political Systems of Highland Burma (Boston. 1970). pp.
8-16; F. Barllt, Principles of Social Organization in Southern Kurdistan (Oslo,
1953), pp. 9-10. Barllt notes willt respect to lite shatter zone of soulltem
Kurdistan lltat 'such a situation produces familiarity willt various competing
nonnative systems, principles of organization and power hierarchies. This
familiariry on lite part of lite villager leads to attempts at manipulating these
various systems and principles'.

. .
.., .
r,ftn
196 The Muglwl State, 1526-1750

relative constancy of their loyalties. The reasons behinds this constancy
appear to lie in the complex of Rljpllt cultural beliefs about rank and
in their own myth of order and authority. This last section will deal
more specifically with this conflict over norms of conduct and with the
sets of cultural beliefs which lay behind Rljpiit political actions.
The traditional Rijpiit literature of the seventeenth century concep-
tualized the norms of conduct appropriate for Rijpiits in terms of
general rules which symbolized Rijplit dhamta. This dlwmra was felt
to be an inborn, moral code for conduct. which each individual inherited
by birth along with an innate potential to fulfil it.66 Fulfilment enabled
in tum both the maintenance and the increase of rank within the order
of castes. and the achievement of salvation.67
The general rules of this code the texts set forth in terms of three
basic axioms: avenging the death of one's father (biip rai vair leiµm),
fulfilling one's morally appointed task or duty of fighting and dying in
the service of one's master (siim/dJuu:ii rai /cam aiµm),68 and refraining
from gotra/<.a4alrib (literally, 'destruction of the gotra'), that is killing
of other members of the same gotra or clan, a sin to which great demerit
(avg~) was attached.69
None of these rules is exclusive of the others. All are in some sense
mutually supportive and the texts view them as defining a 'general'
Rljplit dlwmra, which encompassed behaviour appropriate to the dif-
ferent networks of relationships of which Rijpiits of this period were
a part. However, it is important for analytical reasons to separate out
these rules, for they pertain to specific sets of relationships and there
are major areas of incompat~bility among them. We see in the cultural
system as in the actual social system, inconsistencies and conflict ex-
pected of a society in transition. This incompatibility marks the Rijpllt
as being divided in a very direct sense within as well as often against
himself.
The two rules regarding avenging the murder of kinsmen and re-
fraining from gotra/ca4at!tb logically apply to the brotherhood. They
both emphasize aspects of solidarity, corporate equivalence and the
expectation that individuals whose social existence is defined with ref-
erence to this group, will render support, particularly against outsiders.
66NaiJ.r,sl rf Khy4J, 1, p. 7S.

67
See M. Marriott and R. lnden, 'CasteSyscems', 'Encyclopaedia Brilallllica
( 1974), for their discussion of South Asian conceptions of caste and ranking.
61
NaiJ.r,sl rl KhyiJI, n. pp. 27~ I .
69ibid., n, p. 266: 'Aitihlsilc Bltllp', pp. S7-8.

Some Notes on Rtljpiil Loyalties During the Mughal Period 197
lbey also emphasize the importance of the preservation of the body,
the unit of shared male blood or substance, collectively possessed of
inherent powers (ba!) which enabled it as an entity both lo control and
to maintain rule over land. This cultural notion of the brotherhood as
a collective body possessing inherent powers is important for our un-
derstanding of the emphasis placed upon both the enjoining of murder
with the unil and upon the exacting of blood vengeance.
The avenging of the murder of close kinsmen was incumbent upon
brothers because a death at the hands of an outsider represented defeat,
humiliation and subordination through loss of power. Acts of vengeance
thus took the form of acts of equalization, involving either the murder
of a member of the offending party or of the offender himself. This
'trading of bodies· reasserted the relative balance of power and
preserved the rank and the honour (as precedence)70 of the Rajpiits.
When different clans and gotra were involved, they usually confirmed
the settlement of such hostilities through gifts of daughters in marriage
and the formation of alliances (sagat), 11 thus asserting a new pattern
of relationships among themselves.
Rajpiit honour, both collective and individual, and the concern with
its preservation form an integral part of the overall concern with the
maintenance of the power and rank of the brotherhood. Both the preser-
vation and assertion of honour are also intimately associated with con-
cepts of the body72 and display general features of Rajpiit regard for
prestige and for outright domination. Honour demanded that a RAjplit
ab~ure cowardice, 73 that he contest any insult to his person or his fami-
4
ly, and that he be generous. 75 It also demanded that he protect those
dependent upon him, particularly his women, from violation, 76 for
70
J. Pitt-Rivers, 'Honor', in D.L. Sills, (ed.), /ntem111ional Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences, vol. 6, p. 505. Pin-Rivers notes that: 'claim 10 honor
depends always, in the last resort, upon the ability of the claimant to impose
himself. Might is the basis of right lo precedence, which goes to the man who is
bold enough to enforce his claim, regardless of what may be thought of his
men.ts. ' .
71
Nai~l ri Khyiit, n, p. 336.
72
Pin-Rivers, 'Honour', p. 505.
73
0ne often reads in the RljpOt literature of RijpOts taking vows never to
nee in baule. For an example, see Nai~i ri Khyat, m. pp. 158-60.
14
NaiJ:isi ri Khydt. m, pp. 62-78.
75
1bid., "· p. 313.

