influence of the Rājput landholders. Col. Walker found them a bold and turbulent set, some of whom commanded the services of a considerable number of horsemen whom they hired out to such of the neighbouring powers as required them. Having made their headquarters at the Kasba of Dholka they amassed wealth: and the Mahrathas found them useful. The Dholka division had (in the disorders of the time) been reduced to an uncultivated waste. The Kasbātis offered to employ their capital in restoring cultivation, on condition that each village which they "restored" should be leased to them at a fixed revenue-total for a term of years. Of course the leases (as always) were by their influence continually renewed; and from this vantage ground, having bought up or taken in mortgage (for arrears of rent) many lands in the neighbourhood, the Kasbātis grew into the position of de facto landlords. In 1817, however, the whole of the villages were treated by the Government officers as ordinary raiyatwāri villages, of the revenues of which the Kasbātis had hitherto held the farm or lease but under the advice of Mr. Elphinstone (above alluded to) the rights of the Kasbātis were to some extent recognised; periodic "leases" were given the revenue being fixed at two-thirds of the landlord's shareplacing them on the same footing as the Talukdārs. Nor were the Kasbātis (or some of them at least) better off: the chief among them, Bāpu Miyan, fell into great distress. In time, by the effect of certain Government rules, the provisions of the Talukdārs Act of 1862 were extended to them.* At the same time an inquiry into the origin of the Kasbāti claims was made, and it appeared that a considerable proportion of each "estate was made up of lands mortgaged or sold to them as the revenue-farmers of some neighbouring centre. Accordingly only a limited number of villages were allowed to continue on the "Kasbāti” tenure. Some villages were "resumed" (and settled with the raiyats) as a just title was not established to the superior ownership. Others were not actually taken away from the holders, but were surveyed in detail and assessed at full rates, the holders being "superior occupants." Only the actual area of the old "farms" seems to have been allowed any revenue-privilege, and that in a varying degree. The result was that of 56 villages in Ahmadābād and Kaira, twenty-two were "resumed," that is, found not subject to the Kasbāti's claims at all. In 5 villages there was (for some reason I have not discovered) a special Government management imposed in 12 villages the Kasbātis remain as superior occupants, but at full assessment; in 9 a special grant is given, allowing the Kasbāti 20 per cent. of the revenue-receipts (a sort of "Talukdārī allowance" as it would be called in Upper India) in 8 the "Kasbāti " is recorded as in the 12 just mentioned, but with the variation that the benefit of the superior title is represented by the "inferior" or direct occupants having to pay a rent-rate not exceeding twice the survey (revenue) rate.†

* The Act did not define the term Talukdār. When the revised Act of 1888 was passed, the term was made (by definition) to include Kasbātis, as I have already explained.

In the Agricultural Returns of 1890-91, I observe that the Table (Bombay D. varieties of tenure) does not separate the Kasbāti from the tālukdāri estates, and represents the total (tālukdāri) villages as 530 held by 493 "proprietors," so that most estates must consist of but a single village each. Mewāsi villages are still shown separately.

Maliki Villages.

As already mentioned, these tenures are found in one place-the Thansra Tālukā of KAIRA (Kheḍā). They are examples of estates which were once simply and purely proprietary, by free-grant of the Ruler, in reward for service. They had, however, in the course of time, become so divided up, that the proposal to constitute them a series of estates (in the hands of the principal sharers or heads of existing families) on the basis of the "Talukdāri" or Thakurs', or the Kasbāti estates, was declined by the holders.

A certain number (not stated in the histories) of soldiers who had shown bravery in the storming of the Fort of Pavangarh (Chāmpāner) in A.D. 1483 were rewarded by the Sultan with a free grant of land of about 90 square miles in extent. They divided this up, and established a certain number of original villages-the parents of all the rest. In 1828 a report speaks of the tract as the " Bārāgām," or 12 villages.* As the families grew, the usual process is observable; additional lands were brought under cultivation; small hamlets were built in the vicinity of the new lands: these gradually grew into independent villages. When the Survey (of 1860) reached them, they appear to have numbered 17, and in 1872-73 Col. Anderson speaks of 27.

