Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

On the Fringes: The Making of Marginality

Kartika Saharan Ph.D. Scholar, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, G.D. Goenka University, Sohna, ,

ABSTRACT

India is home to a highly diverse population cut across various regions, religions, ethnicity, languages, cultures and traditions. Historically, such heterogeneous societies have often witnessed contestations and conflicts between and among communities, groups or individuals for their sustainability which in the long run hampered the holistic growth and development of the region. The dominant and powerful groups exert their control and restrict the progress of the subdued individuals, impelling the latter to the fringes or ‘periphery’ of the society. Over time, one group is able to acquire more favours from the state which corresponds to an increase in their power; thereby, dominating others and containing their influence in the region, resulting in their marginalization. People-to-people conflict or ethnic conflict is perhaps rooted in usurping more and more power and property as well as in religion and politics which is deeply entrenched in human societies. The present paper explores from a historical panorama the impact of community viz.-a-viz. development and progress in the Mewat region due to the changing power notion from 13th-18th centuries between the Meos who once dominated this region and the Narukas who eventually marginalized the Meos.1 Before 1351 AD, the Meos were low-caste ordinary peasants always in conflict with the central authority. However, between 1351 AD and1680 AD they were able to upraise themselves to the status of zamindars. But with the downfall of the in the eighteenth century, the Meos lost their dominant status as the power of the Narukas increased. This resulted in the marginalization of the Meo community.

Keywords: Meos, Mewat, Narukas, marginalization

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘marginalization’ means exclusion of such people from mainstream society who are either less advantageous or considered to be no more desirable or who no longer serve any useful function in society. This in turn hinders their scope and means of survival. According to Leonard (1984) marginality is “… being outside the mainstream of productive activity and/or social reproductive activity.”2 Marginalization may vary in form or intensity- from a more intense form of genocide and ethnic cleansing such as the German Holocaust to a relatively fundamental economic and social deprivation such as the Dalits in India.

This paper is based on archival sources catalogued at the State Archives at Bikaner which has a treasure- trove of many arzdashts, arshatthas, dastur komwar, vakil reports, yaddashtis, etc. These documents delineate the process of negotiations and contestations between the Meos and the Mughal rulers on one hand and between the Meos and the Narukas on the other as they throw light on the agrarian and political conditions pertaining to the parganas of Mewat. Indo-Persian sources such as Baburnama, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, Ain-i-Akbari and Tarikh-i-Firozshahi also throw ample light on the changing socio-political equations in this region.

1 The Mewat region is conterminous to the Dundhar region ( territories). 2 Leonard, P. (1984). Personality and Ideology: Towards a Materialist Understanding of the Individual. London: Macmillan. p.80

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 824 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

II.

The fall of the Mughal Empire had wide-ranging ramifications on the history of the Indian subcontinent. Ali (1975) and Streausand (1989) states that the fulcrum of the empire was the interconnected networks of revenue, mansab, jagir and currency.3 These systems find their genesis in ’s reign and spread and penetrated throughout the Mughal Empire.4 The Mughals enjoyed allegiance and acknowledgement from among its subjects. This is substantiated by Banarasidas who writes that people of Jaunpur were so attached to Akbar that on hearing about his death they felt orphaned.5

But by the closing years of the 17th century a process of internal decay had already kindled the Mughal Empire which led to political ferment, agrarian disturbances and dwindling commerce. According to Habib (1995), the disintegration of the Mughal Empire proved to be a decisive moment for many umaras (high-born nobles), local zamindars and rural communities.6 Alam (1986) and Richards (1983) conclude that eighteenth century saw the undoing of many imperial nobles and many high-ranking families lost their advantageous position in the society rendering them insignificant. The reign of Jahandar Shah and Farrukhsiyar saw extermination of many nobles.7 Contemporaneously, this period was also marked by an increase in the power and status of a very few imperial nobles, local and/or lower-caste zamindars and military crusaders. Through their maneuvering tactics and timely moves, they were able to carve out the successor states of , Bengal, Hyderabad and .8

With the decline in the power of the Mughal Empire, the political power was veering from the imperial court to the rural countryside. Taking advantage of this transition, lower caste zamindars and military crusaders overtook vast territories and became rulers such as Jats, Marathas, Sikh and Narukas. Similarly, Habib (1997) points out that many village headmen too, grew into zamindars.9 Besides this, Kolf (1990) remarks that another factor contributing to the fall of the Mughal Empire, was the ever increasing militancy among various low-ranking castes.10

Thus, undoubtedly by the eighteenth century, the Mughal Empire had developed severe cracks which led to social churning and political realignment at pan-India level in general and in Mewat in particular. In Mewat too, communities experienced changes and re-arrangements in power which had a long lasting impact on their social standing in the reign.