198 TM M11pal SIOU. 1526-1750
dishonour inhered not only in the violation of one· s women, but aJso
in the necessity of bowing before and giving a daugb1er in marriage IO
a superior. Boch implied ~lie castration or mu1ila1ion of the body,
and hence subordination.' This concern with honour perhaps best ex-
plains ~r KalylJ:ldls IUymaJoc's (Case llll detesta1ion of Mota Rija
Udaisimgb's marriage of bis daughter IO Prince Salim. and his subse-
-s
quent break from the Mug!?ls.
In addition. honour demanded tbal a Rijpi'll continually assen his
own posi1ion of superiori1y and authorily in relation 10 those in equal
or subordinate positions around him. This assenion took various forms.
most notably that of exhibitions of prowess and of conquest. such as
bravery in battle. the capture of land. animals and also women. It is
imponan1 to note that in addition to the above si1uation involving Ri~r
Kaly~ (Case Ill). and marriage or personal insull as a point of
honour. the texts mentioo many instances in which individual IUjpi'll
relations with Mug!?! equals or superior.; were disrupted because of
an incident connected with a Mus lim's harem. One of the more
celebrated of the incidents in"1h·ed Ra~r IUo Amarsif!'lgb
Gajsif!'lgbot. the elder brother of Mahara1a Jasv~tsif!'lgb of Jodbpur.
Amarsif!'lgb was a mansabdar of Shah Jahan. who presented Nagaur,
in Marvar. IO him in jiigir at the time of his father's death and the
succession of Jasva1ptsi1pgh to the rulership of Jodhpur in 1638.
7
6noo.. tn. p. 261: see also Pitt-Rivers. 'Honor and Social StabJs'. in J.G .
Peristtany (ed.). Honow ONl Sltame: TM Valws of MediturOMOn SociLty.
<Chicago. 1974. reprine). pp. 45-6. Pitt·Rivers notes lha1 honour is accorded to
men and women differently. For men, it resides in manliness. courage and his
ability to protect. Foe women. ii resides in sexual purity and res1rain1. A man's
honour is dierefore closely involved wilh lha1 of his women. whose sexual
purity it is his duty to protect. Adultel)· or violation of a woman represents
failure of duty. and hence brings dishonour and die defilemt'nt of manliness.
nG. Morris Carstairs. ThL Twic~-Bom: A Stwly of a Comnumity of
Hitlt-Cast~ Hi.NJMs <Bloomington and London. 1967). pp. 159-{,(). Carstairs
notes widl reference to Rajplits lha1 all !hose who occupy posi1ions of
sub!;ervience are forced 10 enact a symbolic self-castration. In lhe Rljpilt
tradi1ions. subordination of a person often lakes lbe form of mutilatioo of him
personally or of his possessions. such as his ani,,,.ls. Sec. for an example.
Nainsi ri Khydl. m. pp. 7 1-3.
1
~ usual interpretation given to such a readioo Hum Rljpllt dislike of
mamages to Moslim superiors, which implies a Sbong communal
sentimeal seems invalid here.

Some Notes on Rtijput Loyalties During the Mughal Period 199
According to the Mirviri chronicles, Amarsilpgh developed a relation.-
ship with the wife of Salabat Khan shonly thereafter, and he used to
visit her often in the absence of Salibat himself. This union. later led
to Amarsil!lgh's murder of Salibat in a knife fight, when the latter tried
to end Amarsil!lgh's visits to his wife. and finally to Amarsil!lgh' s own
death during a figflt which broke out in the imperial darbiir in Delhi,
at the hands of a Gaur IUjpiit and others, whom Shih Jahin had deputed
to kill him. 79
Alongside the normative rules of conduct and of honour which per-
tained to the brotherhood and the clan was the injunction commanding
the service of one's master. This rule of dhanna was, of course, ap-
propriate for those hierarchical relations between a master and servant
or a patron and his client. and represents an undoubted accretion. to the
body of IUjpiit cultural tradition during the fifteenth through seven-
teenth centuries, when these social relationships became both more
common and more significant among IUjpiits.
Sam or stimi and dhtu;li are Marv~ words meaning 'God. master,
ruler or sovereign and husband. ' They are often used interchangeably
in the IUjpiit literature with the term ~hiilcur, which carries a similar
set of meanings. K~ means simply 'to fulfil a duty or appointed
task', but is generally limited in usage to the following context: vQ{l.o
Rtijput Jc.am tiy<>- 'the great warrior died fighting in battle', implying
therein the appointed duty to which Rajpiits themselves were born. The
expressive rule of dJuumo--to fulfil one's appointed task of fighting
and dying in battle in the service of one's master-therefore embodied
within itself a complex symbolism relating to cultural conceptions of
the kingdom, sovereignty, authority, power and rank.
The kingdom itself was conceived of as the product of marriage
between a ruler, who was both God and master ((hiilcur) and husband
(dha~i). and the land (dharti-from Sanskrit dharim-·a female
bearer'), which was his wife. The land the !hiilcur had himself conquered
and was in tum bound to protect and to nourish in order that it continue
to bear fruit (phal). This he did in his role as vfll!o diitiiT or great giver,
for he was both the giver of grain and nourishment (annadiito), and
paradoxically, the giver of his life in the protection of his kingdom and
the moraJ order of castes within it (jhiiJrajhiir). He was also the parent
79
Mwrll!ip rl Khyill, pp. 124-9; see also 'Aitihlsik Batilri'. pp. 82- 3, for
anodler eumple of such an incident.