Originally these villages were held in full property, and were free of land revenue. But the Mahrathas, of course, imposed a fixed tribute or quit-rent, and after their manner, supplemented the demand of a further cess called "ghās-dāna" (on the pretence of it being to supply grain and grass for the chiefs' horses).† The "Māliks" shared the burden with their tenantry; for while the latter paid the usual rents in kind (wajé) and also a new cess (to help pay the ghās-dāna) called "karmvero," at the same time the proportion of produce taken was reduced from one-half to one-third. In the first years of British rule it would seem that there was some mismanagement, and the villages were made to pay revenue to the Government, as well as a tribute (which went in some cases to Baroda, in others to another state). In 1824, however, the Maliks obtained the benefit of Mr. Elphinstone's orders (above alluded to), and were allowed to manage their own villages as landlords, paying a lump-sum of revenue. When the Survey was made, it seems that the usual tendency to regard the estates as "Government lands" was manifested; that is to say, whatever lands were found in the actual possession of the Malik families themselves were treated as a kind of “alienated" land, and recorded as their property; but all the tenant-lands were called "Government lands." Under the latter or more modern procedure of survey, however, it was proposed that the villages (as now divided between the various branches of the original families) should be regarded as so many proprietary estates, each paying a

Not, I apprehend, that (by that time) there were only 12 villages-representing the divided lots of 12 descendant families-but that the tradition of this number of parentvillages lingered and gave its name to the locality.

† Col. Anderson says that this was levied as long as 150 years ago-i.e., at the first beginning of Mahratha interferences: hence in after days the levy was regarded as established by a sort of prescription.

total or lump-sum of revenue. This, however, the Maliks declined, on the ground that the shareholders had become so numerous that they would not be able to manage.*

Accordingly all the villages were surveyed like any other lands. Only the "gharkhed" or home farms and lands in actual possession of the Malik families, were permitted to be held revenue-free; and arrangements were made to give them a certain proportion (varying from a little more to a little less than 50 per cent.) of the Government-revenue assessment on all the remaining (tenant) lands. The Government appoints village officers, but on the nomination of the Maliks. Thus the formal existence of the tenure as a class of "estates" has virtually come to an end: the original owners are, in fact, revenue-freeholders of particular fields; and pensioners or beneficiaries on the revenue, of the rest. It is, in fact, essentially the spirit of the different revenue-systems that has led to the conclusion-which is, after all, quite possibly to the benefit of the families. Under a different system they would most certainly have become pattidārī village communities, and included in the common mass of those bodies which are supposed to illustrate primitive community of property in land!

* Of course, as in other cases, each chief sharer would be answerable for the quota of the sub-sharers, and some chief manager would be responsible (in turn) to collect the shares of the principals: it was this sort of joint liability that they feared. In Upper India each village body of co-sharers would have been recorded as a pattidārī village community; and the difficulty would have been solved by so fixing the revenue-total and adjusting the "bachh (or list of payments to be made by each co-sharer) that

quarrels would be obviated.

HÁJIS AND THE HAJJ.

BY THE REV. J. D. BATTE, M.R.A.S.

THE latter of these two words is the term technically in use among Muḥammadans to designate the observance of "pilgrimage" as practised by them. The word is also spelt “Hijj”—a variant form, the exact sense of which as distinguished from the other form is a point of learned dispute which it does not fall within our present purpose to follow up.* But the reader should be on his guard against the various fantastic spellings of the word-such as Haj, Hadj, Hedj, Hadje, Hagge, Hadsh, etc.—all of which have distinguished English and Continental patrons. As we are bound to adopt some particular form of the word, we prefer to adopt the one which best exhibits to the English eye the exact value of the original letters.

66

The word is derived from the Hebrew substantival form Khâg, which signifies "a festival"; and as the Jews had to go to Jerusalem to observe their festivals, the word comes to signify also "a religious journey"; and hence a pilgrimage." Thus much for the Hebrew in Arabic the term signifies " a repairing to," "a betaking one's self to," "a setting out for," "a tending towards." It is explained by Muslim divines to be equivalent to Qasd, "an aspiring"; and they say that it expresses a man's sentiment that he is but a wayfarer on earth, wending his way towards another and better world. This interpretation helps to explain the origin of the belief that the greater the hardships endured while on the Pilgrimage the greater at last will be the reward of the pious wanderer. He is said to be urged on by the voice within his soul: "O thou that toilest so hard for worldly pleasures and perishable profit, wilt thou endure nothing to secure a more lasting benefit ?" Hence it is that pilgrimage is common to all old Faiths. Not only did the Jews annually flock to Jerusalem, but even the philosophers of Greece and Rome in classic times made pilgrimages to the land of the Pharaohs. Pilgrimage evidently appeals to some sentiment common to mankind and deep-seated in the nature of the race. The spirit of pilgrimage was predominant in medieval Europe; and the processions of the Roman Catholic Church are, according to the statements of her votaries, but modern memorials of the rite.

The pilgrimages, however, of Muslims, like those of Hindús, are not limited to one spot. Besides Mekka, there are very many other places also to which they are wont to perform pilgrimages. These numerous localities are situated in all lands in which Muḥammadans dwell in no less than three out of the four quarters of the globe; and they are chiefly memorable and revered in the estimation of the pilgrims by reason of historical association. Many of them are burial-places of persons regarded by the Faithful as specially holy; such as Pîrs, Walîs, etc. These terms are the technical epithets of canonized saints: the former, signifying "venerable men," is applied to spiritual guides or superiors; also to those * The reader who cares to pursue the point may, with advantage, consult Lane' Arabic Lexicon, p. 814, col. 2 (edn. Lond., 1865).

+ Cf. Burton, Pilgrimage, ii. 372 (edn. Lond., 1857).

who may have been the founders of religious sects or schools; while the latter is applied to men held to have been particular friends (or favourites) of God, and it attributes to those who wear it a measure of Divine inspiration. Burckhardt speaks of there being one of these localities at Tanta, in the Delta of the Nile. A festival is celebrated there no less than three times a year in honour of a Pîr (" saint ") named “Al-Badawi.” As many as a hundred thousand persons sometimes swarm thither from all parts of Egypt to perform a pilgrimage resembling in many respects the Pilgrimage of Mekka, swallowing up savings collected for the purpose by the poorer classes of Cairo. As to the word "Hajj," however, it is limited in its application, being strictly confined to denoting "pilgrimage to the city of Mekka and the performance of the annual religious ceremonies of the place." Religious journeys to all the other places which Muslims deem sacred are designated by the subordinate and more commonplace term Ziyárat, "a religious journey" or "call," "a pious visitation." Even journeys to Medína and Karbala are not honoured by the term “ Ḥajj.” Not only so; even a journey to the Sacred City itself is not called by the specific and dignified term "Hajj" unless it be performed at a certain season of the Muslim year to wit, in the period embraced by the four days extending from the 7th to the 10th of Ziu'l-Hijja," the twelfth and last month of the Muḥammadan year; and unless also the pilgrim perform in detail there a certain set of ceremonies in a certain order. The most essential of these ceremonies is the being present at 'Arafat on the occasion of the delivery of the annual sermon there in the afternoon of the 9th of the month just named: this ceremony is technically known as Al-Waqfa ("the Standing"-scil., "on 'Arafát "), and is absolutely indispensable.

The man who has actually performed the Hajj is entitled by law to wear, till the day of his death and ever after, the proud and envied epithet of "Haji." The form and pronunciation of this title depend upon localities; but the root of all the forms of it is one and the same, and so is the sense or intention. Thus, in Egypt the man would be called "Hâjj" or "Ḥâjij": the latter of these is the less general form, and its plural is "Hajij ": of the former there are two plurals, "Hujj" and "Hujjâj." Lane says that "Ḥâjj" is the most usual form of the title among genuine Arabs, but that "Hâji" is also Arabic, and is used synonymously and interchangeably therewith by the Turks and Persians: he adds, however, that he has not found the word so used in any classic work. This learned and careful observer elsewhere says that in Egypt the term "Hâjj" is applied both collectively and individually; in other words, to an entire "caravan of pilgrims," to any body of Mekkan pilgrims whatsoever, and also to a single pilgrim.* This corresponds entirely with Burton's usage, who was wont to sign himself "Al-Hajj." In Hindustan the form "Hâji" prevails very extensively, almost exclusively; and there is danger of inferring by the analogy of the language (that is to say, from its termination) that this is a Hindustani form: it is, however, a genuine Arabic form, and is very

* Cf. Lane, Modern Egyptians, i. 181; his Arabic Lexicon, p. 515, cols. I and 2; and his translation of the Arabian Nights, chap. xv., note 34 (or vol. ii., p. 4763, edn. Lond., 1840).