Aspects of Military Retainership in Seventeenth-century Mārvāṛ, Rājasthān

Part I

      Cākars, Gair Cākars,  and Cīndhaṛs. 
      
      Beginning in 1583 and continuing until 1678, the Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūt rājās of Jodhpur were incorporated into the Mughal Empire as allies and military commanders.  As part of their responsibilities, they had to provide a contingent of soldiers as their contribution to the Mughal army, or laskar.  The contingent varied in size according to the mansab rank of the rājās in the Imperial system.  For example, during the Mughal succession struggle of the late 1650s, the contemporary rājā of Jodhpur, Jasvant Siṅgh (1638-78), had an Imperial army contingent (laskar ro sāth) of 3,000 as his military responsibility according to his mansab rank of 7,000/7000.  This contingent was only part of the military strength of the rājās, for they also commanded the local contingent of Mārvāṛ, the region (des) in which Jodhpur is situated.  This local contingent was known as the des ro sāth.  It varied in size size and was seldom fully mobilized, but it was potentially much larger than the laskar ro sath.  In 1659-60 the laskar ro sath plus the des ro sath reached what was probably their combined limit, 25,000 men, under Jasvant Singh.
      
      Cākars

      The two contingents of the Jodhpur Rājās were made up of cākars, or military servants, of various types.  Most were Rajput warriors, but Brahmans, Josis, Carans, and others were also in both contingents.  In seventeenth-century Mārvāṛ, any man performing military service (cākrī) in exchange for room and board, a daily or monthly wage, or a land grant (paṭo),1 was called a cākar.2  The various Rājasthānī sources also refer to those men serving the Mughal Emperor as Imperial (Pātsāhī) cākars.  Important men could be both cākars themselves and have cākars serving under them.  The Persian terms naukar (servant) and naukarī (service), mentioned prominently by Dirk Kolff in his influential book,3 are not used in seventeenth-century texts, although they occur in later Rājasthānī documents.
	
      It would appear that these related terms, cākrī / cākar, came into frequent use sometime during the sixteenth century.  Older Rājasthānī verse compositions do not contain these words.  The Visaladevarasa, a Rājasthānī poem composed about 1450,4 uses the Sanskrit-derived word ūḷag to refer to military service, specifically the military service of a person far from his home, away from his family, at the court of a distant ruler.5  Similarly, the Hammīrāyaṇa, a fifteenth-century Rājasthānī epic poem, contains the phrase ulag karai (“doing ulag”).6  It also has a verbal form, ulagṇo (“to serve”), used in the sentence chattīs rājkul ulagtā (“the thirty-six royal families served [at the court]”).  A third old Rājasthanī text, the Kānhaḍade Prabandha (composed around 1455) mentions that the kings of China, Bhutan, and Daṇḍapur served (ūlag lyāvai) in Delhi during the reign of Alauddīn Khiljī.7  Another verse in this poem records that certain Rajput ṭhākurs had served (ulagai) in the house of the Cahuvāṇs for a long while (Cāhūāṇa ghari āgai lagai, ṭhakurālā rāut ulagai).8
	
      Besides ūḷag and ulagṇo, the Visaladevarasa also has a word, uḷagāṇo, for a person who does or performs ūḷag, or, in Smith’s words, “one who leaves wife and home to become [a] courtier in the court of a foreign king.”9 This word also appears several times in the Hammīrāyaṇa, as, for example, in the sentence fragment lākh rā ulagāṇā (“a lakh of ulagāṇos”).10 Another fifteenth-century Rājasthānī mixed prose and verse text, the Acaladāsa Khicī rī Vacanikā, contains the sentence tūm hī kā ghar kā Rajpūt, tūm hī kā ghar kā ulagāṇā, “We are the Rajpūts of only your house, the ulagāṇos of only your house.”11
	
      Rājasthānī anonymous and undated prose narratives such as the Jagdev Paṃvār rī Vāt and the Umade Bhaṭiyāṇī rī Vāt employ both uḷag and its associated forms interchangeably with cākrī and cākrī,12 but the earliest prose chronicle, the late sixteenth-century Daḷpat Vilās, uses cākrī (just once) for military service, with no reference to uḷag.13  Naiṇsī (d. 1670), who consistently uses cākrī and cākar for military service and military servant, respectively, in his famous khyāt, employs uḷag on one occasion only, to refer to the service of Ghaṛsī, the future Rāvaḷ of Jaisaḷmer, at the court of Fīroz Shāh in Delhi during the 1350s.14  Other seventeenth-century documents from Mārvāṛ exhibit ubiquitous usage of cākrī and cākar.  One may hypothesize, then, that these new terms were becoming widespread just as the older words uḷag and uḷagāṇo were slowly disappearing from the language.15
	
      Cākrī was not an exact synonym for uḷag, as uḷag had always meant service away from one’s family at a distant court (in other words, service as a courtier), whereas cākrī simply meant military service anywhere.  Many cākars probably never attended court; they merely stayed in their villages and performed cākrī only during local military expeditions, when special messengers (chaṛos) would come around to bring the word that they should assemble any retainers they might have and join others at a specific location for impending action.  Many cākars possessed land grants, or paṭos, which obligated them to report.  Failure to do so usually led to forfeiture of the paṭo.  As the paṭo always specified, the recipient must serve where sent (So cākrī bhalī bhā[n]t karsī, melsī jaṭhe jasī ujar karaṇ pāve nahī[ṃ]).16  The Rajput cākars holding these land grants were called paṭāyats or, less frequently, jāgīrdārs (a Mughal term) in the local sources.  They and their retainers formed the elite core of the Jodhpur army.  In this essay, I use the term paṭāyat to refer to cākars with paṭos, and jāgīrdar to refer to cākars with Mughal jagīrs.
      
      Paṭāyats are discussed in detail in Part II.  Two other common types of cākars in the des and laskar contingents of the Jodhpur Rājas, gair cākars and cīṇḍhaṛs, are described below. 
Gair Cākars

      Seventeenth-century sources from Mārvāṛ reveal that new cākars were continually being given paṭos in exchange for future military service while others were either being transferred or were abandoning service, often for more lucrative employment in the Mughal army.  Many died in combat as well, so every year there was a considerable turnover of grants.  Where did newly appointed grantees come from?

The Rājā asked:  “Who are you?”  Then the villager said:  “Mahārāj, I am a Rajpūt.  And I am a gair cākar.”  Afterward the Rājā, who had need of cākars, retained him as a cākar.  He wrote out a paṭo and gave it [to him].17

Parbat, son of Sekho.  For awhile he was a gair cākar.  Then he died fighting in Ajmer while he was Devīdāsjī’s cākar.18

	Gair is a Persian prefix meaning “not-” or “un-”.  A gair cākar was therefore a “not-cākar”, i.e., a person lacking a specific appointment as a cākar, but one who, if given a chance, could become a regular cākar and possibly be given a paṭo.  The Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt, in its list of men killed at the battle of Dharmāṭ in 1658, states that several of these persons were gair cākars.  Among these gair cākars were retainers constituting the ummedvārī, or body of “hopefuls” (ummed is Persian for “hope”), i.e., candidates (ummedvār) for regular military service and paṭos.19  Evidently these men risked their lives partly because they presumed their performance on the battlefield could lead to advancement in the future.
	
