1919.] The Rajput Kingdoms of Mediaeval Chhattisgarh. 223 
“and deed the feudal governments derided rather to an 
~ aristocracy than to any other form, since it was natural for 
‘* lords. The lords are attended by large bodies of guards 
“which they call state: these frequently ida quarrels 
‘‘ between their masters, which if the s sovereign can aggravate 
“so as to bring them to blows with each other he has only to 
" “take the part of him who has best interest among his com- 
‘‘wards of two centuries. It appears from the history I have 
“given that all the evils attending the feudal system were 
“centred in this Government, for such is the danger of degrad- 
“ing a man from an office that it is seldom effected without 
‘murdering him; for, if he can fly to his fief, he is able there 
. Sto raise an opposition dangerous to the sovereign. The former 
ns were possessed of villages at a distance from the 
“ « Capital and were of course liable to surprise; but Akber the 
‘“ present Dewan’s power lay in the capital itself so that he 
‘ was mayor of the palace and made the Rajah prisoner at 
“é la ast. 
47. These references to a feudal system, to fiefs and to 
Lords of Estates, all indicate that the country was internally 
subdivided just in the same way as Chhattisgarh, ae so 
strong was this system that signs of it have continu wn. to 
modern times. No fewer than 16 Zamindaris “ tracts held by 
“intermediary Proprietors having a feudal status”’ are men- 
tioned as forming part of Sambalpur proper in the latest 
Gazetteer (published in 1909, page 164). We also read that 
“certain of the Zamindars are loc ally known by the title of 
“ Garhtia, i.e. literally a fort-holder ” and (ibid., page 169) that 
“the feudal tenures called Zamindaris appear to have origina- 
“lieved to represent fragments of the ancient Gond Raj which 
‘ once exterided over large areas in the Central Provinces 
.sseeeee Whatever their origin may have been, it appears 