(mall-literally 'mother and father')80 of all the people (lo~) of the
kingdom, who were in his care, and he exercised his control and su-
pervision through his sons (beta), 81 who were his servants or clients
(ciikar) as well as his wards ( viis).
It was felt that a tlulkur obtained the necessary power to conquer
and to rule a kingdom through devotion to and service in behalf of his
god or goddess (thiilcur, ku! devataldevi), who granted him the boon
(var) of sovereignty (!hiikuriii) and power (ba.f) as a favour (parsiid)
for his devotion. 82 The thiJJcur (ruler) in tum became a worldly deputy
of the fhiikur (God), ruling his earthly kingdom in his stead. Beneath
him were other fhiilcurs, who were his servants to whom he had trans-
mitted the substance of his power and authority, which enabled them
to rule smaller kingdoms within his own.
Service (ciiloilsevii) therefore signified, on one level. service for the
(hiikur as God in his various froms of ku! devata and lcu! devi. On
another level, it meant service for the tlulkur, who was ruler, or for the
(hiikur, who held a 1hikii1.1a and was himself a servant (ciikar) of the
ruler. Service was seen as a form of worship, expressed through acts
of devotion and self-sacrifice, which involved both a willingness to
support a superior and to offer one's life in battle in his behalf. The
most devoted servant was one who kept nothing to himself. but gave
all including himself to his master.83 Through such service, a Rlijpnt
fulfilled his morally appointed task of fighting to protect and sustain
"'Malt also means 'ancestor' or 'progenitor'. Nai~l ri Khyal, 1. p. 62; Nair:isl,

Vigat, n. p. 57; Kavirilj Murr2rdt'Jnji lei Khyilt, p. 608.
81
In the Rljpllt literature, Rijpllts are often refemed to simply as son (befo),
of a rMJwr. or as either his saput (worthy son) or lcaput (unwonhy son).
depending upon proper fulfilment of obligations. Na~l rl Khyilt, 111. p. 87;
NaU,Sl, Vigat, n, p. 52.
82
Na~i ri Khytit, 1: pp. 3, 11-12; n. pp. 267-72.
83 Ibid .. nr, pp. 149-50. It is significant in this conteltt that one finds a
relatively large number of instances in the Rljpllt chronicles in which Rlijpllt's
an! involved in acts of self-mutilation and also suicide. The latter is the ultimate
act of self-sacrifice, the offering of one's body to the devata. Though some of
these acts seem to be genuine. others clearly involve attempted extonion of
favours from the deity, and point to an imponant aspect of manipulation which
is pan of all hierarchical relationships. See Asop lc4 ltihtis, pp. 70-80; Nai1.1sl rl
Khyilt, 11, p. 162; 'AitihlsikBltllp', pp. 87-8.