      The gair cākars present at Dharmāṭ were mostly junior members of Rajpūt lineages.  Several were sponsored by members of their family already in service.  One of them, Bhīm Vīṭhaldāsot, a fifteen-year old Cāmpāvat Rāṭhoṛ, died along with his father, Vīṭhaldās Gopāldāsot, two of their retainers, and a dozen other Cāmpāvats.  Bhīm was said to be “in servitude [included among] the ummedvārī.”20  But another gair cākar, Karamsot Rāṭhoṛ Gordhan Mādhodasot, already possessed a paṭo when he died at Dharmāṭ.  Evidently he had just previously received Ratūpuro village of Udehī Pargano, transferred from his brother, Girdhardās Mādhodāsot, also a casualty at Dharmāṭ.21  Other gair cākars received day wages;22 they may not have been candidates for paṭos at all. 
	
      Rajpūt genealogies reveal clearly that a military servant who left service became a gair cākar until he received another appointment.  For example, Jodho Rāṭhoṛ Acaldās Vikramādityot, the son of Vikramāditya Māldevot,23 received a paṭo for Bhāhro village from the Jodhpur State in 1615-16.  When Sabalsiṅgh, one of the sons of Rājā Sūrajsiṅgh (1595-1619), received Phāḷodhī Pargano as a jāgīr in 1620-21, Acaldās left Jodhpur service and settled in Phaḷodhī, where Sabalsiṅgh gave him a paṭo for the village Savaṛāū.  While there he killed the Vīkūmpuriyo Bhāṭī Rajpūt Karaṇ, son of Rāv Udaisiṅgh of Vīkūmpur.  Then, in 1622-23, Phaḷodhī was transferred from Sabalsiṅgh to Rājā Gajsiṅgh of Jodhpur (1619-38).  Acaldās continued to live in Savaṛāū, but as a gair cākar.  He was killed there by Rāv Udaisiṅgh Vīkūmpuriyo in revenge for the murder of Karaṇ.24  Another Rāṭhoṛ, Rāṇāvat Mādhodās Rāghodāsot, had received a paṭo for Bhāduvasṇī village of Meṛto Pargano in 1623-24.  Subsequently he left service and then was killed while a gair cākar by some Deccani soldiers as he was coming into Deval village.25
	
      G.D. Sharma has written that some land grants were given without the expectation of future military service, and these were called gair-cākrī grants.  I am not certain he has read his source correctly.  He states that “many such grants” were given by Rājā Jasvantsiṅgh (1638-78) after Dharmāṭ, but it seems much more likely that these grants were given to gair cākars who fought at Dharmāṭ and who afterward were rewarded for their services by the Rājā, with future obligation implicit.26  Indeed, the register of land grants, or paṭā bahī, compiled from 1657-73 in Mārvāṛ, reveals that at least seventy-six grants were made in the year after Dhārmāṭ largely due to the high number of casualties sustained by Rājā Jasvantsiṅgh’s contingent in that battle.27  He had a lot of vacancies to fill.

Cīndhaṛs

Kachvāho Aḷdharo, [son] of Rājā Kākil.  His descendants are called Meṛko [and] Kuṇḍalko Kachvāhos.  They are cākars (cīndhaṛs) in Manoharpur.28

	One of the lists of retainers killed in the battle of Dharmāṭ states that besides leading men (ṭhākurs), bodyguards (pāsvāns), and personal attendants (khavās), cīndhaṛs also died fighting there.29  The Middle Mārvāṛī word cīndhaṛ (also written cīndhaṛiyo, cīndhaḷ, and cīndhaḷiyo) perhaps is connected with cīndh, “mark,” “sign,” “emblem,” “banner,” etc., which in turn is derived from the Sanskrit word cihna with the same meanings.. Cīndhaṛ may be related to the Sanskrit compound cihnadhara, “bearing a banner.”30  Lāḷas, in his Rājasthānī-Hindī Saṅkṣipt Śabdkos, 1:402, defines cīndhaṛ as (1) “warrior capable of defending his own banner,”; (2) “idle person”; (3) “beggar”; (4) “low, dirty person.”  

      In the earliest text containing the word, the anonymous Daḷpat Vilās (a biography of Prince Dalpat of Bīkāner, written around 1596), it is clear that cīndhāṛiyo (i.e., cīndhaṛ) refers to a type of Rajpūt soldier:

The following Rajpūts were in Kuṃvarjī [Daḷpat’s] contingent:  Vīko Bhāṇ Kalyāṇmalot, Nārāyaṇ Varsiot, Sāṅgo Manāut, [and] other subordinate (choṭā) Vīkos and Vīdāvats as well—Gopāldās Sāṅgāut, Rāghavdās Sāṃvaḷdāsot, Rāmsiṅghjī Saṅkarot, Hardās Khīṃvkaraṇot, Madnot Pātāut, Kūmbho, Kesavdās, Gopāldās’s boys, Karamcand Bhānīdāsot, Cando Raysalot, and many others too—Kāndhaḷot Gopāldās Rāvatot, Raisiṅgh Kisandāsot, Mālde Vaṇvīrot, Mahes, Hardās Vaṇvīrot, Ded Acḷāut [and] other petty (choṭā sā) cīndhaṛiyos [such as] Mehājaḷ Pātāut, Bhāno Pātāut, Mahes Saktāvat, [and] Gogade Sāṅkhlo.31

The Rajpūts mentioned in the above account belonged to the most prestigious lineages of Bīkāner, including the Vīko or Vīkāvat Rāṭhoṛs (the ruling lineage), the Vīdāvat Rāṭhoṛs, the Kāndhalot Rāṭhoṛs, the Pātāvat Rāṭhoṛs, and the Sāṅkhlo Paṃvārs.  But they were the less important members of these lineages, landless young men who formed part of Daḷpat’s personal contingent.  Rāvat Sarasvat, the editor of the Daḷpat Vilās, has suggested in his glossary that the cīndhaṛiyos of Bīkāner were “subordinate (choṭā) Rājpūt soldiers, those Rājpūts who perform military service after receiving only grain, clothing, and opium, and [who] fight when the time comes.”32 
	
      Although Ziegler has maintained that originally cīndhaṛs were household warriors and only later became inferior or subordinate soldiers,33 it would appear that they always were inferior in rank to the umrāvs, ṭhākurs, and sirdārs who led the Rajpūt armies of Mārvāṛ.  One account, from the Vāt Jaitmāl Salkhāvat rī (“Story of Jaitmāl Salkhāvat”), which discusses events of the fourteenth century but probably was written no earlier than 1600, also indicates a clear division in rank between the subordinate cīndhaṛs and their leader, the Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūt ṭhākur Jaitmāl, ruler of Sīvāṇo in southern Mārvāṛ:

