1919.] | The Rajput Kingdoms of Mediaeval Chhattisgarh. 241 
from the old documents above referred to (Settlement Report, 
para. A he writes 
he-Chhatéhasith rajahs ruled originally over 36 forts, 
“ and ae the tract came to be called Chhattisgarh or the 
* country of the 36 forts.... tons forts, as they were called, 
‘were in reality each the headquarters of a Talooka! compris- 
“‘ing a number of villages and held sometimes Kham 
** under direct control), at others as feudal tenures by yelavinns 
fluential c¢ 
or. in i s regards the 18 old Ruttunpore 
‘‘ Divisions compared with the present district of Bilaspur it 
“* may be noted that the first 11 are e been ever since 
“ Mahratta rule Khalsa Jurisdiction (i.e. under centralized 
“ control); the following seven were and are still Zamindarees ” 
(i.e. under Zamindars or local chiefs) [paras. 48 and 49]. And 
if this is not sufficiently explicit let us turn to paras. 187 and 
188 of the same report: ‘Of the early settlement nothing is 
“known. Judging however from the traditions of the people. 
“and from the numerous remains all over the district of petty 
“ forts the headquarters of former Chiefs, the country was appa- 
‘rently divided into a varying number of talookas held by the 
‘‘ influential followers or relations of the Haihaibansee rulers. 
“ varied from time to time according to the personal character 
“ and necessities of the Ruttunpore Raja and the comparative 
“strength or weakness of the subordinate Chiefs. In a reve- 
“nue paper of the time of Kullian Singh (A.D. 1560) whom 
“ tradition represents as one of the most able and powerful of 
“the old Rajas and after whose Sper the central authority 
** became gradually weaker and weaker a list is given of the 
" Revenue Collections in Chhattisgarh which are represented 
‘as amounting to over 7 lakhs of rupees.’ 
72. Now if the Deshbahis indicated the existence of 
Ponpawmged control”’ of Chhattisgarh by the Rajas it is incred- 
— that Mr. Chisholm should refer to these old documents 
rate same breath, describe nog country as divided up 
ingo pfs in the hands of “ ang oe chiefs.” The very 
existence of these forts, as Chisholm rightly remarks, 
indicates the feudal character TOE the system; and is fatal to 
Mr. Hewitt’s view. The traditions of the people also favour 
Mr. Chisholm, pete the methods of organization in neighbour- 
ing countries point the same way —the Government of Sam- 
pur being ‘‘ sttiatly feudal” (vide para. 46 above). Bustar 
being divided into 48 Zamindaris, whose Zamindars “ exercise 
the term loosely. In para. 56 he writes: ‘‘ The Ratanpur 
Govt. tadaming Raipore comprised 48 garhs or talookas.”” 