3 Ali, M.A. (1972). Proceedings of the Indian History Congress (PIHC). 33rd Session: Muzaffarpur. pp.175-188. He emphasizes on Akbar’s reign for the evolution of these systems; Streusand, D.E. (1984). The Formation of Mughal Empire. : OUP. p.14 4 Richards, J.F. (1993). The Mughal Empire (The New Cambridge History of India 1.5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. XV, 1-2; Ali, M.A. (1997). The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb. Delhi: OUP. p. XXV; and Habib, I. (2001). The Economic History of Medieval India – A Survey. Delhi: Tulika. pp.39-41 5 Lath, M. (Trans.). (1981). Ardhkathanak. Jaipur: Rajasthan Prakrit Bharati Sansthan. p. 38 6 Habib,I. (1999). The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556 – 1707 (2nd revd. edn.). Delhi: OUP. p.405; Habib, I. (1997). Essays of Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perspective. Delhi: Tulika. pp. 231-32 7 Alam, M. (1986). The Crises of Empire in Mughal : Awadh and Punjab 1707-1748. Delhi: OUP. pp. 43- 44; Richards, J.F. (1993). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 261 8 Alam, M. (1986). The Crises of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and Punjab 1707-1748. Delhi: OUP. pp.202- 204; Calkins, P. (1970). The Formation of a Regionally Oriented Group in Bengal 1700-40. Journal of Asian Studies (JAS). vol. 29. pp. 799-806; Leonard, K. (1971). The Hyderabad Political System and its Participants. Journal of Asian Studies (JAS). vol. 30. pp. 569-82; Gupta, S.P. (1986). The Agrarian System of Eastern Rajasthan. Delhi: Manohar. pp. 5-17 9 Habib, I. (1997). Essays in Indian History towards a Marxist Perception. Delhi: Tulika. pp. 252 10 Kolf, D.H.A. (1990). Naukar, and Sepoy: The Ethno History of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan (1450-1850). Delhi: Manohar. pp. 42-48

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 825 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

Medieval Chronicles describe Mewat as a region spread around Alwar, which is situated south of Delhi and north of Jaipur. The Mewat region is part of two Mughal subas of Delhi and and five sarkars. It consists of nine modern tehsils of and Firozpur-Jhirkha (); Alwar, Kishangarh, Lachhmangarh, (); , Kaman and Nagar (). The importance of this region is highlighted by its close proximity to Delhi and Agra, the seats of Mughal imperial power. Any disturbance in the region would endanger the safety of the empire. Further, the region was conducive to the growth of rich cash crops such as cotton which accrued a larger revenue to the empire. Therefore, as the region was both geographically and economically significant, the Delhi Sultans always wanted to bring it under their administration and effective control. III.

The Meos settled in the Mewat region. Indo-Persian sources describe them as tribes known for their notorious activities such as looting, plundering and lifting of cattle.11 However, during the Mughal rule they transformed themselves from pastoralist to agriculturalists, thus, yielding enormous power. Since the inception of the Turkish rule, the Meos were in a constant conflict with the state. During the Delhi sultanate period, they were extremely hostile creating a law and order crises. Iltutmish subdued the Mewatis and therefore, during his reign the region was largely peaceful.12 But after his death, Meos bounced back and created havoc in the reign which was viewed as a serious threat by the Delhi Sultans. They were once again emboldened during Balban’s reign. This can be corroborated by the fact that the Meos stole the camels belonging to Balban. He, therefore, ordered the clearing of forest around Delhi and the construction of 3,000 thanas (military posts) in Mewat by Afghan soldiers so as to curb the lawlessness and anarchy in the reign. These Afghan soldiers kept very strict watch on the felonious activities of the Meos13. Alauddin Khilji too, pursued the policies of oppression and forced the Mewati chiefs to pay the peshkash (tribute) to the Delhi Sultanate. This arrangement successfully worked till the reign of Mohammad Bin Tughlaq. Thus, for about 100 years, various Delhi Sultans adopted the policy of suppression too quell the Meos.

