THE BREEDING STUD OF AN INDIAN PRINCE. 
393 
horses are higher than for remounts of any other class. This is no 
doubt right, in view to the promotion of the indigenous supply. . .” 1 
But if he is a better horse than the Arab for general purposes, and 
if Government pay more money for him, why is he so difficult to 
get ? This is a question not easy to answer; there are some reasons, 
but I cannot say they are sufficient ones. In the first place, if the 
process of breeding arrived at by the Bhavnagar stud is the correct 
one, it takes a long time to breed the mare which will produce the 
best sort of colt, and there are few such mares in the country as 
yet. Then, whatever was the case in former times, 2 India is not 
a horse-breeding country, in the sense that parts of England, Ireland 
and Australia are ; there are no enclosed and watered paddocks or 
fields, as in England and Ireland, no extensive grass runs as in 
Australia. There are plains, it is true, but no herbage fit for horses 
grows on them; and whatever land is of any value is under culti¬ 
vation. The flocks of cattle, sheep and goats are tended by herds¬ 
men, who keep them out of the crops, but it is obvious that a 
drove of colts could not be “ rounded up ” by such slow-moving 
guardians. Therefore, horses kept for breeding purposes must be con¬ 
fined in the villages and stall-fed ; an expensive method of rearing, and 
one that can only be practised on a very small scale. In the Report of 
the Remount Department it is stated that in a certain district of Bengal 
“ the Remount Agent estimates having inspected 1200 horses, all were 
in excellent condition but were tied up in villages, and deprived of any 
liberty whatever.” Such a system of rearing is not only expensive, 
but bad ; loss of liberty prevents development of bone and limb, and is 
a certain cause of deficient and faulty action. It is also said that breed¬ 
ing is discouraged by the importers of other breeds, especially the Arab 
dealers of Bombay who, aware that the country-bred is a better horse 
than their own and fearing to lose a part of their lucrative trade, use their 
influence to prevent his being allowed to compete with Arabs in the races 
in Western India. Such influence, if it exists, can . scarcely be very 
strong, for I observe that in the prospectus of the Pconah Races, out 
of twenty-six races, fifteen are open to country-breds. Then, of course, 
the chiefs no longer maintain the immense armies which existed at the 
beginning of the century, and I suppose this must be the main reason 
for the almost incredible decrease in the number of horses bred now as 
compared with the state of affairs ninety years ago. 
Since the discontinuance of breeding* studs, the Indian Government 
have instituted a system of “ nurseries,” in which a certain number of 
young stock are kept in paddocks and issued to the services at four 
years old. They are bought at any age under four, but for the most 
1 Annual Administration Beport of the Bengal, Madras and Bombay Presidencies, 1892-3. 
2 At the out-break of the Mahratta war, in 1802, “ the armies of Doulut Bao Sindia and Bug- 
l hoojee Bouslag were estimated at about 100,000 men, of whom about 50,000 were horse.” At the 
battle of Assaye, in 1803, the Mahratta army “amounted to upwards of 50,000 men, of whom 
more than 30,000 were horse.” When Holkar attacked Delhi, in 1804, during the campaign which 
ended in the siege of Bhurtpore, “ he was at the head of 60,000 horse, 15,000 infantry and artillery, 
with 192 guns.” At the battle of Kirkee, in 1817, the Mahrattas had 23,000 horse.—“ History of 
| the Mahrattas,” by James Grant Duff. 
