who is this 'roger' person?

oh... ha ha ha.... ok. thanks

There were many hereditary rulers in India. EVen in the time of Briitsh rule, when they had annexed more than half of India, there were over 500 native rulers who were more or less vassals of the (British) Emperor of India or Kaisar -i-hind.

Most of those rulers were more or less like chiefs of tribes.

Many of the others had ranks which were more like noble ranks. But unliked British nobles in the time of the story, such nobles would still have had a lot of political power in their realms like nobles used to have in the middle ages in Europe.

The titles of Muslim rulers in india are rather hard to understand. Many Muslim governors of pronvinces gradually became more or less independent rulers no longer under their former soverigns without changing their titles. Thus there lots of Muslim titles which can be interpreted both as "governor" and as "king" if someone chooses. Many of the most importan Muslim rulers in India used the title of Nawab. Some British men who returned to Britain with fortunes gained by fair means and/or foul in Indin were called nabobs. And over 50 years ago US vice President Spiro Agnew referred to opposing politicians as "nattering nabobs of negatism".

The most power Muslim ruler in India at that time was the Nizam of Hyderabad.

There were many Hindu rolers in India which had titles more or less equivalent to noble titles, and some with royal titles.

A rajah or raja was a king.

A maharah was a great king. And I think that the highest territorial title of Hindu rulers in British India was Maharaja of ther kingdom, like Maharaja of Baroda or Maharaja of Mewar/Udaipur. But some of them seem to have had titles which were more like ranks without territory mentioned in them.

A rajadhiraja was a king of kings.

A maharajadhiraja was a great king of kings or king of great kings. And the rulers of Kolhapur used the title of Chhatrapatri, or emperor.