However, between 1351AD and 1526 AD, due to weak central authority the Mewatis were not just able to expand and consolidate their authority over large tracts of land in the region but were also able to establish cordial relationship with the Delhi Sultans.14 This process was started by Bahadur Nahar, who was the founder of the ruling family of the Khanzadas of Mewat. Many succeeding Mewati chiefs such as Qadar Khan, Jalal Khan and Ahmed Khan also consolidated their position at the Delhi court.15 Baburnama mentions Hassan Khan Mewati as an influential Meo sardar during the 16th century.16 He not only supported Ibrahim Lodi in the but also later sided with Rana Sangha against in the .17

Indo-Persian chronicle Ain-i-Akbari states that it was under Akbar that Mewat was bought under direct Mughal administration. It was divided into sarkars of Alwar, Tijara, Sahar and Rewari.18 The Meos during this period carved out zamindari rights in 13 parganas of sarkar Alwar, 14 parganas of sarkar Tijara and 4 parganas of sarkar Sahar.19

11 Reverty, H.G. (1881). Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. (Trans.). Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. p. 864; Elliot, H.M. & Dowson, J. Tarikh-i-Firozshahi, The History of India as told by its own Historians. (Trans.). Vol. III. Delhi. pp. 103- 105 12 Two Persian inscriptions found at “Chausath” and “Assi Khamba” mosques at Kaman in Mewat (Bharatpur District) explicitly mention the name of Iltutmish. 13 Reverty, H.G. (1881). Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. (Trans.). Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. p. 864; Elliot, H.M. & Dowson, J. Tarikh-i-Firozshahi, The History of India as told by its own Historians. (Trans.). Vol. III. Delhi. p. 104 14 Beveridge, A.S. (1921). Baburnama. (Trans.). Vol. II. London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. 368 15 Habib, M. & Nizami, K.A. (1970). A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanate (AD 1206-1526). Vol. V. New Delhi: New Age Publishing Press. pp. 230-234 16 Beveridge, A.S. (1921). Baburnama. (Trans.). Vol. II. London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. 374 17 Ibid. p. 535 18 Jarrett, H.S. (1949). Ain-i-Akbari. (Trans.) Vol. II. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. pp.202-206. These four sarkars were further divided into 67 parganas. 19 Ibid. pp. 202-206

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 826 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

It further states that the Meos were no longer confined to the position of an ordinary peasant but over time had elevated itself to the status of a zamindar. They had successfully entrenched their zamindaris in many parganas of chakla Mewat.20

This region remained conflict-free during the times of Akbar and Jahangir. Akbar in fact recruited 1000 Meos as dakmewrahs (post carriers) as they were good runners.21 Correspondingly, many Jaipur rajas also appointed Meos as dakmewrahs. This suggests that Meos were now assimilated into the Mughal administrative system and were placed in crucial roles as an effective postal system served as an important pillar to the Mughal Empire.

Thus, it can be concluded from a variety of Persian sources that over time the Meos transformed themselves from plunderers to peasants to zamindars. Although Jagga Records suggest that the Meos had to face numerous hardship during the process of peasantisation from the late 14th to early 16th century. This was because Mewat was dominated by rocky and hilly terrain as well as thorny bushes and dense forests.22

But from the 1650 AD onwards the power structure underwent drastic alterations in the Mewat region. According to Hasan (1978), the Meos revolted in many parganas of Mewat and some neighbouring areas. The Mughal emperor Shah Jahan entrusted some of the volatile parganas as jagir to Mirza Raja Jai Singh who sent one of his most able and powerful sardar Kalyan Singh Naruka to stifle the insurgent and defiant Meos.23 To bring peace and order in the region Mirza Raja Jai Singh not just dispossessed the Meos of their zamindaris but also allocated many villages to the Naruka sardars. This proved to be a turning point for the fate of the Meos as in due course of time the Meos were not just ousted from their zamindaris but were now also reduced to the position of a khudkasht (ordinary peasant). Therefore, it is much evident that it was during this period i.e. towards the closing years of the seventeenth century, that the marginalization of the Meos can be traced. The Mughals also seem to regard the Narukas as more reliable and trustworthy than the Meos. IV.

