1919.| The Rajput Kingdoms of Mediaeval Chhattisgarh. 235 
It was a regular feature of the system, resulting from a political 
compromise between the authority of the tribe and the autho- 
rity of a king. As we have just seen in Vedic times the Raja 
‘is very different from the autocratic ruler of later times and 
‘evidently not independent of some great popular assembly 
accidental. In Sarguja Major oe can find no trace 
of the Raja’s exercise of his official authority “except for 
general purposes.”” In Rewa we an that in 1798 A.D. ‘‘ The 
‘“ Rajahs’ own dominions scarcely exceed the bounds of his 
“capital. The extensive territories that nominally belong to 
ie * him are distributed in great and small allotments to Kinsmen 
‘near and remote and to feudatories owing military services. 
’ Tribute is either not due or it is withheld; and the rajah 
“ through Rew ae of a journey from Mirzapur to 
Nagpur). This, o doubt, was an extreme case. But the 
weakness of the esl Raja has been a demonstrated 
in a previous chapter. In Bastar the king’s officers were 
regulated by popular assemblies (see para. 87 below) and there 
is significance in Major Vans Agnew’s remark in 1821 that“ At 
present all the Zamindars are obedient to the Rajah’s orders.” 
In Chhattisgarh it was once more the same. ‘‘ There was no 
** central authority casaripc any vigour’ Mr. Chisholm writes 
in para. 64 of his report: ‘‘ The Haihaibansis merely stood at 
“the head of a wt of Rajas and chiefs each of whom was 
“to a large extent independent and among whom the whole 
“country was divided. It was an wena weak system 
‘* adapted for a peaceful state of society alone.” But while we 
some control of their ‘“‘ intern e wars’ must have been im- 
posed, their tribal territories tia avs been defined, and their 
tribal leaders must have received an accession of authority 
to the sonia oon described in the first four chapters of 
this paper—to the definition of the clan and minor clan chief's. 