Jaitmāl went to marry a Devṛī [Rajpūt woman].  The wedding party stayed there [at the bride’s family’s home] five to seven days.  There was rejoicing and enthusiasm.  [The Rāṭhoṛs] came [back] to [their] camp.  Then the Devṛo [Rajpūt] ṭhākurs came to the camp and presented the traditional gift of clothing, jewelry, etc. (pahirāvṇī) to all the members of the groom’s wedding party.  At that time the Solaṅkī [Rajpūts], [who were related to] Jaitmāl from [his] previous marriage, were with [him].  They had much authority in [his] kingdom.  Then the Devṛo ṭhākurs asked them and asked the Muṃhatos:  “Ṭhākurs, if someone has been forgotten [or] omitted, please point [him] out.”  The traditional gift of clothing, jewelry, etc. was in Jaitmāl’s hall of audience (darbār).  Meanwhile, the Solaṅkīs and Rajpūts of various other jātis were seated together.  On one side the Sūvaṛo [Rajpūt] brothers were seated.  The Vārāhs, the Goglīs, [and] also many other Rajpūts were seated.  Meanwhile a Devṛo asked Varjāṅg Solaṅkī, Ṭhākur Jaitmāl’s wife’s brother:  “Rāj, did all receive the traditional gift of clothing, jewelry, etc.?”  Then [Varjaṅg] said:  “Yes, rāj, [you] fine men came and gave and all have received.”  He said these words.  Then the cīndhaṛs of all the various branches struck [their] foreheads [in anguish].  They had not received sirpāvs (robes of honor).34

In this account, the Solaṅkī Rajpūt Varjāṅg, Ṭhākur Jaitmāl’s brother-in-law, ignores the unhappy cīndhaṛs of the various Rajpūt branches who had received no share of the traditional gift of clothing to the groom’s party by the bride’s party.  Evidently only the Rajpūts of higher rank had gotten the sirpāvs, or robes of honor.

	Naiṇsī includes in his Khyāt several important references to cīndhaṛs.  The first is from a story concerning a Cahuvāṇ Rajpūt named Kumbho Kāmpaliyo at the court of Rāvaḷ Mālo at Mahevo in fourteenth-century western Mārvāṛ:

One branch (sākh) among the Cahuvāṇ [Rajpūt] branches is called Kāmpaliyo ….  Formerly Kumbho Kāmpaliyo was a great Rajpūt ….  Kumbho Kāmpaliyo possessed a very fine mare.  In those days Rāvaḷ Mālo had acquired much land to the west [of Mahevo].  All the local rulers (bhomīyos) of the west accepted Rāvaḷ Mālo’s authority.  He decided to take Kumbho’s mare.  At that time Rāvaḷ Mālo’s minister (pradhān) was Bhovo Nāī.  The Rāvaḷ said to him:  “This mare should be taken.”  Then Bhovo said:  “Kumbho is not one who simply will hand over the mare.”  They summoned Kumbho and had [him] sit in court.  500 men, cīndhaṛs wearing armor, were seated in front.  500 men, gunners (tobcī) remained standing, having touched off matches [for their guns] ….35

The mention of guns and gunners suggests the story was written at least two centuries after the events it purports to describe (there were no guns in Mārvāṛ until the 1520s), but it implies that a large number (500) of cīndhaṛs at the court of a ruler might have been a possibility.
	Another reference in Naiṇsī’s Khyāt involves an episode late in the reign of Rāv Gāṅgo of Jodhpur (1515-32).  Following the battle of Sevakī in 1529, one of the ruler of Sojhat’s most powerful retainers, Rāṭhoṛ Kūmpo Mahirājot, switched his allegiance to Rāv Gāṅgo.  Many other Rāṭhoṛs followed him into Gāṅgo’s service.  For two years, 1529-31, Kumpo led attacks against Sojhat:

Kūmpo advised [Rāv Gāṅgo]:  “Go on taking a few villages of Sojhat each year.”  Then he came to Dhaulharo [village] and constructed a stable (pāygā) there.  He kept four thousand of Rāv Gāṅgo’s cīndhaṛs at the outpost [in Dhaulharo].  He provided [them] with the following number of umrāvs:  (1)  Māno Rūpāvat; (2) Sāṇḍo Sāṅkhlo; (3)  Rāypāl Sāhṇī; (4) Gāṅgo Ḍūṅgarsīyot.  He kept that many ṭhākurs [there] with the horses.36

In this account, four thousand cīndhaṛs were kept at the military outpost in Dhaulharo village under the authority of only four umrāvs (commanders).  The difference in rank and importance between the two categories is apparent.

	A late seventeenth-century text, the “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,” which includes a description of a military campaign undertaken by Naiṇsī against Jaisaḷmer in 1659, also has some valuable information about cīndhaṛs.  A long list of the men who went on this campaign includes a delineation of 690 who composed the “contingent of Jaitāraṇ [Pargano]” (Jaitāraṇ ro sāth), or men from Jaitāraṇ District.  Part of this contingent included 309 men with Bhāṭī Āskaraṇ, of whom thirty-two were cīndhaṛs mounted on horseback and eighty-one were cīndhaṛ footsoldiers.  An additional 381 men came from Jaitāraṇ with the sikdār Bhado and the koṭārī Dharmo; eighty-six of these men were cīndhaṛs, thirty-six on horseback and fifty on foot.  The total number of cīndhāṛs in the full contingent of Jaitāraṇ thus was 199 out of 690 (28.8%).37  None of these men are named; all of them came without any retainers of their own, unlike nearly all the more important Rajpūts from Jaitāraṇ who are listed by name with the numbers of horsemen and footsoldiers they brought consistently entered. Moreover, it is likely that many of the unnamed men in the personal contingents of those various Rajpūts whose names are mentioned were also cīndhaṛs.  Thus the actual number of cīndhaṛs in the Jaitāraṇ contingent might well have been considerably higher than 199.38

	The Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt has an equally detailed list of the contingent of Rāṭhoṛs composing the army of the deceased Rājā of Jodhpur, Jasvantsiṅgh Gajsiṅghot (1638-78), in Delhī on July 16, 1679.  This list includes “six cīndhāṛs, monthlies (mahindārs), [who are] village folk receiving bārgīrs [horses given by rulers to those soldiers too impoverished to keep their own].”  These six are named:  they are Rajpūts of minor branches:  two Māṅglīyo Gahlots, one Devrājot Rāṭhoṛ, one Baiṭhvāsīyo Ūdāvat Rāṭhoṛ, and one Rāṇāvat Rāṭhor who had a camel of his own but was given a bārgīr horse.39

	Naiṇsī has written a short biography of an individual cīndhaṛ, the Jeso Bhāṭī Rajpūt Jogīdās Vairsīyot.  Jogīdās’s father, Vairsī Rāymalot, had been killed by a rocket in the Deccan in 1601-02, and Jogīdās had received Vairsī’s paṭo village, Jājīvāḷ, in the same year.  Then he left and entered the service of the Rāṇo of Mevāṛ, Amarsiṅgh, who at that time was fighting the Mughals.  Jogīdās returned to Jodhpur service in 1607-08 and was given Jājīvāḷ once again.  He died in 1621-22.  He was, in Naiṇsī’s words, “a noble cīndhaṛ.”40  Similarly, a contemporary source, the Rao Udaibhan Champawat ri Khyāt, an enormous annotated genealogy of the Rāṭhoṛ family, also includes several biographical references to cīndhaṛs with paṭos.41  These paṭos were nearly always single, small villages, seldom evaluated at more than rs. 1000 of income per year, in contrast to the paṭos of the great ṭhākurs of Mārvāṛ, which sometimes included more than fifty villages and had evaluations as high as rs, 50000. 

