Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, or the Central and Western Rajput States of India v1.c18.s1.63

v1.c18.s1.63

If, at any former period in the history of Marwar, its prince had thus dared to act, his signiory and rights over it would not have been of great value; his crown and life would both have been endangered by these turbulent and determined vassals. How much is comprehended in that manly, yet respectful sentence: “If he accepts our services, then he is our prince and leader; if not, but our equal, and we again his brothers, claimants of and laying claim to the soil.” In the remonstrance of the sub-vassals of Deogarh, we have the same sentiments on a reduced scale. In both we have the ties of blood and kindred, connected with and strengthening national policy. If a doubt could exist as to the principle of fiefs being similar in Rajasthan and in Europe, it might be set at rest by the important question long agitated by the feodal lawyers in Europe, “whether the vassal is bound to follow the standard of his lord against his own kindred or against his sovereign”: which in these States is illustrated by a simple and universal proof. If the question were put to a Rajput to whom his service is due, whether to his chief or his sovereign, the reply would be, *Raj ka malik wuh, pat*¹ *ka malik yih* : ‘He is the Sovereign of the State, but this is my head’ : an ambiguous phrase, but well understood to imply that his own immediate chief is the only authority he regards.