Some Notes on Rajpw Loyalties During the Mut_hal Period 201
his kingdom and its people, and he received in exchange either salvation
through death, or rewards for his devotion.84
This embedding of dyadic, patron-client ties in a myth of salvation
and the obtainment of power and rulership extended to internal ranking
among Rljpiits themselves, based on the subjective evaluation of out-
ward differences in degrees of sovereignty and power among Riijputs.
Those who were felt to have been least devoted to the service of their
master are categorized in the traditions as chufe or padra Riijpilts (minor
or pelly Riijpiits). They were caurasi dha~is (masters of 84 villages)
and bhiii/xurrdh bhamiyiis. 8s Bhamiyo means both 'one knowledgeable
about a local area, a local' and 'one of the soil (bhom)'. It designated
members of brotherhoods, who jointly controlled small areas of land,
which was considered cultivated soil rather than land which was ruled
(dharti). Within the brotherhood. sovereignty was also seen to be dif-
fused and to be dispersed among all members, each of whom possessed
an equal share.
This diffusion of sovereignty marked the reason bhomiyas were both
subordinate to and inferior in rank to the {hiilwrs, who were felt to have
performed greater service in behalf of their masters. The {hiilwrs were
the rajvi (those of royal blood)86 and the v<J44 ghar ra choru (the sons
87
of great houses). 'Ibey possessed greater power and sovereignty than
the bhomiyiis, because these attributes were felt to be concentrated in
their bodies, giving them proportionately greater ability to rule, to
protect and to grant favours and rewards. Some, who were seen to have
performed exceedingly great service were rulers of kingdoms (riiJ),
while others ruled lesser kingdoms (!hi~) subordinate to them. The
sovereignty concentrated within the body of a fhiilcur himself was also
seen to be transmitted to his offspring in the form of his seed (b'i]), and
to his servants through his favours (parsdd-literally, 'transvalued.
substance') which acted in tum to embody power within them.88 The
hierarchy of rank among Riijputs thus directly reflected the hierarchy
of power and authority.
84
Nait,tsl ri KhyiU, n. pp. 272-3.
:Ibid, DI, p. 8; Rd!horotrt kl Khyiil, p. 88.
Rdfhorotrt ki KhyiiJ, pp. 72-3.
87
Naii;isl, Vigat, I, p. I 0.
"niis transfer of power and aulhorily was talcen in a very literal sense, and
seen to involve the acrual transfer of physical substances embodying inherent
qualities, which acted to transfonn the nature of the servant who 'ingested'
them. Nait,tsl rf Khydl, m. p. 292.
rron1
Jn understanding medieval Rljpllt cultural conceptions of rank,
power and sovereignty, it is important to note that the Muslim was also
included within this hierarchical scheme as a Rajpiit. The traditions
generally represent the Rajpiit jati (caste) as being divided into two
categories: Muslim (or Turk) and Hindu.89 This category of 'Muslim'
within the Rlijpilt jdti did not include all Muslims, but only those who
were warriors and who possessed sovereignty and power equal to or
greater than the Hindu Rajpiit. The Muslim emperor in particular, held
a position of high rank and esteem, and the traditions often equate him
with Rlim, the pre-eminent ~atriya cultural hero of the Hindu Rlijpilt.
90
What basically distinguished the emperor from local Rljpilt rulers was
simply his possession of greater sovereignty and power and his greater
ability to grant favours and rewards. Within Hindu Rljpiit cultural con-
ceptions, Hindu Rlijpilt service for the Muslim emperor or one of his
subordinates was thus no different from service for a local ruler or
{hiilcur.
I have emphasized throughout this essay the internal inconsistencies
with respect to affiliations and obligations with which Rljpiits of this
period lived. The rules of dharma display similar inconsistencies, for
carried to logical extensions, the rules of service to one's master came
into direct conflict with other tenets of Rljpiit dharma emphasizing
support for the brotherhood and the demerit attached to killing members
of the same gotra or clan. A typical example of this conflict comes
from a tradition about the time of R1Jbor Rio Mllde of Jodbpur and
his expansion within Miirvar:
During the time of Rio Miilde, there were powerful Rli.jpiits from branches of
many different clans in his service. It was a time of great and valorous deeds
of bravery and heroism. All of his 1'blkurs were renowned for their feats in
battle.
Jaito Parpcall)ot Rlthor was one of his great 1'b!ikurs a man who never
failed to live up to his vows. He would not allow anyone to act improperly
before Rio Malde. Riio M!ilde attacked with zeal, and then befan to con-
template the capture of nearby Blkliner, Merto. Slvlir.io and Sojhat. 1 He spoke
of his plan to Jaito, but Jaito replied: 'I will not commit gotrakafiatrib.' When
he heard these words the Riojl became depressed. Then Jaito said: 'Don't be
~o downhearted. I will do whatever you order me to do .. .'92
89
NailJSI rt KhyiJJ, n1. p. 70; 'Aitihlisik Bltl!Ql', p. 61.
'IONa~sl rt Khydl, I, p. 220.
~ 1 All of these areas were under Rithor Rajplits.
92
'Aitihisik Bilirp ', pp. 57-8.
rron1
So~ Notes on Riljpiit Loyalties During tlil' M11$}1al Period 203
The conlradictions apparent here between the differing aspects of
Rijpnt dhanna-support for the brotherhood and service for one's
masler- are underlying themes in the Mug!!al period as a whole. Their
interplay provides additional insight into the actions of Ra1hor Miip~
Kuippivat (Case I) and the instability of his attachments to the Mug!!als
and non-Rithor rulers.
The reason the Rajpnt traditions stress the demerit of gotraluu!atrib
to the extent they do, however, undoubtedly relates to the fact of its
progressively greater occurrence during the Mug!!al period. Mo!i Rlja
Udaisitpgh's killing of his own paternal nephew, Rathor Kalya~s
I
Riymalot, at the orders of Akbar (Case Ill), and Rl!hof Kuipvar
Gajsitpgh' s participation along with Bhi!i Goyatpdas Mana vat in the
avengement of Bha!l SurUJ:i 's death against other Rii!hors (Case II) both
attest to this phenomenon. They represent on a broader level an aspect
of the process involving the shift in the ideology of honour from con-
cerns with the brotherhood and norms of conduct appropriate to it, to
concerns with powerful, individual rulers, local and imperial, from
whom honour increasingly derived as they came more to control en-
titlements to rank and land.93
This shift in ideology was facilitated, I think, by the myth of the
Rljpill which acted as a powerful psychological force in medieval
Rijasthan. This myth became greatly developed <luring the Mug!!al
period in the hands of the Cirai:i bards of the Rajpilts, and provided
not only a model of relationships as they were found in reality, but also
a model for relationships as they should be. 94 I have already detailed
elements of this myth relating to the structure of a kingdom. the manner
of transmission of power and autl)ority and the order of rank. But there
are other aspects of importance for understanding Raj put actions, which
concern the tradilions relating to the origin of the Riijpill jiiti.
According to myth, Rajpnts (from Sanskrit rajaputra-'son of a
king') were not true K$atriya rulers themselves, but only their sons and
descendants. Preceding their rise in different areas of Rajasthan, their
K$atriya ancestors had lost their sovereign rule and this loss had been
9
3n.is process is a familiar one to students of European hislory. For example
see Baroja' s discussion with respect to medieval Spain: J.C. Baroja, 'Honour
and Shame: An Historical Accounl of Several Conflicts', in J.G. Peristiany (ed.).
Honour and Shame: 11at Values of MtditttTOMan Society, (Chicago, 1974,
reprint) pp. 81-137.
94
Geertt. 'Religion as a Cultural System', pp. 3--9.