Warriors in Rags?

	From the above discussion of cīndhāṛs, one may say that they always were Rajpūt soldiers of the lower ranks, who had no retainers of their own and were responsible only for themselves during military campaigns.42  They might be household soldiers, as they evidently were in Bīkāner, serving in exchange for room and board.  Or they might be temporarily attached to military campaigns or contingents:  soldiers hired for a short, specified time or for a specific, limited purpose, such as the expedition against Jaisaḷmer mentioned above.  Exceptional cīndhaṛs, such as Jogīdās Vairsīyot, might receive minor paṭos.  D.A. Kolff has remarked that “towards the end of the sixteenth century the emancipation of the individual mercenary soldier went on at a quickened pace” in eastern India as the Mughal Empire stabilized.43  What he calls the “military labour market” of Hindūstān appears to have had its counterpart in Rājasthān, where these individual mercenary soldiers were called cīndhaṛs.

Part II.  Paṭāyats

The Paṭo system of the Jodhpur State, 1658-1664
Dharmāṭ and its Aftermath

	With the three categories, cākar, gair cākar, and cīndhaṛ defined,44 one may look at the actual functioning of the paṭo system of the Jodhpur state during a period exceptionally well-documented by a variety of Rājasthānī sources, beginning with the battle of Dharmāṭ in 1658 and continuing until 1664, the final year of Naiṇsī’s magisterial account of seven parganos of Mārvāṛ, the Mārvāṛ rā Parganāṃ rī Vigat.  I have made use in particular of a computerized database of all the paṭos recorded in the paṭā bahī, or register of land grants, that is included in the collection of documents entitled “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,”45 supplemented by information on paṭos held by Rajpūts killed at Dharmāṭ given in the Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt.  These documents allow one to reconstruct the distribution of paṭos in Māṛvāṛ on the eve of Dharmāṭ and to examine how this distribution changed in the years after the battle up to V.S. 1720 (1663-64 A.D.).

Dharmāṭ

	In September, 1657 the Mughal Emperor, Shah Jahan, fell ill in Delhi.  He did not appear in public again for over a month.  During his illness, his son, Dara Shikoh, managed his affairs and issued orders in his name.  By the middle of November Shah Jahan had recovered, and he and Dara Shikoh dispatched armies against the other sons of Shah Jahan, who had assumed their father was either dying or dead and had rebelled.  Rājā Jasvantsiṅgh was sent to Mālwā along with his personal contingent (tābīn) of 3,000 retainers in command of a large additional Imperial force in order to confront two of the sons, Murad and Aurangzeb.  The Rājā met their combined armies at Dharmāṭ, a town near Ujjain.  In the ensuing battle, fought on April 16, 1658, he and his men suffered a severe defeat in which 142 named Rajpūt sirdārs and 701 other unnamed members of his contingent were killed.  139 more were wounded;46 301 horses and one elephant also were lost.  The Rājā fled back to Mārvāṛ with a shattered remnant of his original force.47
	Dharmāṭ was a disaster for the Imperial army, for Shah Jahan, and for the Rāṭhoṛs of Mārvāṛ, who suffered their worst losses on the battlefield in 114 years.  In all, ninety-one paṭāyats holding paṭos evaluated at rs. 433,500 were killed.  These men are enumerated by clan and by branch of clan (if known) in Table 1.  This table, while showing that proportionally the Rāṭhoṛs, the dominant clan of Mārvāṛ, absorbed the majority of casualties among paṭāyats, is based on the list of men killed contained in the Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāṭ, which unfortunately is an incomplete document.  A history of the Cāmpāvat Rāṭhoṛ branch by Kānotā gives a much more detailed list of the members of this branch who died at Dharmāṭ, along with the retainers who accompanied them into battle.  According to Kānotā, at least thirty, possibly forty Cāmpāvats were killed, along with from 285 to 350 of their retainers.  His research suggests that the Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt probably underreports the casualties at Dharmāṭ.48

Table 1.
Number of Paṭāyats killed at Dharmāṭ.

Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūts
Clan
Branch
Number
Rekh49
Rathor
Akhairajot
3
3800
Rathor
Balavat
1
300
Rathor
Bhimvot
2
1300
Rathor
Campavat
8
126000
Rathor
Dhandhal
2
4000
Rathor
Dungarot
1
800
Rathor
Jaitavat
3
39000
Rathor
Jodho
3
13000
Rathor
Jujhaniyo
1
300
Rathor
Karamsot
4
44500
Rathor
Kumpavat
2
3000
Rathor
Mertiyo
5
31100
Rathor
Patavat
4
7600
Rathor
Purbiyo
1
1600
Rathor
Rupavat
1
1500
Rathor
Udavat
5
63000
Rathor
Uhar
2
14300




Totals

48
355100

Other Rajpūts
Clan
Branch
Number
Rekh
Bhati
Hamir
1
1000
Bhati
Jeso
9
23200
Bhati
Ravalot
1
3000
Bhati
Rupsi
1
1000
Bhati
Unknown
3
5200
Cahuvan
Boro
1
2600
Cahuvan
Sacoro
1
4000
Cahuvan
Sonagaro
3
19000
Cahuvan
Unknown
3
5600
Gahlot
Asayac
1
400
Gahlot
Dhaybhai
1
3150
Gahlot
Mangliyo
1
1100
Gahlot
Piparo
1
2000
Pamvar
Bhail
2
400
Parihar
Indo
5
3850
Vais
Unknown
1
300




Totals

35
75800

Non-Rajpūts
Category
Branch
Number
Rekh
Mumhato
Unknown
1
700
Palaniyo
Unknown
1
300
Pancoli
Unknown
2
0
Sahni
Unknown
2
1600




Totals

6
2600
Grand Totals

89
433500

	Using the information about paṭos given in the “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī, one may determine the number of paṭāyats on the eve of Dharmāṭ and then, by subtracting the losses incurred in the battle, learn what percentage of them remained the day afterward.  By doing so, one can roughly estimate the damage done to the Mārvāṛ military as represented by its dominant element, the cākars who held these paṭos.  Tables 2 and 3 indicate the results of this endeavor.

