APPENDIX G 
267 
an entire district at an enhanced Valuation; it is quite possible 
therefore that some of the discrepancies were in fact present in 
the original record from which the statistics were reproduced. 
One of the most interesting questions arising out of these 
statistics is the interpretation of the figures relating to country 
in the possession of Chiefs. As an example, we may take the 
“district” of Bikdnir, in the province of Ajmer (Ain, i. 512). 
It contained 11 subdivisions, with an aggregate of 4,750,000 
dims, and furnished a local force of 12,000 horse and 50,000 foot. 
The subdivisions are named, but no figures for them are given, 
the district being clearly treated as a unit; and there are naturally 
no figures for area. I think these entries can safely be taken as 
indicating that this “district” was in fact the territory of Raja 
Rai Singh, who served as one of Akbar’s high officers, and that 
the local force represents the contingent which he had under- 
taken to furnish when required. The aggregate may be read in 
one of two ways, either as tribute, or as a nominal figure. We 
know that at some periods Chiefs paid an annual tribute, not 
assessed by the year, but fixed by agreement in advance; and, 
from the financial standpoint, such a tribute would be properly 
regarded as a Valuation, because it would indicate the probable 
future Income, though, from the nature of the case, this particular 
Income would not ordinarily be assigned to anyone except the 
Chief. I have, however, found nothing to show whether Akbar 
in fact claimed tribute from Bikanir or the other Chiefs in 
Ajmer, and it is possible that the figure is purely nominal. 
An example of how such nominal figures might come into the 
Valuation is given by the account in the Bidshahnima (II. 360) 
of the submission of the Chief of Pialamau. The Viceroy of 
Bihir had been ordered to reduce this Chief to submission, and 
marched into his territory. Eventually the Chief agreed to pay 
a lakh of rupees as peshkash, or present, and he was then appointed 
formally to the Emperor’s Service, his country was valued at a 
kror of dims, and was forthwith assigned to him. In this case 
the Valuation must be regarded as purely nominal. The Chief 
retained his country, but in point of form he now held it in 
Assignment from the Emperor instead of as an independent 
ruler, and there was no question of tribute being paid, apart 
from the ceremonial peshkash. Such an arrangement was so 
obviously convenient that there is no difficulty in supposing it 
to represent a common practice: and, in the absence of positive