" &71 ;•·a .

followed by a period of vik.hau (distress and penance), during which
confus ion prevailed, castes became mixed and the proper moral order
and hierarc hy of society collapsed. The Rijpiits themselves were felt
to be products of this confusion and mixing, and thus to be both lower
ranked and less powerful than their K~atriya ancestors. It was only
through great service and devotion to their various deities that some
Raj piits had s ucceeded in regaining small kingdoms and reasserting the
proper order of relations within them. History itself, during this period
of reassertion, the traditions conceptualize as a fluctuating movement
in time ;back and forth between the order of a kingdom (ra1) and the
confusion ( viklr1111) c aused by its disruption.95
This process of consolidation and reassertion of order the Mughals
greatly facilitated in Rijasthin during the s ixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, and from the Rijpiit point of view, this was a period when
society moved towards an image of itself. towards an image of what
it ought to be. This process only faltered when outside attacks
threatened the stability and endurance of kingdoms. And ii is during
times of vik11au that we see a few spectacular examples of local Rljpiit
rulers, who perhaps most lived the myth, such as Rlthor Rio Candrasen
Mildeot, spending years of their lives surrounded by a small, fluctuating
band of followers, fighting Mu&!!al armies from the hills, while other
members of their clan and brotherhood served under the Mug_hals and
sought individual recognition for themselves and an opportunity to build
their own kingdoms. I should emphasize that concerns with hierarchy,
order and confusion occurred among Rijpiits at all levels of Rlijpiit
society, whenever land and its counterpart, rulership, were in doubt.
Famines. which caused hardship and forced migration, attac k or
usurpation of land by others all were symbolic of confu$ion and dis-
order, and the casting of rank in doubt.96
95we can also trace the emergence of the RijpDt jiiti in Rijasthin in the
inscriptions of some of the clans, which generally refer to themselves only as
Rijpilt after the fifteenth century, when an important sociological change in the
subjective perception and attribution of rank occurted. Prior to this time, they
refer to themselves as K$atriya. For a discussion of this interesting problem and
a more complete analysis of the myth, see Ziegler, "The Seventeenth Century
Chronicles of Mirvir', and Ziegler, 'Action, Power and Service in Rijasthinl
Culture: A Social History of the RijpDts of Middle Period Rijasthin',
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (University of Chicago, 1973).
~or an interesting case history, see 'AitihisikBilllp', pp. 6S-73.
rron1
So~ Notes on R4jpMI Loyallies During the MuLhal Period 205
I shall close this final section of the essay with a brief examination
of the history of relations between the Mertiyi Ri!hors of pargana
Merto, Mirvif, the rulers of Jodhpur and the Mu~s. which reflect
the important role this myth played in Rijpllt society. This examination
will also serve to re-emphasize the interplay between the various prin-
ciples of organization and associated values, and the various networtc.s
of relationships in which Rijpllts were involved.. which affected the
direction of their loyalties in this period. These relations passed through
a series of stages during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. the
first of which was characterized by internal conflict among Ri!hors
over rights lo land and to precedence, and the seeking of outside aid
and suppon for local pretensions to rulersbip and positions of l'llJ1k.
The land of Merto had originally come under RiU>of control in the
late fifteenth century. when DUdo Jodhlval and bis elder uterine
brother. Varsi1J1gh. who were among the younger sons of Rio Jodboji
~malot of Jodhpur. received it as their share of patrimonial in-
heritance from their father and proceeded to carve out their own rule
over the area. The lands of Merto thus became the vatan of the sons
and descendants of these two men, from whom the Mertiyo kJuUrrp
sterns. Diido, the younger brother, eventually superseded the sons of
Varsirpgh. to whom the headship of the Mertiyls had passed. and il
was to his son, Viralpde Didlvat, that the head.'>hip passed in the early
sixteenth century.
Under Virarpde, the Mert.iyls. who before had been only bhomiyii.s,
began to emerge as a powerful brotherhood on the borders of eastern
Mirvlf, while Virarpde himself sought to establish a small kingdom
within the lands of Merto and to the east. incorporating Ajmer. But
beginnin_g with the period of Rio Milde's rule in Jodhpur (1532-02).
the Mertiyas and Virarpde came under increasing pressure from the
Jodhpur rulers to acknowledge the precedence and authority of the
Jodbls and lo perfonn service under them. Rio Milde was greatly
involved in establishing and consolidating a large kingdom of his own
in Mirvif, and was able lo conquer the land of the Mert.iyls and lo
subordinate them by force for a lime early in his reign. His rule over
Merto effectively ended. however, in 1544, when Sher Shih Sur
defeated him at the battle of Samel with the help of Vinupde DUdlvat,
his brothers and other followers.
After losing his land lo Rio Milde, Vira!J'lde and his followers bad
proceeded to Delhi lo plead their case and lo seek the aid of Sher Shih
in regaining Merto and reassening their 'rightful· position of rulership
over iL And after the defeat of Milde at Samel, Sher Shih granted the