Table 2.
Paṭāyats of the Jodhpur State before Dharmāṭ, April 15, 1658

Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūts
Clan
Branch
Number
Rekh
Rathor
Akhairajot
13
26000
Rathor
Baithvasiyo
6
2200
Rathor
Balavat
11
23820
Rathor
Bhimvot
3
4100
Rathor
Cacag
1
100
Rathor
Cahardevot
2
2500
Rathor
Campavat
19
177400
Rathor
Choto Bhojrajot
3
15000
Rathor
Cundavat
4
1600
Rathor
Devrajot
3
5190
Rathor
Dhandhal
5
5000
Rathor
Dungarot
7
6800
Rathor
Gogadevot
4
3000
Rathor
Jaitavat
15
67700
Rathor
Jaitmal
7
8500
Rathor
Jodho
20
90800
Rathor
Jolu
1
700
Rathor
Jujhaniyo
1
300
Rathor
Karamsot
15
59500
Rathor
Karanot
2
20400
Rathor
Khetsot
4
1900
Rathor
Kumpavat
12
32400
Rathor
Maheco
2
40700
Rathor
Mandlavat
8
23000
Rathor
Mertiyo
16
153800
Rathor
Naravat
2
36700
Rathor
Patavat
17
27700
Rathor
Phitak
1
300
Rathor
Purbiyo
3
7900
Rathor
Rupavat
10
12450
Rathor
Sindhal
3
600
Rathor
Sohar
2
800
Rathor
Sujavat
2
2000
Rathor
Udavat
22
155200
Rathor
Uhar
6
28100
Rathor
Vidavat
1
10000




TOTALS

253
1054160

Other Rajpūts
Clan
Branch
Number
Rekh
Bhati
Hamir
3
8500
Bhati
Jeso
19
90900
Bhati
Ravalot
3
13000
Bhati
Rupsi
1
1000
Bhati
Unknown
5
15250
Cahuvan
Baliso
1
700
Cahuvan
Boro
2
2800
Cahuvan
Devro
3
16750
Cahuvan
Khici
9
6150
Cahuvan
Sacoro
1
4000
Cahuvan
Sonagaro
7
29200
Cahuvan
Unknown
3
5600
Gahlot
Asayac
1
400
Gahlot
Gahlot
5
3450
Gahlot
Hul
0
0
Gahlot
Mangliyo
3
2800
Gahlot
Piparo
2
3500
Pamvar
Bhail
12
3190
Pamvar
Pamvar
11
6900
Pamvar
Sankhlo
2
1200
Pamvar
Sodho
2
1500
Parihar
Indo
25
21100
Parihar
Parihar
1
300
Solanki
None
1
2700
Tank
None
1
1000
Vais
None
2
600




TOTALS

125
242490

Non-Rajpūts
Caste or Category
Subdivision
Number
Rekh
Andholiyo
None
3
1800
Brahmin
Pokaran
1
100
Brahmin
Prohit
2
2000
Caran
Barat [Barhath]
4
5500
Citivan
None
2
0
Dhaybhai
None
12
7950
Mumhato
None
5
4200
Muslim
None
7
7000
Palaniyo
None
1
300
Pancoli
None
2
0
Rabari
None
6
2200
Rajlok
None
3
25000
Rav's wives
None
3
2500
Sahni
None
2
1600
Sobhavat
None
5
2900
Unknown
Unknown
2
350
Vaid
None
2
1200
Totals

62
64600
Grand Totals

440
1361250


Table 3.
Paṭāyats of the Jodhpur State after Dharmāṭ, April 17, 1658

Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūts
Clan
Branch
Number
Rekh
%Decline Number
%Decline Rekh
Rathor
Akhairajot
10
22200
-23%
-14.6%
Rathor
Baithvasiyo
6
2200
0
0
Rathor
Balavat
10
23520
-9%
-1.3%
Rathor
Bhimvot
1
2800
-66.7%
-31.7%
Rathor
Cacag
1
100
0
0
Rathor
Cahardevot
2
2500
0
0
Rathor
Campavat
11
51400
-42.1%
-71%
Rathor
Choto Bhojrajot
3
15000
0
0
Rathor
Cundavat
4
1600
0
0
Rathor
Devrajot
3
5190
0
0
Rathor
Dhandhal
3
1000
-40%
-80%
Rathor
Dungarot
6
6000
-14.3%
-11.8%
Rathor
Gogadevot
4
3000
0
0
Rathor
Jaitavat
12
28700
-20%
-57.6%
Rathor
Jaitmal
7
8500
0
0
Rathor
Jodho
17
77800
-15%
-14.3%
Rathor
Jujhaniyo
0
0
-100%
-100%
Rathor
Jolu
1
700
0
0
Rathor
Karamsot
11
15000
-27.9%
-25.2%
Rathor
Karanot
2
20400
0
0
Rathor
Khetsot
4
1900
0
0
Rathor
Kumpavat
10
29400
-16.7%
-49.8%
Rathor
Maheco
2
40700
0
0
Rathor
Mandlavat
8
23000
0
0
Rathor
Mertiyo
11
122700
-31.3%
-20.2%
Rathor
Naravat
2
36700
0
0
Rathor
Patavat
13
20100
-23.5%
-27.4%
Rathor
Phitak
1
300
0
0
Rathor
Purbiyo
2
6300
-33.3%
-20.3%
Rathor
Rupavat
9
10950
-10%
-12%
Rathor
Sindhal
3
600
0
0
Rathor
Sohar
2
800
0
0
Rathor
Sujavat
2
2000
0
0
Rathor
Udavat
17
92200
-22.7%
-40.6%
Rathor
Uhar
4
13800
-33.3%
-50.9%
Rathor
Vidavat
1
10000
0
0






TOTALS

205
699060
-19%
-33.7%

Other Rajpūts
Clan
Branch
Number
Rekh
%Decline Number
%Decline Rekh
Bhati
Hamir
2
7500
-33.3%
-11.8%
Bhati
Jeso
10
67700
-47.3%
-25.5%
Bhati
Ravalot
2
10000
-33.3%
-23%
Bhati
Rupsi
0
0
-100%
-100%
Bhati
Unknown
2
10050
-60%
-34.1%
Cahuvan
Baliso
1
700
0
0
Cahuvan
Boro
1
200
-50%
-92.9%
Cahuvan
Devro
3
16750
0
0
Cahuvan
Sacoro
0
0
-100%
-100%
Cahuvan
Khici
9
6150
0
0
Cahuvan
Sonagaro
4
10200
-42.9%
-65%
Cahuvan
Unknown
0
0
-100%
-100%
Gahlot
Asayac
0
0
-100%
-100%
Gahlot
Gahlot
5
3450
0
0
Gahlot
Hul
0
0
0
0
Gahlot
Mangliyo
2
1700
-33.3%
-39.3%
Gahlot
Piparo
1
1500
-50%
-46.4%
Pamvar
Bhail
10
2790
-16.7^
-12.5%
Pamvar
Pamvar
11
6900
0
0
Pamvar
Sankhlo
2
1200
0
0
Pamvar
Sodho
2
1500
0
0
Parihar
Indo
20
17250
-25%
-21.4%
Parihar
Parihar
1
300
0
0
Solanki
None
1
2700
0
0
Tank
None
1
1000
0
0
Vais
None
1
300
-50%
-50%






TOTALS

91
166740
-27.2%
-31.2%

Non-Rajpūts
Caste or Category
Subdivision
Number
Rekh
% Decline Number
%Decline Rekh
Andholiyo
None
3
1800
0
0
Brahmin
Pokaran
1
100
0
0
Brahmin
Prohit
2
2000
0
0
Caran
Barat [Barhath]
4
5500
0
0
Citivan
None
2
0
0
0
Dhaybhai
None
11
4800
-8.3%
-39.6%
Mumhato
None
4
3500
-20%
-16.7%
Muslim
None
7
7000
0
0
Palaniyo
None
0
0
-100%
-100%
Pancoli
None
0
0
-100%
-100%
Rabari
None
6
2200
0
0
Rajlok
None
3
25000
0
0
Rav's wives
None
3
2500
0
0
Sahni
None
0
0
-100%
-100%
Sobhavat
None
5
2900
0
0
Unknown
Unknown
2
350
0
0
Vaid
None
2
1200
0
0
Totals

