An historical sketch of the native states of India/Appendix F
| The full text of this chapter has been converted into Wiki format by Laxman Burdak |
By Col. G. B. Malleson, Publisher: Longmans, Green & Co. London (1875)
[Page-395]
Let me give you some idea of who the Bhumia Thakurs in Ajmer are, and what their history has been. In certain parts of India there is an impression abroad that the holders of Bhum lands are little more than village watchmen. However much support there may be for this belief as regards the Bhumias of other provinces, there is no ground for its application to Rajputana. So far from being a tenure of low repute, it is much sought after even by the wealthy and well-born. So far from the Bhumias being poor, ill-born, and despised, they are very often the most influential men in the village, riding their own cattle, owning their own herds and flocks, and playing second fiddle to no man. If this apparent prosperity be not sufficient to establish his gentle blood, there is another decisive test which admits of no doubt. Watch a district official receiving the magnates of the village, and you will see that while the patail puts forward the mean rupee in his extended palm, the Bhumia Thakur presents his ancestral sword. No surer sign of gentle blood in this once warlike province. This, then, is the first fact to commit to memory, namely, that whatever the circumstances of their private affairs, our friends the Bhumias are sprung from good stock, and are circled about, by a certain dignity which is not to be extinguished even by the curse of poverty. Their tenure, moreover, is the only one which is not legally resumable by the Crown, except for disloyalty and rebellion. But in order to attain this perfect security of possession it is necessary that every grant should have obtained the sanction of the power ruling at the time of the grant. There are instances, notably in Mewar, after the general pacification in 1818, when the sovereign resumed lands granted in Bhum, on the grounds that their grant had not met with his sanction. In point of fact, therefore, until the sanction of the ruling power has been accorded, no grant professing to be Bhum is really Bhum.
There are four kinds of Bhum grants:-
- 1. Bhum granted for ' Mundkati.'
- 2. That granted to quell a feud.
- 3. A gift bestowed for services in the field ; and,
- 4. a grant from the Raj to protect a border, or from a village to perform the duties of watch and ward. Lands surrendered on this tenure are held rent-free.
Of the four kinds above mentioned there are no examples of the first or second in the Ajmer district, and of the third there are only two authenticated instances. The
[Page-396]
fourth description may, therefore, be said to be the only one existing in the Ajmer district.
We have next to examine the duties and responsibilities of this class. They are :
- 1. The protection of the property of travellers within their circle.
- 2. The protection of their villages from dacoits.
- 3. The pecuniary indemnification of sufferers from crime within the limits of their charge.
The committee then proceed to define Bhum as it exists in the Ajmer district, as follows :
- 1. It is a hereditary property, inalienable, rent-free, and requiring the sanction of the ruling power.
- 2. It is resumable for offences against the State, and other misdemeanours for which confiscation of immovable property is the penalty prescribed.
- 3. When resumed proprietary and revenue free rights both vanish, these being inseparable.
- 4. Neglect or remissness creates liability to fine or attachment till the fine is realised.
- 5. If alienated without sanction of the State, it is liable to forfeiture, and may be settled upon anyone.
Though the Bhumias are described as not liable for rent or assessment, it is easy to imagine that, in the troubled times which ushered in and cradled the present century they did not get off scot-free. Accordingly, we find an exaction called the Bhum Bab in full force during the Mahratta rule. One must do them the credit to admit that the idea was not of their origination. It was first levied by Maharaja Tukht Singh in 1752, but he only exacted it once, and there is no record of the amount he took, and the number subjected to it were few.
When Sivaji Nana fastened on the district it seems to have struck him as an excellent idea ; so he immediately reinaugurated it on true Marhata principles, that is, he fixed no rate, but squeezed as much as he could out of them. In nine years he levied the tax three times, and his successor improved on this and introduced the custom of taking it every second year.
Altogether it was collected ten times before we came into possession. It seems, however, that some escaped the infliction a sad stain upon the Marhata reputation for catholic rapacity.
Tukht Singh was new to the work, so that it is not strange that
[Page-397]
he taxed only 16 out of some 108 holdings, and to these the investigations of the Marhatas add 87 more, making a total of 103; but as the tax was irregularly collected, it appears that only 76 holdings had paid since 1818. Those who managed to secure exemption entirely seem to have done so through the support of influential nobles. Some years after we entered into possession we abolished some of the perquisites the Bhumias had been in the habit of obtaining, so that they had very little to be grateful for to us, as we kept up the collection of Bhum Bab up to the year 1842, when it was abolished by order of Grovernment. The Bhumias seem, however, to have managed to retain a number of perquisites, such as presents on the Holi and Dusserah, on the marriage of their eldest sons, and on the occasion of every marriage in their village. They received a goat or a buffalo yearly, a skin for drawing water from the well from the leather trade, seventy heads of Indian corn, or a handful of wheat from each field. Their forts were also repaired by free labour. Alas ! all these delightful things followed the odious Bhum Bab all bound for the limbo of the superannuated. Meanwhile, these unfortunate men had been cruelly maligned by our district officials, who insisted on considering them no better than chowkeedars, thought these lofty lineaged ones atavis editas regibus, the counterpart of the cudgel-armed knave who coughs a guttural warning to all approaching his neighbourhood, or snores in forgetful slumbers in the verandahs.
However, those days of slighted reputation are past. The patient and discriminating committee, rem acu tetigerunt, and in future no man shall revile the Bhumia with the name of chowkeedar. His fate I must leave to another letter, for I have discoursed too much already.