206 Thi! Mughal State, 1526-1750
rulership of Merto to Vlrarpde, and then to his son, Jaimal Vlramdevot,
when Virarpde died shortly thereafter.97
Sher Shah, upon whose support Jaimal depended for the retention
of his position, died in 1545, and Rio Milde then again was able to
conquer Merto and to drive Jaimal out of Mirvir. Milde proceeded to
convert half of the lands of Merto into his own crown land, but, he
granted the other half to Mertiyo Jagmil Vlraqidevot, a brother ' of
Jaimal, who had become a ca/car of his after failing to succeed Virarpde
to the headship of Merto. 91 This split in the direction of loyalties among
brothers is a common phenomenon in the Rijpiit literature and reflects
once again the cross-cutting of allegiances and the importance of gain-
ing positions of local rank and precedence. Jaimal himself meanwhile
migrated with his followers to Citor during this period of distress. and
99
settled in the land of Sisodiyo RiJJO Udaisirpgh Sirpgavat, his sagiI
to whom he offered his services in return for villages. After 11 short
period here, he, like his father before him, also proceeded north, this
time to the darbiirof Akbar Patsah, to plead his case against Rao Malde.
Akbar proved sympathetic and confirmed him in his position of local
rulership with a grant of Merto in jagir after he had declared his al-
legiance and submission to the Mughal throne. He also sent an anny
with Jaimal to help him recover Merto, which opened Akbar's initial
100
phase of penetration into Miirvar. •
Akbar's troops quickly defeated Rao Miilde's forces at Merto, and
Jaimal again assumed the !ftakurship of this land. Akbar, however, soon
thereafter revoked his jiigir because of his protection of the local Mus-
lim commander of Nigaur, who had incurred imperial disfavour and
fled from Nigaur to Merto and then on the Gujariit. This Muslim had
originally helped Jaimal retake Merto and Jaimal appears to have
developed a close personal relationship with him. While Jaimal owed
allegiance to Akbar, his sense of identification and obligation seems
here to have rested with the commander of Niigaur, to whom he felt a
more primary sense of loyalty. With the loss of his jagir, Jaimal again
left for Citor with his followers, where he was killed in battle in 1568,
along with his brother, lsardiis, fighting against Akbar. 101
97Naii;isl, VigaJ, n, pp. 56-8.

981bid. n. pp. 62-3; R4{Jrorotri Id KhyiJt, pp. 5~1.
99
At least one of Jaimal 's sons and a number of his grandsons appear to have
married into the Slsodiyo ruling house. Rii/horotri kl KhyiJt, pp. 465-8.
·~id., p. 461.
101
1bid., p. 462; Naii;i.51, Vigat, n, p. 68.

Some Notes on Riijput Loyalties During the Mughal Period 207
With the death of Jaimal, Akbar granted half of Merto in jiigir to
Jaimal's brother, Jagmil, who had become a mansabdar of his upon
the death of Rlio Mlilde in 1562, and married one of his daughters to
Akbar in exchange for the jiigir. 102 The other portion of Merto Akbar
reserved as imperial lchiilsa and placed under his own administrators.
Jagmlil held Merto in jiigir for about four years. Upon his death in
1572, Akbar granted half shares of the pargana to two of Jaimal 's sons,
Surtai:i and Kesodlis. Both of these Rlijplits had remained with the Rlii:io
of Mevir for some time after their father was killed at Citor. But they
eventually also proceeded to Delhi to meet Akbar and attempted to
regain their lands and their positions. The lchyiits record that their pater-
nal cousin, Narhardlis Isardlisot, the son of Isardlis Viramdevot,
facilitated Akbar's acceptance of their entreaty. Narhardlis had joined
Akbar's service after his father's death at Citor alongside Jaimal. and
103
had given one of his daughters in marriage to the Emperor.
Both of Jaimal's sons, Surtii:i and Kesodlis, who remained in Mughal
service after Akbar's grant of Merto in jiigir to them, were eventually
killed while performing imperial duties outside of Mirvar. Merto then
passed to their sons, until Akbar included all of the pargana within the
jiiglt of Jodhpur Rlijli Slirajsirpgh in 1604.'04 This grant marks the
beginning of the second stage in these relations. This stage began in
protest, when the MertiyO Thlikurs and their brothers and followers
went in a body of 2000 before Akbar to complain against Jodhpur
5
authority over their lands. Akbar, however, denied their petition, 1° and
Mertiya fears about Jodhpur domination also soon faded when Rlijli
Siirajsirpgh conDnned most Mertiylis in control of individual villages
within the pargc111a. Most Mertiyli allegiances also appear to have shifed
to Raja Surajsirpgh at this time, under whom they began performing
service, although some Mertiylis continued to hold jiigirs in Mlirvlir and
106
elsewhere directly from th~ Mug!!als.
The whole of Merto pargana remained in the jiigir of Raja Siiraj-
sirpgh from 1604, until his death in 1619. In that year, Jahlingir se-
questered it and presented it to his son, Prince Khurram, the $ubahdiir
of Ajmer. Khurram appears to have divided up the area among his
102
Rafhorof11 /cl Khya1. pp. 520-1.
IOJn,id., pp. 462-4. 471-2, SI 2-13; Nail}Si, Vigal, n. pp. 69-72.
104
Rtl!horof11 lei Khydl. pp. 464-6, 472.
• ~air:isl. Vigat, II, p. 73.
0
106
Ra1horof111c1 Khytll. pp. 466-73.