55
58550
-11.3%
-8.9%
Grand Totals

351
924650
-20.2%
-32.1%

      The tables reveal first of all the importance of the Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūts in Rājā Jasvantsiṅgh’s army.  They comprised 256 [253?] of the total of 448 [440?] holders of paṭos on the eve of Dharmāṭ, and they held 76.6% of the total evaluation of the grants.  Their grants generally were larger and more lucrative than those of the other Rajpūts in the contingent.  They suffered greater losses in the battle as well.  Second, the overall dominance of Rajpūts within the army is apparent.  386 of the 448 paṭāyats on April 15, 1658 were Rajpūts, who held 95.3% of the combined evaluation of the grants.50  Finally, the tables indicate that Dharmāṭ overall was indeed a serious setback for Rājā Jasvantsingh.  19.9% of his cākars with paṭos—that is to say, the elite of his army—died in the battle.  In addition, 30.7% of the land held by these paṭāyats had reverted, temporarily at least, to the state, for when a paṭāyat died or was killed his land usually was resumed, if only briefly, into the khālso or demesne, of the Rājā of Jodhpur until it was reassigned.  Reassignment was not guaranteed, however.  In the months following Dharmāṭ, Rājā Jasvantsiṅgh made many grants to new paṭāyats and rebuilt his military.
      
Table 4.  Summary of Tables 1-3

      
Date
Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūt paṭāyats
Other Rajpūt paṭāyats
Non-Rajpūt
paṭāyats
Total number of paṭāyats
Paṭāyats of the Jodhpur State before Dharmāṭ, April 15, 1658
253
125
62
440
Losses at Dharmāṭ, April 15, 1658
48
34
7
89
Paṭāyats of the Jodhpur State after losses at Dharmāṭ, April 15, 1658
205
91
55
351


After Dharmāṭ:  The Assignment of Paṭos to the End of V.S. 1715
(April 16, 1658-June 24, 1659)

And [Rājā Jasvantsiṅgh] proceeded to Jodhpur [in 1659] and assembled [his] contingent.  He gave paṭos to the recipients of paṭos (paṭavālāṃ).  And to the rest he gave daily wages.  He established and gave two rupees daily to the sirdārs (men with retinues), eight annas daily to the riders of horses, and four annas daily to those on foot.  He assembled all [these] people—land holders, those on salaries— twenty-five thousand [men].51


Table 5.  Paṭāyats on June 24, 1659

Rāṭhoṛs

Clan
Branch
Number at
End of
VS 1715
June 24, 1659
Rekh
Rathor
Akhairajot
12
27500
Rathor
Baithvasiyo
7
2450
Rathor
Balavat
14
28420
Rathor
Bharmalot
0
0
Rathor
Bhimvot
4
4900
Rathor
Cacag
1
100
Rathor
Cahardevot
2
2500
Rathor
Campavat
19
152900
Rathor
Choto Bhojrajot
3
15000
Rathor
Cundavat
4
1600
Rathor
Devrajot
3
5190
Rathor
Dhandhal
3
1000
Rathor
Dungarot
6
6000
Rathor
Gogadevot
4
3000
Rathor
Jaisinghot
0
0
Rathor
Jaitavat
17
59700
Rathor
Jaitmal
7
8500
Rathor
Jodho
27
174200
Rathor
Jolu
1
700
Rathor
Kandhalot
0
0
Rathor
Karamsot
16
32300
Rathor
Karanot
2
20400
Rathor
Khangarot
2
12400
Rathor
Khetsot
5
2600
Rathor
Kumpavat
17
66800
Rathor
Maheco
2
40070
Rathor
Mandanot
1
4000
Rathor
Mandlavat
8
23000
Rathor
Mertiyo
14
138700
Rathor
Naravat
2
36770
Rathor
Patavat
13
22800
Rathor
Phitak
1
300
Rathor
Purbiyo
2
11300
Rathor
Rupavat
9
10950
Rathor
Sindhal
4
1000
Rathor
Sohar
2
800
Rathor
Sujavat
2
2000
Rathor
Udavat
21
120240
Rathor
Uhar
6
23320
Rathor
Vidavat
1
10000
Rathor
Vikavat
0
0
TOTALS

264
1073410

Non Rāṭhoṛ Rajpūts

Clan
Branch
Number at End of VS 1715
 June 24, 1659
Rekh
Bhati
Hamir
2
7500
Bhati
Jeso
12
74200
Bhati
Ravalot
2
10000
Bhati
Unknown
2
10050
Cahuvan
Baliso
1
700
Cahuvan
Boro
1
200
Cahuvan
Devro
7
32850
Cahuvan
Khici
9
6150
Cahuvan
Sonigaro
5
19400
Gahlot
Gahlot
5
3450
Gahlot
Hul
0
0
Gahlot
Mangliyo
3
2700
Gahlot
Piparo
1
1500
Gaur
None
0
0
Kachvaho
None
0
0
Pamvar
Bhail
10
2790
Pamvar
Pamvar
11
6900
Pamvar
Sankhlo
3
1800
Pamvar
Sodho
2
1500
Parihar
Indo
25
18850
Parihar
Parihar
2
700
Solanki
None
1
2700
Tank
None
1
1000
Vais
None
1
300
TOTALS

106
205240

Non-Rajpūts

Caste or Category
Subdivision
Number at End of VS 1715
June 24, 1659
Rekh
Andholiyo
None
3
1800
Brahmin
Pokaran
1
100
Brahmin
Prohit
2
2000
Caran
Barat
4
5500
Citivan
None
2
0
Dhaybhai
None
11
4800
Mumhato
None
5
4200
Muslim
None
7
7000
Rabari
None
6
2200
Rajlok
None
3
25000
Rav's wives
None
3
2500
Sobhavat
None
5
2900
Unknown
Unknown
2
350
Vaid
None
2
1200
TOTALS

56
59550
GRAND TOTALS


426

1338130






Clan
Branch
Number
End of
VS 1715
June 24, 1659
Rekh
Number
End of
VS 1720
June 28, 1664
Rekh
Rathor
Akhairajot
12
27500
20
41900
Rathor
Baithvasiyo
7
2450
6
2450
Rathor
Balavat
14
28420
20
30920
Rathor
Bharmalot
0
0
3
12000
Rathor
Bhimvot
4
4900
4
5400
Rathor
Cacag
1
100
1
100
Rathor
Cahardevot
2
2500
3
3500
Rathor
Campavat
19
152900
28
222800
Rathor
Choto Bhojrajot
3
15000
3
15000
Rathor
Cundavat
4
1600
6
3100
Rathor
Devrajot
3
5190
3
5190
Rathor
Dhandhal
3
1000
8
3550
Rathor
Dungarot
6
6000
6
6000
Rathor
Gogadevot
4
3000
4
3000
Rathor
Jaisinghot
0
0
1
100
Rathor
Jaitavat
17
59700
21
95400
Rathor
Jaitmal
7
8500
13
20100
Rathor
Jodho
27
174200
46
324900
Rathor
Jolu
1
700
2
850
Rathor
Kandhalot
0
0
1
10000
Rathor
Karamsot
16
32300
26
60950
Rathor
Karanot
2
20400
4
31400
Rathor
Khangarot
2
12400
2
12400
Rathor
Khetsot
5
2600
7
3500
Rathor
Kumpavat
17
66800
36
222650
Rathor
Maheco
2
40070
5
58070
Rathor
Mandanot
1
4000
1
4000
Rathor
Mandlavat
8
23000
12
37000
Rathor
Mertiyo
14
138700
35
239550
Rathor
Naravat
2
36770
3
39770
Rathor
Patavat
13
22800
15
22500
Rathor
Phitak
1
300
1
300
Rathor
Purbiyo
2
11300
3
15400
Rathor
Rupavat
9
10950
11
18150
Rathor
Sindhal
4
1000
4
1000
Rathor
Sohar
2
800
3
1500
Rathor
Sujavat
2
2000
2
2800
Rathor
Udavat
21
120240
29
192040
Rathor
Uhar
6
23320
6
22620
Rathor
Vidavat
1
10000
2
11000
Rathor
Vikavat
0
0
1
8000
TOTALS

264
1073410
407
1810860



Clan

Branch
Number
End of
VS 1715
June 24, 1659
Rekh
Number
End of
VS 1720
June 28, 1664
Rekh
Bhati
Hamir
2
7500
2
7500
Bhati
Jeso
12
74200
14
93700
Bhati
Ravalot
2
10000
3
13400
Bhati
Unknown
2
10050
4
15050
Cahuvan
Baliso
1
700
1
700
Cahuvan
Boro
1
200
1
200
Cahuvan
Devro
7
32850
10
34650
Cahuvan
Khici
9
6150
9
6150
Cahuvan
Sonigaro
5
19400
5
32400
Gahlot
Gahlot
5
3450
5
3450
Gahlot
Hul
0
0
2
1200
Gahlot
Mangliyo
3
2700
5
8700
Gahlot
Piparo
1
1500
2
3500
Gaur
None
0
0
1
19000
Kachvaho
None
0
0
4
27500
Pamvar
Bhail
10
2790
11
3040
Pamvar
Pamvar
11
6900
11
6900
Pamvar
Sankhlo
3
1800
3
1800
Pamvar
Sodho
2
1500
2
1500
Parihar
Indo
25
18850
27
20850
Parihar
Parihar
2
700
1
300
Solanki
None
1
2700
2
1400
Tank
None
1
1000
1
1000
Vais
None
1
300
2
5300
TOTALS

106
205240
128
309190



NON-RAJPUTS

Caste or Category
Subdivision
Number
VS 1715
Rekh
Number
VS 1720
Rekh
Andholiyo
None
3
1800
3
1800
Brahmin
Pokaran
1
100
1
100
Brahmin
Prohit
2
2000
2
2000
Caran
Barat
4
5500
3
5400
Citivan
None
2
0
2
0
Dhaybhai
None
11
4800
11
4800
Mumhato
None
5
4200
5
4200
Muslim
None
7
7000
7
7000
Rabari
None
6
2200
6
2200
Rajlok
None
3
25000
3
25000
Rav's wives
None
3
2500
3
2500
Sobhavat
None
5
2900
5
2900
Unknown
Unknown
2
350
2
350
Vaid
None
2
1200
2
1200
TOTALS

56
59550
55
59450
GRAND TOTALS


426

1338130

590

2179500


1 Paṭo:  a land grant; a document providing specifics about such a grant.  Paṭos were usually given only to military servants, but a very few were granted to wives of rulers to provide income.

2 Cākar also was used more generally, but very rarely, to refer to a servant of any kind.  Cf. Muṃhato Naiṇsī, Muṃhatā Naiṇsī viracit Muṃhatā Naiṇsīrī Khyāt, edited by Badrīprasād Sākariyā, 4 vols. (Jodhpur:  Rājasthān Prācyavidyā Pratiṣṭhān, 1960-67), 2:274.  A more common word in seventeenth-century sources for service of a general nature was hīṛo; a person providing such service was called a hīṛāgar.  Some  hīṛāgars provided menial military services, however (see below, p. 11, n. 43).

3 Dirk H.A. Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy:  The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, 1450-1850 (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 20 & passim.

4 John D. Smith, The Visaladevarasa:  A Restoration of the Text (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 26.

5 Ibid., 37.1, 37.6, 38.1, 40.2 , 41.1, 50.6, 52.2, 53.1 57.1, 58.1, 64.1, 72.8, 115.1, 118.4 , 119.1.

6 Vyās Bhāṇḍā, Hammīrāyaṇa, edited by Bhavarlāl Nāhṭā (Bīkāner:  Sādūl Rājasthanī Risarc-Insṭīṭyūṭ, 2017 [1960], v. 19.

7 Cīṇ Bhoṭ Daṇḍūr desapati Ḍhīlī ūlag lyāvai.  Padmanābh, Kānhāḍade Prabandha, edited by Kāntīlāl Baldevrām Vyās (Jaypur:  Rājasthān Purātattva Mandir, 1953), 2:69.

8 Ibid., 4:43.

9 Smith, The Visaladevarasa, 3.5, n. c.  See also 5.3, 69.9, 87.7, 101.3.

10 Vyās Bhāṇḍā, Hammīrāyaṇa, vv. 33, 280-281.

11 Sivdās, Acaladāsa Khīcī rī Vacanikā, edited by Śambhusiṃh Manohar (Jodhpur:  Rājasthān Prācyavidyā Pratiṣṭhān, 1991), p. 224.  Ulagāṇo was still in use in mid-seventeenth century Mārvāṛ.  Moṭo Rājā Udaisiñgh Māldevot (ruler of Jodhpur, 1583-95) considered Vāgh Tiloksīyot, a Kūmpāvat Rāṭhoṛ, an ulagāṇo because he left Mārvāṛ for Sīrohī to serve Rāv Rāysiñgh, a Mughal mansabdār (see Rao Udaibhan Champawat ri Khyat, edited by Raghubir Sinh; 2 vols. in 4 (New Delhi:  Indian Council of Historical Research, 1984), 1:324.  This text was compiled before 1679).  Ulagāṇo also appears in Old Gujarātī texts.  See Prācīn Gurjar Kāvya Sañcay, ed. by H. C. Bhayāṇī, Agarcand Nāhṭā (Ahmadāvād:  Lālbhāī Dalpatbhāī Saṃskṛti Vidyāmandir, 1975), p. 111, v. 10 (olagāṇo, glossed as “sevak” or “servant”).  This book is an anthology of Apabhraṃsa Jain poems, mostly from the thirteenth century.

12 “Ūmade Bhaṭiyāṇī rī Vāṭ” (“Tale of Ūmāde Bhaṭiyāṇī”) in Rājasthānī Vāt-saṅgrah, edited by Manohar Śarmā and Śrīlāl Nathmaljī Jośī (Naī Dillī:  Sāhitya Akādemī, 1984), p. 184; “Jagdev Paṃvār rī Vāt” (“Tale of Jagdev Paṃvār”), idem., p. 134.