The Amber rulers accepted the suzerainty of the Mughals since the time of Akbar. Such a system served them twin purposes- they were protected by the Mughal state and it also provided a fillip of their political and economic power. The Jaipur rajas were granted vast jagirs which consequently strengthened their economic and political base in Rajasthan. But on the hindsight, the Jaipur Rajas could not enlarge their territory as they had accepted the Mughal predominance. But the breakdown of the Mughal Empire during the eighteenth century was a bending moment for all the Jaipur rajas as with weak central authority the expansion of territories was attainable. Therefore, the Jaipur rajas began to distance themselves from the center. Rana (2006) states that by the mid-eighteenth century, the relationship between the Jaipur raja and the Mughal Empire crumbled ending the Mughal dominance in many parts of the subcontinent.24 This provided a conducive environment for the rise of many forces which were active in the rural countryside. The political environment of the times provided a fillip to the Narukas.

20 Ibid. pp. 202-206 21 Cunningham. pp.20 22 Jagga records are genealogical records. They help in studying the transformation of Meos into peasants and their conversion to Islam. The jaggas kept under their supervision the genealogical records of the Meos since the Meos initiated the process of colonization in Mewat. 23 Hasan, S.N. (1978). Further light on zamindars under the Mughals: A case study of Mirza Raja Jai Singh under Shah Jahan. Proceedings of Indian History Congress. Hyderabad: XXXIX Session. pp. 497-502. Mirza Raja Jai Singh was the Jaipur raja. He was also an important mansabdar of the Mughal Empire. 24 Rana, R.P. (2006). Rebels to rulers: The rise of the Jat power in medieval India (c.1665-1735), Delhi: Manohar. pp.150- 159

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 827 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

According to Raghav (1998), the Narukas were the scions of the Kachhwaha clan. Their genesis can be traced to Naru whose two sons gave birth to two distinct lineages- namely Lalawat lineage named after Lala and Dasawat lineage named after Dasa.25

Eventually, the Narukas strengthened their hold in the Mewat region by bringing more and more villages under them. The growing authority of the Narukas created uneasiness for the Jaipur rajas and they stressed upon an arrangement with the jagirdars posted in Mewat for the ijara (revenue) and bhom (zimandari) rights. This resulted in a conflict between the Jaipur rajas and the Narukas as the latter saw it as a threat to his power. Therefore, from 1680 AD onwards, Mewat witnessed a powerful revolt by the Narukas who time and again challenged the authority of the Jaipur state.

The archival sources are replete with incidents of loot and plunder by the Narukas between 1680 AD and 1720AD. An archival document reveals that the Naruka revolt affected 14 parganas of Mewat and led to the closure of all trade routes via Bahatri.26 Many people ran away from the villages due to their fear.27 They not just attacked villages but looted cattle and agriculture tools and implements as well.28 They also held secret meetings to strategize their moves and plans.29 The Jaipur raja was unable to curb their revolts. These rebel Narukas created fisad (riots) and attacked qasbas as well.30 At times, they were supported by the peasants as well.31

As the Jaipur state was unsuccessful in curbing the violence of the Narukas, it discarded its earlier policy of suppression and adopted the policy of appeasement. The Jaipur raja granted vast jagirs to the Narukas, appointed them as faujdars and thanedars in various parganas of Mewat and granted them titles and permission to build their garhis (fortresses) so as to win back their support.32 Thus, they were able to elevate themselves to the status of zamindars and thikanedars.

Around 1750s, the relationship between the Jaipur Raja and the Narukas entered a new phase under Pratap Singh Naruka who soon became a powerful noble in the Jaipur Durbar due to his calculated moves and clever acts. He eventually with his tactful and non-violent moves occupied the Fort of Alwar on 23rd November 1775 and established the state of Alwar independent of Jaipur further consolidating his power in the Mewat region.33 Thus, the Narukas adopted both and violent and peaceful means to resist and acquire power which renders them a unique place in medieval Rajasthan history.

Thus, the Narukas not only subdued the Meos by taking over their zamindari rights but also emerged more powerful than the Meos successfully, marginalizing the latter. The Meos were caught in the limbo of continuity, conflict and contestations. After the decline of the Mughal Empire, the various chieftains were able to carve out lessor kingdoms of Alwar, Bharatpur and British territories in the Mewat region. The division further marginalized the Meos by aggravating their challenges and struggles.

CONCLUSION

25 Raghav, S. S. (1998). History of Narukas: Alwar. Delhi: Manohar. pp. 15-24 26 Arzdashts, dt. Sawan Vadi 4, vs 1749/1692 27 Arzdashts, dt. Mangsir Vadi 8, vs. 1747/1690 and Asadh Vadi 17, vs. 1750/1693 28 Amber Records, dt. Bhadwa Sudi 15, 1749/1692 29 Arzdashts, dt. Bhadwa Vadi 13, vs. 1743/1686 and Posh Sudi 12, vs. 1743/1686; and Mangsir Sudi 6, vs. 1743/1686 30 Arzadasht, dt. Mah vadi 11, vs. 1743/1686 31 Arzadashts, dt. Posh Vadi 3, vs. 1743/1686; Posh Sudi 6, vs. 1743/1686; Fagun Vadi 2, vs. 1743/1686; and Kati Sudi 4, vs. 1744/1687 32 Arzatthas, Pargana Pindayan, etc., vs. 1774/1717; 1777/1720; 1778/1721; Chitthi to the Amil, pargana Alwar dt. Jeth Sudi 5, vs. 1783/1726; Chitthi to the Amil, pargana Tonk. dt. Sawan Vadi 8, vs. 1780/1723; Arzdasht dt. Sawan Vadi 9, vs. 1783/1726; Dastur Komwar, Naruka Register no. 11, Jeth Vadi 10. Vs. 179/1733 33 Powlett, P.W. (1878). Gazetteer of Ulwur. London. pp. 16-18.

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 828 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

Marginalization is not a new phenomenon but an age-old multi-dimensional and historical phenomenon. Cut across contemporary times, the Meos have not been able to rise to their dominant status they once enjoyed during the 15th- 16th centuries. Even though they were marginalized more than 400 years ago and relegated to the status of ordinary peasants, they have not been able to rise much above the same level. Most of them even today practice agriculture on small tracts of land living a life of deprivation. This has led to their further isolation hampering their overall growth and development. The upward mobility of any community is directly proportional to its support and interaction with the state. Although various governmental and non-governmental organizations are working at grassroots level in the Mewat region but much needs to be achieved as a community which has been marginalized for so long needs protectionism and careful policy formulations with effective implementation.

Marginalization is not just restricted to India in particular or South Asia in general but across the globe since time immemorial. Marginalized communities barely have any control over their lives and resources pushing them into the clutches of poverty and unemployment which leads to their further isolation and disconnection from mainstream society. This results in a vicious circle having a negative impact on their overall growth as human beings and on the society at large.

REFERENCES

Leonard, P. (1984). Personality and Ideology: Towards a Materialist Understanding of the Individual. London: Macmillan. p.80

Ali, M.A. (1972). Proceedings of the Indian History Congress (PIHC). 33rd Session: Muzaffarpur. pp.175-188

Streusand, D.E. (1984). The Formation of Mughal Empire. Delhi: OUP. p.14

Richards, J.F. (1993). The Mughal Empire (The New Cambridge History of India 1.5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. XV, 1-2

Ali, M.A. (1997). The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb. Delhi: OUP. p. XXV

Habib, I. (2001). The Economic History of Medieval India – A Survey. Delhi: Tulika. pp.39-41

Lath, M. (Trans.). (1981). Ardhkathanak. Jaipur: Rajasthan Prakrit Bharati Sansthan. p. 38

Habib,I. (1999). The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556 – 1707 (2nd revd. edn.). Delhi: OUP. p.405

Habib, I. (1997). Essays of Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perspective. Delhi: Tulika. pp. 231-32

Alam, M. (1986). The Crises of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and Punjab 1707-1748. Delhi: OUP. pp. 43- 44

Richards, J.F. (1993). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 261

Alam, M. (1986). The Crises of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and Punjab 1707-1748. Delhi: OUP. pp.202- 204;

Calkins, P. (1970). The Formation of a Regionally Oriented Group in Bengal 1700-40. Journal of Asian Studies (JAS). vol. 29. pp. 799-806

Leonard, K. (1971). The Hyderabad Political System and its Participants. Journal of Asian Studies (JAS). vol. 30. pp. 569-82

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 829 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

Gupta, S.P. (1986). The Agrarian System of Eastern Rajasthan. Delhi: Manohar. pp. 5-17

Habib, I. (1997). Essays in Indian History towards a Marxist Perception. Delhi: Tulika. pp. 252

Kolf, D.H.A. (1990). Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy: The Ethno History of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan (1450-1850). Delhi: Manohar. pp. 42-48

Reverty, H.G. (1881). Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. (Trans.). Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. p. 864

Elliot, H.M. & Dowson, J. Tarikh-i-Firozshahi, The History of India as told by its own Historians. (Trans.). Vol. III. Delhi. pp. 103-105

Reverty, H.G. (1881). Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. (Trans.). Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. p. 864; Elliot, H.M. & Dowson, J. Tarikh-i-Firozshahi, The History of India as told by its own Historians. (Trans.). Vol. III. Delhi. p. 104

Beveridge, A.S. (1921). Baburnama. (Trans.). Vol. II. London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. 368

Habib, M. & Nizami, K.A. (1970). A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanate (AD 1206-1526). Vol. V. New Delhi: New Age Publishing Press. pp. 230-234

Beveridge, A.S. (1921). Baburnama. (Trans.). Vol. II. London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. 374

Jarrett, H.S. (1949). Ain-i-Akbari. (Trans.) Vol. II. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. pp.202-206

Cunningham. pp.20

Hasan, S.N. (1978). Further light on zamindars under the Mughals: A case study of Mirza Raja Jai Singh under Shah Jahan. Proceedings of Indian History Congress. Hyderabad: XXXIX Session. pp.497-502

Rana, R.P. (2006). Rebels to rulers: The rise of the Jat power in medieval India (c.1665-1735), Delhi: Manohar. pp.150- 159 Raghav, S. S. (1998). History of Narukas: Alwar. Delhi: Manohar. pp. 15-24

Arzdashts, dt. Sawan Sudi 4, vs 1749/1692 and Mangsir Vadi 10, vs. 1761/1704

Arzdashts, dt. Mangsir Vadi 8, vs. 1747/1690 and Asadh Vadi 17, vs. 1750/1693

Amber Records, dt. Bhadwa Sudi 15, 1749/1692

Arzdasht, dt. Bhadwa Vadi 13, vs. 1743/1686

Arzdasht, dt. Posh Vadi 7, vs. 1743/1686

Arzdasht, dt. Mangsir Sudi 6, vs. 1743/1686

Arzdasht, dt. Posh Vadi 7, vs. 1743/1686

Arzadasht, dt. Mah vadi 11, vs. 1743/1686

Arzadashts, dt. Posh Vadi 3, vs. 1743/1686

Arzdasht, dt. Posh Sudi 6, vs. 1743/1686

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 830 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

Arzdasht, dt. Fagun Vadi 2, vs. 1743/1686

Arzdasht, dt. Kati Sudi 4, vs. 1744/1687

Arzatthas, Pargana Pindayan, etc., vs. 1774/1717; 1777/1720; 1778/1721

Chitthi to the Amil, pargana Alwar dt. Jeth Sudi 5, vs. 1783/1726

Chitthi to the Amil, pargana Tonk. dt. Sawan Vadi 8, vs. 1780/1723

Arzdasht dt. Sawan Vadi 9, vs. 1783/1726

Dastur Komwar, Naruka Register no. 11, Jeth Vadi 10. Vs. 179/1733

Powlett, P.W. (1878). Gazetteer of Ulwur. London. pp. 16-18.

Volume IX, Issue IX, SEPTEMBER/2020 Page No : 831