Rijpiit servants, granting the town of Merto itself and a large number
107
of villages to SIS-Odiyo Riji Bhim Amravat.
This transfer of authority to an outsider caused no apparent local
disturbances, and Mertiyi alliances through marriage with the Sisodiyas
appear to be the reason, though I have not been able 10 trace the exact
relationships involved here.
In 1622, however, when Prince Khurram (Shih Jahin) revolted
against his father, Jahinglr appointed Prince Parviz $ubahdir of Ajmer
with authority over Merta. Parviz at first allowed local Rijpiits to
108
remain in control of their villages. But in 1623, he granted Merto in
jiigir to the Sayyids. When news of this development and the threat of
outside occupation of Rithor lands reached Mirvif, there was great
local consternation. Raja Gajsirpgh, eldest son and successor of Rliji
Siirajsirpgh, immediately sent representations to Prince Parviz through
Navib Mohlibat Khin, with whom he had developed a close personal
relationship through serving under his command in several campaigns,
For many days now, I have enjoyed the fruits of Rljl Surajsirpgh'ssuccesses.
I have been able to retain the command and loyalty of all of his [Mertiyli)
followers, who were in hopes that I would quiclcly receive Merto [in }ilgir)
These Rlijpiits have stayed with me for so long only with the expectation of
my regaining [this land). Now my Rijpilts in the darb4r have heard that the
Prince has ~iven Merto to someone else, and these (Mertiyll) RlijpOts of mine
are leaving. Oil
When the Navib received this petition, he considered it prudent to

have Merto granted to Raja Gajsirpgh in order not to cause disaffection
among the Rajpiits. He then prevailed upon Parviz, who gave the jiigir
of Merto to Gajsi1J1gh. Gajsi1J1gh in tum married his uterine sister,
Manbhavatiji, to Parviz in exchange. 110
Both this reaction of the Mertiyas as well as their earlier one are
similar to that of Riji Siirajsi1J1gh, the father of Gajsi1J1gh, when he
learned that Jahangir was revoking his jiigir of Pha!odhi and presenting
it to Rao Siirajsirpgh of Biklner. Raja Siirajsi1J1gh of Jodhpur had him-
self been born at Phalodhi and he refused to give up his control there,
107
Nail)SI, Vigat. I, pp. 106, 112; n, p. 73.
1
08ibid. n, p. 74.
IOlllbid "· p. 75.
11
°Jbid., 1. p. 108; Ril/horo'!' kl Khylft, p. 207..

Some Notes on Riijput Loyalties During tM Mu8!!_al Period 209
writing to his men posted at the fort: Pha!odhi is my janm-bhom. I will
not give it up. I will ask the Pitslih not to transfer the authority. 11 1
Upon representation at the Mughal court, JahAngir was prevailed
upon to reverse his decision and to grant Pha!odhi once again to Rlijl
Silrajsiqigh. Pha!odhI remained under the Jodhpur rulers, except for a
period of four years when it was under a brother of the ruler, until the
death of Mahlirljli Jasvaqitsiqigh in 1678. 112 We see in both examples
a joining of concerns relating to the land as the sustenance of the
brotherhood and control over land as the symbol of a (hiilau and his
rule of a kingdom.
From this point on, Mertiyli relations with both the ruling house of
Jodhpur and the Mughals stabilized. Throughout the reigns of both
Rlijls Gajsiqigh and JasvaJTltsiqigh, Mertiyli loyalties remained chan·
neled primarily through the local ruler of Mlirvlir to the Mughals. And
although their vatan became increasingly broken-up as these rulers as-
serted greater centralized rule "'ithin Mlirvlir. Mertiyls who remained
in Mlirvlir and offered their services to them also retained and gained
access to individual t}llikurships through this relationship, whether in
Merto itself or in other local areas. This pattern was broken only after
the death of Jasvaqitsiqigh in 1678, when Aurangzeb initiated the Rlijpilt
'wars' of the 1680s. The cycle discussed above then began to repeat
itself as local lands came under attack and Rlijpilts began to lose control
over their kingdoms.
CoNa..usrONs
During the Mughal period, Rlijpilts from the frontier zone of Rlijasthlin
were involved in a complex process of change and transition, which
affected their society as this area became increasingly incorporated
within the larger political and cultural system of north India. This
process influenced the development not only of local social and political
structures around which Rlijpilts organized their lives, but also their
system of local values and ideals, by which Rlijpilts judged themselves
and their actions. This period of transition and the resultant pressures
which it brought to bear, confronted Rlijpilts as individuals and as mem·
bers of larger groups with a series of choices about the nature of their
identification, their obligations and the direction of their loyalties. It
111N . I v·
~s , 1ga1, n, p. 7 .
11 2
1bid., I. pp. 94-S, 106, 124.