13 Daḷpat Vilās, edited by Rāvat Sarasvat (Bīkāner:  Sādūl Rājasthānī Risarc Insṭīṭyūṭ, 1960), p. 5.

14 Muṃhato Naiṇsī, Khyāt, 2:68-69.

15 The term uḷag or oḷag (Sanskrit avalagna) was in use from at least the eighth century onward.  Dasharatha Sharma, Rajasthan through the Ages (Bikaner:  Rajasthan State Archives, 1966), pp. 341-342.  Perhaps the change in vocabulary in the sixteenth century was due to the arrival of the Mughals and their new administrative system, which was copied in Mārvāṛ.  Cākar / cākrī are Persian words; Persian was the Imperial language of the Mughal administration, and, although Rājasthānī was the administrative language of the Jodhpur kingdom, it included many Persian and Arabic words by 1650.

16 “[The recipient of the grant] will perform military service in noble fashion; he will go where sent; he will not be able to refuse.”  G.D. Sharma, Rajput Polity:  A Study of Politics and Administration of the State of Marwar, 1638-1749 (New Delhi:  Manohar, 1977), p. 156, n. 17.

17 “Gām rā Dhaṇīṃ rīṃ [sic] Vāt” (“Tale of the Lord of a Village), in Rājasthānī Vātāṃ, edited by Saubhāgyasiṃh Śekhāvat (Udaypur:  Sāhitya-Saṃsthān, n.d.), 3:107.

18 Muṃhato Naiṇsī, Khyāt, 1:198.

19 Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt, edited by Raghuvīr Siṃh and Manoharsiṃh Rāṇāvat (Nayī Dillī:  Bhāratīy Itihās Anusandhān Pariṣad, evaṃ Pañcśīl Prakāśan, Jaypur, 1988), pp. 220-221.  Cf. Mūndiyāṛ rī Khyāt:  Jodhpur Rājya kā Itihās, edited by Vikramsiṃh Bhāṭī (Jhoṭṛā, Sāñcor:  Ṭhā. Arjunsiṃh Sonagarā, 2005), pp. 103-105, which describes as ummedvārs those retainers referred to as gair cākars in the Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt .

20 Ibid., p. 220.  Bandagī (servitude) is replaced by cākrī in the similar Mūndiyāṛ rī Khyāt  note about Bhīm (p. 103).  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries bandagī was increasingly employed in Mārvāṛ as a synonym for cākrī.

21 Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt, p. 222.

22 “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,” in Marwar under Jaswant Singh (1658-1678):  Jodhpur Hukumat ri Bahi, edited by Satish Chandra, Raghubir Sinh and G.D. Sharma (Meerut:  Meenakshi Prakashan, 1976), pp. 35, 67.  Bhadani has remarked that gair cākars were sometimes paid only with food rations.  B.L. Bhadani, Peasants, Artisans and Entrepreneurs:  Economy of Marwar in the Seventeenth Century  (Jaipur:  Rawat Publications, 1999), p. 291.

23 Vikramāditya Māldevot was one of the sons of Rāv Mālde of Jodhpur (1532-62).

24 Rāṭhoṛāṃ rī Khyāt (Murārdān rī Khyāt), MS no. 15658 (Rājasthān Prācyavidyā Pratiṣṭhān, Jodhpur), p. 622.

25 Rao Udaibhan Champawat ri Khyat, 1:342.

26 Sharma, Rajput Polity, p. 128.

27 “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,” pp. 125-237, and see below, p..

28 Naiṇsī, Khyāṭ, 1:332.

29 “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,” p. 19.

30 Cihnadhara is found in the Mahābhārata, but only once (James L. Fitzgerald, personal communication).  See also D.C. Sircar, Indian Epigraphical Glossary (Delhi:  Motilal Banarsidass, 1966), p. 74.

31Daḷpat Vilās, p. 63-64.

32 Ibid., “Śabdakoṣ,” p. 5.  Cīndhaṛiyo is found on pp. 30, 53, 64, and 81 of this text.

33 Norman P. Ziegler, “Evolution of the Rathor State of Marvar:  Horses, Structural Change and Warfare,” in The Idea of Rajasthan:  Explorations in Regional Identity, edited by Karine Schomer et al. (Columbia, Mo.:  South Asia Publications by arrangement with Manohar Publishers & Distributors; New Delhi:  American Institute of Indian Studies, 1994), 2:201.

34 “Vāt Jaitmāl Salkhāvat rī,” (“Tale of Jaitmāl Salkhāvat”) in Bātāṃ ro Jhūmakho, 3 vols., edited by Manohar Śarmā (Bisau:  Rājasthan Sāhitya Samiti, Saṃ 2021 [1964]), 1:46.

35 Muṃhato Naiṇsī, Khyāt, 1:247-248.

36 Ibid., 3:84.

37 “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,” pp. 68-70.

38 “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,” pp. 68-70; see also below, pp.  See also the discussion of Prince Daḷpat’s contingent and its cīndhaṛs, supra, pp. 6-7.

39 Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt, p. 321.

40  Muṃhato Naiṇsī, Khyāt, 2:

41 Rao Udaibhan Champawat ri Khyāt, 1:339, 350, 416, 417, 437, 2:1:260.  Evidently these cīndhaṛs, described as “noble,” “great,” “very fierce,” etc., drew extended biographical notice not simply because they were cīndhaṛs, but because they were exceptional.
 
42 Some gair cākars had no retainers and perhaps could be considered cīndhaṛs.  The gair cākars of the ummedvārī were not cīndhaṛs, however.  See below, pp. 2

43 Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy, p. 172.

44 I have omitted any detailed discussion here of another category of retainer, hīṛāgar.  Hīṛāgars were retainers of low rank, either Rajpūts or non-Rajpūts, who performed a variety of specific types of menial military service (hīṛo), e.g., bāndārs (rocket-bearers), chobdārs (mace-bearers), etc.  These men usually were maintained, as opposed to being paid, by their commanders, who provided them with food and lodging.  They very seldom received paṭos and, unlike cīndhaṛs, probably could not contract their services.

45 “Jodhpur Hukūmat rī Bahī,” pp. 125-237.  The pāṭā bahī evidently was compiled just after the battle of Dharmāṭ on April 16, 1658, as those killed in that battle are not listed as paṭo holders.  It was continued until Rājā Jasvantsiṅgh’s death in 1678 but is not as detailed after 1672-73.

46 Eight of these men had been picked up from the battlefield and rescued prior to the others.  Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt, p. 232. 

47 Ibid., pp. 231-232.

48 Kānotā, 

49 Rekh:  the evaluation in rupees of the yearly income of a paṭo.
50 It is more difficult to determine the composition of the various contingents of the paṭāyats.  What few examples exist in the sources suggest that these contingents were also mainly composed of Rajpūts, but more varied with regard to clan and branch than the body of paṭāyats itself.  Generally among paṭāyats only cīndhaṛs did not have contingents.  I will have more to say about the size of these contingents in Part III below.
51 Jodhpur Rājya kī Khyāt, p. 238.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------




7