1919.) The Rajput Kingdoms of Mediaeval Chhattisgarh. 247 
under the Rajah’s “‘ immediate control.’’ There may be thos se 
who are prepared to argue that possibly this “feudal system ”’ 
was only developed in the last centuries of Rajput rule as the 
central power gradually weakened, and that its development is 
not necessarily inconsistent with the view that the Government 
of the country was actually under the Rajah’s direct control in 
the palmy days of Kalian Singh. In support of this one might 
quote Motte’s opinion on the growth of the similar system of 
administration i in Sambalpur. ‘“* The Government of Sambal- 
ur'’ he writes ‘‘is strictly feudal, the fiefs of which, being 
“ originally official, are by the weakness of the sovereign | become 
“ hereditary.” But this line of argument can be easily met. 
If the independent position of the petty sedi. as Agnew calls 
them, grew as their strength grew and that of the king declined, 
how are we to account for the application of this same feu !al 
principle to the relation of the T'aluqdars inside the Garh ore 
their petty Lords? Are we to assume that the. Taluq 
strength also grew out of the weakness of the petty Lords ” 
If so, then we should have to go still further and argue that the 
strength of the Gaontias or village headmen was founded on the 
weakness of the Talugqdar and that of the cultivator on that 
of the village Headman. The mere reduplication of this feudal 
delegation of authority shows at once that. we are dealing, not 
with an accidental growth, but with a deepseated Spcsoned 
system, which ran through every grade of society and v 
cepted by all as the only legitimate method of Ss alaisteasdins 
The weakness of the Royal house was not therefore a si 
its degeneracy, but a typical and characteristic feature of the 
political system then in vogue, and it was typical of the system 
because that system was originally founded on tribal custom, 
which always emphasized the rights of the many as against the 
rights of one. We see in Vans Agnew’s account a clear re- 
ference to the system of Chaurasis and Barhons which I hav 
mentioned so often. It is just the system too which we angele 
have expected to develop out of the tribal forms of organization 
of which we have record in Macpherson’s pages, while the mere 
ee that this reduplication of prea = Ra this repeated sub- 
vision, persisted longest in the hilly country, where tribal 
prc still held sway, rie oa it was a natural growth and 
not the fortuitous outcome of the weakness of the central power. 
84. If then the argument I have put forward, is — 
a ee hat remarkable conclusion is arrived at. e ow- 