also generated considerable conflict, both internal and external, over
questions of support, rights lo land, precedence and honour.
This conflict was itself symptomatic of a society undergoing a
process of change and of the ambivalence of individuals in such a
society, who seek 10 fulfil expectations deriving from overlapping and
often contradictory sets of relationships and associated values of which
they had become a pan. These conflicts remained endemic during the
Mug!!al period, both in isolated individual situations as well as in larger
contexts, and speak to the problems of control in an area lacking an
integrated system of shared values and norms.
Despite the endemic nature of this conflict, which for the most pan
was limited to small-scale actions and incidents, Rlijpiil support for and
adherence to the Mug!!al throne became an enduring feature of this
period. This support and loyalty rested primarily upon a basic 'fit' be-
tween Rajpiil ideals and aspirations, expressed in local myth and sym-
bol, and Mug!!al actions in this area, which did not challenge
fundamental Rajpiit tenets regarding order and precedence. Mug!!al
policy of support for local rulers, of alliance through marriage, and of
granting lands in return for service and allegiance all found a base of
support in local ideology and allowed Rlijpiits in tum 10 find fulfilment
of their own ideals through subordination and loyally 10 the Mug!!al
throne. Only in periods when the Mug!!als directly contradicted these
tenets concerning order and precedence did Rlijpiits withdraw their sup-
port and shift the direction of their loyalties. In sum, the Rajpiil alliance
with the Mug!!als can be seen as a product of identification and obliga-
tion generated through the establishment of personal bonds and affilia-
tions, sanctioned in local custom, and the fulfilment of cultural
aspirations and ideals, defined in local myth and symbol.


Zeigler - Rajputs - The Mughal State, 1526-1750

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Zeigler - Rajputs - The Mughal State, 1526-1750

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zeigler - Rajputs - The Mughal State, 1526-1750

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4

Some Notes on RajpUt Loyalties

Loyalty can be defined as a feeling of altacbment to somedling QUtside the self,

The question of Rljp\it loyalties during the MuL_hal period is a com-

01gitized by Google Original frcm

s. Aitihlisik Bilirp', Parampara. ed. N.S. BhiU (Copisni, Rajasthiini Sodh

For an understanding of Rlijpnt loyalties during this period, we must.

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

This examination begins, perhaps somewhat arbitrarily, with the

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

01gitized by Google Original frcm

01gitized by Google Original frcm

Case 11: Bhil{l Slll'tdlJ MiJn4va115

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

Case Ill: Riifhor Kalyiitµliis Riimalot19

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

01g1tizea by Google Origlr.al from

32Nai1,1sl, Vlgat, I, p. 95.

0191t1zed by Google Original from

186 The Mughal Stale, 152().1750

Digitized by Google Ong1nal from

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

44-ebargava, Marwar and the Mughal Emperors, p. 78. Munsi Hardayila,

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

In the pargtJNJ of PokaraQ, the descendancs (pd/ii) of RIJho( Jagmil Milivat

Despite the above indication of problems of control and of the ful-

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

Rijpiit loyalties, which I will discuss in detail in the final section of

0191t1zed by Google Original from

SI Rilt"'1ro'!f kl KhyiJJ, pp. 465--8.

01g1tizea by Google Origlr.al from

It is unclear from either Mlirvlifi chronicles or genealogical references,

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

63For a complete list of Jodhpur rulers' marriages with the Bhilfs of

0191t1zed by Google Original from

SociETY MOVIN<l TOWARDS AN IMAGE OF ITSELF

The conflict over principles of organization among Rlijplits also

0191t1zed by Google Original from

196 The Muglwl State, 1526-1750

66NaiJ.r,sl rf Khy4J, 1, p. 7S.

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

01gitized by Google Original frcm

01g1tizea by Google Origlr.al from

0191t1zed by Google Original from

"'Malt also means 'ancestor' or 'progenitor'. Nai~l ri Khyal, 1. p. 62; Nair:isl,

01gitized by Google Original frcm

01gitized by Google Original frcm

204 The Mughal State, 1526-1750

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

97Naii;isl, VigaJ, n, pp. 56-8.

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

When the Navib received this petition, he considered it prudent to

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm