1.
The Administration of Indapur Pargana under the
Marathas (1761-1818)
Introduction
Under the Marathas, Indapur Pargana was administered by both the officer sent by the Peshwa Government and by the hereditary local officer. The former, who was called Kamavisdar, represented the Government, and the latter, who was Deshmukh, represented the local community of Indapur Pargana. In the study of Medieval Indian
History, however, the local hereditary officer alone such as Deshmukh is inclined to be focused on‘. In this chapter, the administrative relationship between Kamavisdar and
Deshmukh in Indapur Pargana is studied.
' Concerning the Maratha History, A.R.Kulkami studied the Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana. A.R.Kulkarni, ‘The Deshmukhi Watan with Special Reference to Indapur,” pp.190-209. H.Fukazawa focused on Deshmukhs and Deshpandes in agrarian relations under the Marathas. H.Fukazawa, “Agrarian Relations and Land Revenue -The medieval Deaccan and Maharashtra,” Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib eds., The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol.I, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1982/2007, pp.254-255. This tendency is stronger in the Mughal History. Irfan Habib and S.Nurul Hasan, regarded placed the importance in local society on hereditary local officers alone. Irfan Habib, “Agrarian Relations and Land Revenue -North India,” Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib eds., op. cit., pp.244-247, and S.Nurul Hasan, “Zamindar under the Mughals,” “Three Studies of the Zamindari System,” “Further Light on Zamindars under the Mu;;" .Li. A Case Study of (Mirza) Raja Jai Singh under Shahjahan,” Satish Chandra ed.. Religion, State, and Society in Medieval India -Collected Works of S.Nurul Hasan. " Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005/2009, pp.135-159, and 166-172.
16 This chapter is chiefly based on Modi documents in Pune Archives. The most important documents to study the role of Kamavisdar are Sanads issued by the Peshwa
Government to appoint Kamavisdar. And the account papers of Indapur Pargana such as
Ajmas (an estimate), Taleband (an account book), Hiseb (an account), and Jamabandi
(settlement of the amount of revenue) mention various activities of the Government officers including Kamavisdar. A series of the accounts of Indapur Pargana which covers the period of 1765-1817, is kept in the section of “Prant Ajmas, Pune (Rumal nos.58-63)"
These accounts, which mainly consist of Taleband, are quite important to study the administration of Indapur Pargana from the Government side. The section of “Pune
Jamav” includes a series of rumals entitled as “Deshmukhiche Watan (Rumal nos.797-
803).” This collection mainly consists of various orders (Ajna Patra) and the accounts of
Deshmukhi Watan which cover the period of 1770-1830. The rumal (Rumal no.63) in
“Prant Ajmas, Pune” includes the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan which cover the period of I76I-1768. These documents make the study of the administration of Indapur Pargana from the side of the hereditary local officers. The accounts both of Indapur Pargana and of Deshmukhi Watan are primary sources in this chapter.
Appointment
This chaper begins with considering the appointments of Kamavisdar and of
Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana.
17 Kamavisdar
Throughout the period under consideration, the Peshwa eventually appointed a total of eighteen Kamavisdars of Indapur Pargana (See Appendix 11)^. The Kamavisdar made a contract of Kamavis (the collection of the revenue) with the Peshwa Government and paid money to the Government in advance. The Kamavisdar’s tenn of office in Indapur
Pargana varied according to a contract. In the case of Ganapatrao Jiwaji who had held the post of Kamavisdar for the longest term of 19 years in Indapur Pargana, the contract was renewed at least three times, namely, in 1782, 1794 and 1795.
Holkar invaded Pune Subha in 1802 and the failure of the late rain heavily damaged crops in this Subha in 1803. These disasters seriously affected the administration of the
Pune Subha including the Indapur Pargana. And Indapur Pargana was terribly depopulated. So the Peshwa Government appointed Malhar Mukund Kamavisdar as new
Kamavisdar. And the collection of the revenue was granted on a favourable lease to him in 1807\ And he was the last Kamavisdar under the Marathas.
■ In Pune Subha, a Subhedar was appointed by the Peshwa, who was administratively placed between the Peshwa and Kamavisdars in Pune Subha. However, the Sanads to appoint a Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana and orders given to him were issued not by the Subhedar but by the Peshwa, which is common to other Parganas. G.C.Vad eds., SSRPD, Vol.VII, The Poona Deccan Vernacular Translation Society, Poona, 1911, nos.437, 441, and 442. ^ GSPVol,XIII,pt.2,p.389.
18 Deshmukh
Deshmiikhi Watan of Indapur Pargana belonged to Shahu Chatrapati in the early eighteenth century'*. And the Satara Raja succeeded to this Watan. So in the late Maratha period, Deshmukhi Watan belonged to Ram Raja (1761-1777), Shahu II (1777-1810), and
Pratapshinh (1810-1839). However, their names are rarely written in the original documents about Deshmukhi Watan. They appointed an agent of Deshmukh to administer
Indapur Pargana. The agent was called Nadgauda.
The order for Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana to carry out the agency of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana temporarily was issued by the Peshwa Government in 1768^: This letter shows that the duties and rights of Nadgauda had continued for a long time and that
Nadgauda was the agent not only of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana but also of Patil of
Qasba and Peth Indapur^. In most of the documents about Deshmukhi and Patilki Watan, the name of Nadgauda is written down instead of Satara Raja’s, though the seal which was stamped on them was the Satara Raja’s.
A.R. Kulkarni, “The Deshmukhi Watan (with Special Reference to Indapur),” pp.193. ^ The reason why Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana was ordered to take the duties of the agency of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana was not cleared. As far as other letters in this Rumal show, Nagorao Meghsham from whom this agency was taken, continued this post as the agent after 1768. So it is clear that this action was temporary. ^ “^fcicp jimucT h 19 According to the report produced by Inam Commissioner in 1852, who investigated the rights of Nadgauda in the British period, the ancestor of the incumbent Nadgauda was appointed by Shahu in 1746^ In the late Maratha period, Nagoram Meghsham (1760-1782), Meghsham Nagnath (1782-1808), and Krishna Meghsham (1808-1824) were appointed as Nadgauda. This report tells that the office of Nadgauda had been hereditary at least from 1746 to 1852^ And the Sanad issued in 1782, which tells that the duties and rights of Nadgauda were succeeded hereditarily from Nagoram Meghsham who died in that year to his son, Meghsham Nagnath^, supports this report A.R.Kulkami gave the case Shahu Maharaj appointed Madhavrao Shankar his agent in 1724'°. This shows an agent of the Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana didn’t succeed in one lineage, because Madhavrao Shankar was appointed much before the ancestor of Nadgauda in the British period. It has not been cleared who had occupied the post of ’ Inam Commissioner Northern Division to Revenue Department, No. 1021 of 1859 dated 30 June 1859, “Indapur Deshmukhs Watan,” (File no.134), Rumal no.8, List no.13, pp.22 and 29. Meghsham Bhamrao Nadgauda who was incumbent in 1836 also testified his ancestor was appointed Nadgauda in 1746. Sanshodhakani Niwadlele Kagad, Indapur Sambandhi Rumal no.50, Pune Archives. * Inam Commissioner Northern Division to Revenue Department, No. 1021 of 1859 dated 30 June 1859, “Indapur Deshmukhs Watan,” pp.22 and 29. ’ “On 21 Rabilakhar (the fourth month in the Islamic calendar), the following Sanad was issued under the name of the Peshwa: The agency (Mutalki watan) of the watans both of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana and of Patil of Qasba and Peth Indapur continueed under the name of your respectful father Nagorao Meghsham who was charged in the court. Rs.700 was sent to him as his pay. But he died (in 1781). So the agency of both the watans was settled under the name of you [=Maghsham Nagnath] and then Rs.700 was given to you as before. The agency should be carried out and than the amount of Rs.700 should be given. This order should be obeyed.” W ikPIc^ ?Tr^ 20 Nadgauda during the period between 1724 and 1746. But it is out of scope to answer this question. In the original documents, Nadgauda was also called “Zamindar” as Deshmhkh and Deshpande were. The Administration of Indapur Pargana The most important administrative duty of Indapur Pargana was to collect the land revenue of Indapur Pargana. Kamavisdar led this business in the Pargana. The revenue of Indapur Pargana mainly consisted of under the Marathas Ain Jama or the land revenue and Siway Jama (other revenues). According to the Sanad of appointment to Kamavisdar, he did not collect the land revenue in all the villages. Inam villages and Saranjami villages were excluded from his collection in the settlement between the Peshwa Government and Kamavisdar". Chart 1 shows the aiTangement of villages in Indapur Pargana during the late Maratha period. The blue part at the bottom represents Inam villages. Red is for Kamavishi villages, and green for Saranjami villages. "21 Saban, Shuhur 1175, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 547. 21 Chart 1. The Arrangement of villages in Indapur Pargana Year Inam villages in Indapur Pargana were Bori, Nhawi, Pimpri Budhruk, Narsingpur, Rui, and Takli. Bori, Nhawi, and half of Rui belonged to Deshmukh, Takli to Deshpande, Pimpri Budhruk to Nadgauda, and Narshipur to a group of Brahmans living there. In the original documents, the Inam villages belonged to Zamindars (Deshmukh, Deshpande and Nadgauda) were called Izafat villages. Saranjami villages were the villages from which the land revenue the Peshwa Government assigned to Sardars etc. as Saranjam. During The late Maratha period. 22 Indapur Pargana saw 138 Saranjamdars or assignees at the total. Appendix III is the list of Saranjamdars to whom villages in Indapur Pargana were assigned during the period of 1761-1818. The names of these Saranjmadars are entered in the expenditure section of the annual accounts of Indapur Pargana'^. This list shows Saranjams were inherited in so many cases. According to this list, the average term of these assignments in Indapur Pargana was 10.8 years per person. In case that succession of Saranjam is considered as continuity of holdings, the average amounts to 16.0 years per family. This period is much longer than the average terms in the late sixteenth to the early eighteenth-century Mughal Empire, which Irfan Habib showed in his book'^. A tendency that the tenure of a Saranjam became longer and hereditary in the Peshwa period''* applied to cases in the late eighteenth century Indapur Pargana. Some villages were assigned to Paga-holders or Silhedars. Silhedars means the irregular soldiers who equipped with anns and horses for himself, and then participate in military activities. Silhedars were placed under the jurisdiction of Paga (a regular cavalry)*^. Other villages were assigned to Sardars under Daulatdars viz., Shinde and Holkar. More precisely, Ansari, Gajiwalan, and Bhadgaon in Indapur Pargana were assigned to Baji Narshi and Ragho Malhar who were Sardars under Mahadaji Shinde, in 1769. In 1778, Babhulgaon and Selgaon were assigned to Manaji Shinde or the uncle of '■ The accounts of Indapur Pargana, Prant Ajmas, Pune, nos.58-63. Irfan Habib, The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556-1707, 2"'* edition, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999/2010, pp.301-302^ Andre Wink, Land and Sovereignty in India, Agrarian Society and Politics under the Eighteenth-century Maratha Svarajya, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 1986/2008, p.326. Surendra Nath Sen, The Military System of the Marathas, K.P.Bagchi & Company, Calcutta and Delhi, 1928/1979, pp. 4-5 and 8. 23 Mahadaji Shinde, who had been the head of Shinde family from 1764 to 1768'^. He stationed his Sardar, whose name was Govind Gopal Karkun, in these Saranjcimi villages*^. Nimbsakhar and Warkute Khurd in this Pargana were assigned to Visaji Shamraji, who was a Sardar under Tukoji Holkar, in 1779. In addition, Nadgauda also held Saranjams in Indapur Pargana. In 1767, Kaltan and Warkute Budruk were assigned to Nagoram Meghsham Nadgauda. After he died in 1784, Saranjams were inherited by his son, Meghsham Nagnath. And the revenue of Tanu was assigned to Govind Hari Patwardhan in 1771. The Patwardhan family held this Saranjam for generations. After Miraj and Sangli were divided, this Saranjam belonged to Miraj'^ Kamavishi villages were the villages where Kamavisdar collected the land revenue, and it belonged to the Peshwa Government. Chartl indicates the number of Kamavishi villages greatly changed twice in the late Maratha period. First, its number greatly decreased in 1770s because many villages in Indapur Pargana were assigned as Saranjams. This supports A.R.Kulkami’s remark that many Maratha Sardars were stationed in Indapur Pargana during the period from 1770s to 1790s'^. In 1802 the number of Saranjami villages reached 66. And the disasters of 1802 and 1803 damaged Indapur Pargana seriously. The accounts of the period from 1803 to 1806 still exist but do not have enough data to show the arrangement N.G.Rathod, The Great Maratha Mahadaji Shinde, Sarup & Sons, New Delhi, 1994, p.4. ” 26 Safar Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. After Miraj state was splitted into Junior and seniour, Miraj state (Junior) held this Saranjam. The accounts of Indapur Pargana, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal nos.59-63 and E.W. West, A Memoir of the States of the Southern Maratha Country, SRBG, New Series, No.l 13, the Education Society’s Press, Bombay, 1869,p.236. A.R.Kulkami, “Towards A History of Indapur,’ p.202. 24 of villages in Indapur Pargana. This implies there was so low productivity in Indapur Pargana that the land revenue could not be collected. Second, the number of Kamavishi villages increased again after 1807. According to the account of 1807, the number of Saranjami villages decreased into 29 only^°. Inspite of the fluctuation of the numbers of Kamavishi and Saranjami villages, the number of Inam villages was constant throughout the late Maratha period. This chart clearly shows that the two disasters of 1802 and 1803 greatly changed Indapur Pargana. In this chapter, therefore, the administration of Indapur Pargana, which consisted of Revenue Administration, Judicial Administration and Military Administration, is considered separately before and after the two disasters. Pargana Administration before the disasters of 1802-03 Revenue Administration Ain Jama (the Land Revenue) In \16\,Kamal Assessment repalaced Tankha Assessment. Even after the introduction of Kamal Assessment, however, Tankha remained entered in the accounts, the estimates etc. The amount of Ain Tankha of Indapur Pargana had been fixed at The account of 1807, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 25 Rs. 103811-3-0 before 1804. And Sardeshmukhi, which occupied 10 percent of Ain Tankha, was calculated at Rs. 10382-10-0 accordingly. In the accounts, the fixed amount of Tankha Assessment is entered first. Tankha Assessment of Inam villages is excluded in calculating Tankha. And then Kama! Assessment is carefully computed according to the actual survey made by Kamavisdar. As far as the accounts of Indapur Pargana show, Kamal Assessment was not related to Tankha Assessment. So the revenue of Inam villages, which was excluded before the calculation of Kamal Assessment, was not related to Kamal Assessment, either. And Kamavisdar collected the land revenue according not to Tankha but to Kamal Assessment. Tankha was the symbolic figure in this process. But in the Sanads to appoint Kamavisdar^’, Tankha Assessment was entered and Ain Tankha is calculated while Kamal Assessment is not entered at all^^. This implies that the contract between Kamavisdar and the Peshwa Government was based not on Kamal but on Tankha Assessment. After the settlement, Kamavisdar surveyed agricultural land for the calculation for Kamal Assessment. In 1772 Mahadaji Narayan Kamavisdar settled Kamal Assessment of the Indapur Pargana at Rs.229069-I2-0 as a resuh of his detailed survey. From 1772 to 1776, Kamavis of Indapur was fixed at this amount {Makta)^^ though the contract price was ■' 16 Moharam Shuhur 1175, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. ■■ In the Sanads to appoint Kamavisdars of other Parganas, not Kamal but Tankha was used to settle the Kamavis. SSRPD, Vol.VI, no.755 and Vol.VII, The Poona Deccan Vernacular Trans' '. ..u Society, Poona, nos.447 and 456. Yadi Shuhur 1172, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 16. 26 actually reduced in 1774-1776 according to the situation in Pune Subha^"*. Even after this contract, successive Kamavisdars decided Kanuil Assessments adopting the settlement of 1772 as the standard^^ In other words, Kamal Assessment was fixed at Rs.202069 and then this amount was adjusted accordance with the survey of Indapur Pargana. From this point, it can be inferred that the procedure of settlement in 1772 would not have changed at least before 1804 though the survey was carried out repeatedly after 1772. Kamavisdar carried out the land survey not only in Kamavishi village but also in Saranjami villages. So the revenue from Saranjami villages was also included in the total of Kamal Assessment of Indapur Pargana. In collecting the land revenue, the revenue from Kamavishi villages formed Ain Jama of Indapur Pargana, and the revenue from Saranjami was assigned. Chart 2 shows the total revenue both from Kamavishi and Saranjami villages in the late Maratha period^^. According to this chart, Ain Jama of Indapur Pargana or the land revenue from Kamavishi villages basically decreased in the late eighteenth century. However the main reason of this decrease is that more and more villages were assigned. For, the total amount of the land revenue itself increased around 1780, and had fluctuated.before the end of the eighteenth century, In short, the productivity of Indapur Pargana developed at the end of 1770s, and remained stable until The account of 1774, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 59, and the accounts of 1775 & 1776, Prant Ajmas, Pune Rumal no. 60. The estimates of 1774, 1776, and 1781, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 16, the account of 1773, Pune Jamav, Rumal no.790, and the account of 1793, Pune Jamav, Rumal no.793. This data is based on the accounts, which are generally preserved in Pune Jamav and in Prant Ajmas, Pune. When Talabands of a particular year are kept in both sections, two or three versions of accounts of that year are available. By doing a crosscheck on these accounts, it was found that the figures on the arrangements of villages in Indapur Pargana were almost all the same among these documents but that values on the assessments such as Kamal Assessment and Ain Jama often varied among them. So Chart 2 was made after averaging the different values. Therefore the values themselves in this chart were not always correct. However we can grasp a trend of the revenues of Indapv ■ ; ai gana during the late Maratha period because the original values in accounts are not very different from one another. And any accounts of 1798 are not available in Pune Archives. So the data on the revenue of 1798 is blank. 27 the end of the eighteenth century. Theoretically Kamal Assessment was to agree with the total of Ain Jama from Kamavishi villages and Ain Jama from Saranjami villages. But the actual total had never reached Kamal Assessments throughout the late Maratha period. Chart 2. The total land revenue both from Kamavishi and Saranjami villages in the late Maratha period Year 28 The second main sources are Nemnuk or allowance. According to the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, Deshmukh collected his allowance in Indapur Pargana, which consisted of Hak, Kabulat Patti, Bhet, Dasara, and Sankrat^^ While Kamavisdar collected Ain Jama, Deshmukh collected Kabulat Patti in Indapur Pargana. Kabulat or Kabuliyat means “a written agreement, in which a payer of revenue, whether to the govenunent, the Zamindar, or the fanner expresses his consent to pay the amount assessed upon his land^*.” So this exaction indicates Deshmukh was involved in the land settlement of Indapur Pargana. The original documents make it clear that Kamavisdar settled the land revenue of Indapur Pargana in the presence of “Zamindars^^”. Probably Deshmukh or more precisely Nadgauda collected Kabulat Patti when Kabulat was issued after the settlement. The phrase of “Dehe 85 or 85 villages” is always written down with the heading of Kabulat Patti in the accounts of .Deshmukhi Watan in the late Maratha period. So Deshmukh stood as sureties and kept watch on the settlement in all the villages including Inam villages representing the local community of Indapur Pargana. Masala was sometimes included in this allowance, which is the fee demanded by a peon sent to collect the revenue. Masala was considered later because it basically belonged to Siwaye Jama or Extra Revenue of Deshmukhi Watan. J.T.Molesworth, Marathi and English Dictionary, Saraswat Prakashan, Pune, 1831/2005, p.636. -ybid., p.244. Nadgauda basically played the role of Deshmush as his agent in Indapur Pargana. 30 Jilhej Shuhur 1175, Bundle (Fadke) about Nagorao Meghsham, Ghadni Rumal no.406. 29 The Settlement of h a f a t villages of Deshmukh The revenue from these villages formed the main part of the income as the rights of Deshmukhi Watan of Indapur Pargana^^. Tankha Assessment, which was fixed at Rs.3715-8 throughout the late Maratha period, was nominal in Izafat villages, too. Actually Nadgauda investigated the situation of Izafat villages, and then the actual land revenue of Izafat villages was settled between Nadgauda and Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana^'. So Kamavisdar did not sui'vey agricultural land in Izafat villages of Deshmukh, but he got engaged in the settlement of the land revenue. Probably Kamavisdar watched Nadgauda so that the revenue would be collected without any extra exaction. In 1770s and 1780s, the actual revenue of Izafat villages basically seemed to fluctuate from Rs.1500 to Rs.2500. For example, the land revenue there occupied around 38 % of the total income as the rights of Deshmukhi Watan in 1760s. The accounts of Deshmukhi Watan (1761-66 and 1768), Prant, Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64. The account of 1789, Pune Jamav, Rumal no.797. And A.R.Kulkarni also explained the same procedure by use of the account of Deshmukhi Watan in 1795. And he called the actual revenue which Nadgauda settled with Kamavisdar Tanakha. But any par* ; lai names are not given to the actual revenue of Izafat villages in the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan. Tankha was a nominal figure in Izafat villages ,too. A.R.Kulkarni, “The Deshmukhi Watan (with Special Reference to Indapur),” pp.195-196. 30 The Settlement of S a ra n ja m i villages After the Government decided to assign a village to a Silhedar or a Sardar, Kamavisdar gave a Sanad to him. This Sanad was called “Tainat Jabta^^/' In Tainat Jabtas, both Tankha and Kamal Assessment are written down. But Tankha Assessment was a nominal figure, and Kamal Assessment was used in order to calculate the revenue of a village^^. According to Tainat Jabta, the revenue of a village consisted of Ain Jama, Antastha, and Kirkol Jama (miscellaneous revenue). When an assigned village had Inam land, its revenue was deducted from^/« Jama. Some Saranjamdars held the Inam land in the village where the land revenue was assigned to themselves^'’. For example, the land revenue in Kumbhargaon was assigned to Man Singh Khalate in 1772. In Tainat Jabta Rs. 1517-4 was supposed to be spent for the maintenance of horses. However, the revenue collected from the village was Rs.360 short. In this village, Inam land had been established before this village was assigned as Sararijam. So 3 Chawar of land out of the Inam land was granted to him in 1784. In order to make up the shortage of the assigned revenue, Inam land was often allotted to Saranjamdars^^. In this case, it seemed preferable for a Saranjamdar from the view point of the collection of the revenue that Tainat means a military charge or command, and Jabta means a law or regulation. So according to Wilson, Tainat Jabta means a muster-roll of pay or salaries, not of those to whom they paid. H.H.Wilson, A Glossary ofJudicial and Revenue Terms and of Useful Words Occurring in Official Documents relating to the Administration of the Government of British India, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi. 1855/1968, pp.223 and 501. In Sanads to appoint the Kamavisdar, Tankha Assessment of Indapur Pargana was used to fix his pay. However in Tainat Jabta, Tankha Assessment had nothing to do with the amount of the assignment of village revenue. For example, see the case of Saranjam of Loni, 6 Jilhej Shuhur 1180, Prant Ajmas Pune, Rumal no.547. 9 Sagar Shuhur 1179, bundle (Fadke) about Kanoji and Man Singh Khalate, Ghdni Rumal no.388. The accounts of Indapur Pargana (1885), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.62. 31 Inam land was granted in the village assigned to him^'’. Various types of items such as Inam, Shet-Sanadi” , and Watan were granted to make up for the shortage of Saranjam. And many of them were located iu the villages where Saranjams were given. Tainat Jabta shows how the assignment was settled between Saranjamdar and the Peshwa Government. In the case of Wadepuri from which the revenue was assigned to Jiwaji Raghunath in 1780^^ the revenue consisted of Ain Jama, Antastha, and miscellaneous items. The miscellaneous items, which amounted to Rs.37-12 at the total, were made up of Dharmaday Patti (the tax for alms) for Rs.5, Shagirthpesha (the tax on a servant) for Rs.2, Bhade Patti (the tax on a rent) for Rs.2-12, Aher Patti (the tax on presents) for Rs.25, and Masala (the fees paid to a peon to collect the revenue) for Rs.3. In this case, Ain Jama amounted to Rs.4053-8 and Antastha to Rs.286. So Kamal assessment was settled at Rs.4380 with Rs.2-12 added as an increase or Jajti. In the account of Indapur Pargana (1780), the amount of Rs.4380, which belonged to the land revenue of Indapur Pargana, is entered under a heading of the assignment to Jiwaji Raghnath^^. The comparison of the amounts in Tainat Jabta and those in the account of Indapur Pargana shows that all the assigned items even including Antastha and miscellaneous items belonged to the land revenue. So Jiwaji Raghnath could not collect In the case of Fakirji Fadtare, to whom the revenue in Babhulgaon and Gotodi was assigned, Inam in Bijapur, Khatav Pargana was allotted probably because he held Deshmukhi Watan of Khatav Pargana. 29 Ravilawal Shuhur 1190, Fadke no.3, Ghadni Rumal no.395. The accounts of Indapur Pargana, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal nos.59-63 and E.W. West, op. cit., p.236. Shet Sanadi means an assignment or grant of the revenue of land for certain services. Wilson, op. cit., p.475. For example, Shet Sanad in Qasba Talegaon, Pabal Tarf, Junnar Prant was given as Saranjam to Yeshwantrao Narshi in 1784, to whom the revenue of Shetphal Haveli in Indapur Pargana had been assigned. 6 Jilhej Shuhi" ' 154, Bundle (Fadke) about Yashwantrao Narshi, Ghadni Rumal no.408. 26 Sawal Shuhur 1180, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. The account of Indapur Pargana (1780), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.61. 32 any other revenues than the land revenue. As the accounts of Indapur Pargana show"^°, Kamavisdar collected Siway Jama even in Saranjami villages. After the settlement of Saranjam was determined, Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana sent the copies of Tainat Jabta both to Patil of an assigned village and to Deshmukh and Deshpande of Indapur Pargana in order to make the assignment of a village smooth. The accounts of Indapur Pargana show the amount of assignment to a Sardar in this Pargana widely ranged according to the number of assigned villages in Indapur Pargana. The largest amount of Saranjam in the late 18''’-century Indapur Pargana is Rs.52173-5 in 1793, which belonged to Pandurang Baburao. Then, he held fourteen villages in this Pargana”*'. The Administrative relationship before the disasters of 1802-03 In Indapur Pargana Kamavisdar, Deshmukh, more precisely, Nadgauda, and Saranjamdars played important roles in collectiong Ain Jama. The following Sanad While the land revenue in Kalsa or Government villages and their number were greatly decreased in the early 1770s, the revenue from jakat and from Najar-Bhet, still remained in this period. Moreover the accounts of Indapur Pargana give us the cases Khandfuroi both in criminal affairs and civil affairs was collected in assigned villages of Indapur Pargana such as Babhulgaon and Shetphal Haveli. The accounts of Indapur Pargana, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal nos.58, 62 and 63. But this does mean that he was the greatest among the Saranjamdars to whom a village in Indapur Pargana w 's ^^»igned. For Saranjamdars in this Pargana often held Saranjams in other Parganas under the Marathas as well. So it is impossible only from the account of one Pargana to measure the whole revenue of a Saranjamdar. 33 which the Government sent to Nagrao Meghsham Nadgauda in 1775 shows how they got involved in the collection of the land revenue in Indapur Pargana. 30 Jilhej Gopalrao Bhagwant"*^ made the following request: you settled that Mamlat or the land revenue in 1772-73 with the auspices of Zamindars. And Zamindars agreed that they would make up a deficit in revenue on their own responsibility if it arose. In that year, it arose. So Sambaji Bakal and Malhar Ragunath Deshpande settled to cover half of the deficit and then a Sahukar or a banker, Nisha Bawaji Naikram Shri Godekar paid half [of the deficit]. So the other half remained. Deshmukh through Nagorao Meghsham should have paid it. But he didn’t. So the Government issued a Sanad to seize his receipts concerning his agency of Deshmukh, Nadgaudaki Watan, Izafat village, Jagir or assigned villages, allowance, and Inam land, and assigned the collection of the related revenue to Kamavisdar till the deficit including interest would be cleared. [However] Bapurao Sadashiv petitioned the Government to release the sequestration of Nadgauda’s Watan and Jagir etc. So the Government [overturned the last order and] released the sequestration because the deficit of Gopalrao Bhagwant would reach the person mentioned above [=Nagorao Meghsham]'*^. One year passed after this release. However he [=Nagorao Meghsham] has not uttered about the amount of the deficit. It was necessary that an order about this situation should be issued. Nagorao Meghsham did not pay half of the deficit though he should have done that. Therefore the agency of Deshmukh, Nadgaudaki Watan, Izafat village, Inam land, and the agency of Patil of He was the then Kamavisdar. It means that the amount of half of the deficit in the payment which Gopalrao Bhagwant Kamavisdar was supposed to make would be available to Nagorao Meghsham 34 Qasba Indapur, and Jagir or assigned villages viz., Kaltan and Wakute Budruk, and Deshmukhi Watan acted [by Nagrao Meghsham] which Nagorao Meghsham held in Indapur Pargana continues. The Government seized these [items] and assigned the collection of the seized revenue to Gopal Bhagwant. So a letter [was issued] that he should get the income [from the above items] till the deficit including interest would be cleared'*'*. Nagorao Meghsham received the original letter from the Government. And an order about the above sequestration was sent to Gopalrao Bhagwant, and a new Kamavisdar Sadashiv Dhonddeo'*^ A letter in which the Government told Bapurao Sadashiv to help “1530 jftmoRTET 3injfr fcr^r?r ^ # qwn cl c H l^ N n il^ JTTcT cT c i^ cT cT Z [^ 3ft dcT5T SHRtr -H^chRlci^f c p ^ rl'ld'UWI ^cT5T cJira^ q % EfW*FT 31NU||ch^ ;HRft^ 3RT?[T. s||6i<|cf ^Tpfr fcT^ |333- 3TT^ ^ ^ ^ ^r^I:9TRT ^TTW cJd 35 Kamavisdar to collect Hak of Deshmukh and of Nadgauda in his Saranjami villages was issued to Bapurao Sadashiv. An order about the above sequestration was sent to Mokadam or the village-headman of Kaltan and Mokadam of Warkute Budruk respectively. And a similar order was sent to Mokadams of the villages concerned with Watan, Izafat village, and Inam land of Nagorao Meghsham. The quoted order indicates the roles of Kamavisdar, Nadgauda and Bapurao Sadahiv. Bapurao Sadashiv was the then greatest Saranjamdar in Indapur Pargana, and father of Pandurang Sadashiv or the largest Saranjamdar throughout the late Maratha period. As mentioned above, Kamavisdar played a leading role in the process of collecting the revenue. However this order indicates Kamavisdar was not responsible for the revenue settlement and collection alone. Rather, this case shows that Zamindars could take the responsibility. So Nadgauda not only watched the settlement but got involved in the whole process of the revenue collection. In this case, Bapurao Sadashiv overturned the decision of the Government once. This indicates Bapurao Sadashiv was powerful enough to affect Revenue Administration of Indapur Pargana itself. The fact that the Government took the trouble to write a letter to tell him to help Kamavisdar with his irregularcollection of Hak under the sequestration supports this. This case shows Kamavisdar, Nadgauda, and Bapurao Sadashiv got involved in the collection of the land revenue in Indapur Pargana in various ways. 36 Other Revenues (Siway Jama) Kamavisdar collected Siway Jama not only in Kamavishi villages but also in Saranjami villages. In Inam villages, it varied from village to village who collected Siway Jama. Siway Jama included various Government fees. And headings of the articles Kamavisdar collected varied from year to year since some of them were collected as the need arose. Chiefly the following items were collected; Jakat Kamavisdar usually farmed out the collection of Jakat for a certain period. This collector was called Jakatdar. In Indapur Pargana, The contract price in 1770s-90s approximately ranged between Rs. 13401 and Rs. 18000. During the period from 1772- 1792, at least around Rs. 10000 was stably realized. Out of this revenue, Zamindars such as Nadgauda and Deshmukh were given a fixed amount as Hakdars"*^. Hak given to Deshmukh amounted to about Rs.225 and to Nadgauda amounted to arabout Rs.l20 in the late eighteenth century Indapur Pargana. In Saranjami villages of Indapur Pargana, Saranjamdars were supposed to give Jakatdars the revenue of Jakat which local staffs collected at custom houses even if the revenue of Jakat was not assigned to Saranjamdars. And they often refused to give the revenue of Jakat'’^ This is interesting to show that Saranjamdars got involved in another work beyond his original rights viz., the collection The account of Jakat (1782, 1785 and 1794), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64. The accounts of Jakat, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 64 and bundle (Fadke) entitled as “Jakat Pargana Indapur Nisbat Naso Awadhut,” Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.504. 37 of the land revenue. However it was not made clear whether Saranjamdars influenced the actual collection of Jakat at custom houses or not. Baje Patti Baje Patti, which is a compound word, means “Miscellaneous Cess” or “Extra Cess'**.” Kamavisdar collected this item in three Izafat villages and five Saranjami villages. The former villages consisted of Takli belonging to Deshpande, and Nhawi and Bori belonging to Deshmukh. And the latter villages consisted of three villages which were assigned to Baji Narshi or Sardar of Mahadaji Shinde, and two villages which were to Visaji Shamraji or Sardar of Tukoji Holkar. In Indapur Pargana, Baje Patti was the tax which was levied on the two main hereditary officers viz., Deshmukh and Deshpande, and on two Daulatdars viz., Shinde and Holkar. In short, Kamavisdar collected this item From the persons who were politically important in Indapur Pargana. Nazar Bhet Accoridng to Wilson, Nazar Bhet means “a present made by the cultivator to the collector or the farmer on settling his assessment'*'^” The account of 1811 gives the phrase of “Gawgana Pahanibaddal (Concerning the revenue-survey of every village)” under the heading of this item^*’. Kamavisdar collected this item when the revenue survey was made. Its amount varied according to the year, though it was fixed at Rs.l8 or Rs.l9 in 1780s Wilson, op.cit., pp.69 and 411. Ibid., p.80. The account of 1811, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 38 and 90s. This amount corresponds to the number of Government Village in 1780s and 1790s. Deshmukh also collected Bhet. Under this heading, he collected Re.l in each village. However this exaction was exempted only in Narsingpur or Inam village from where the land revenue was granted to Brahmans. This collection indicates Dshmukh or more precisely Nadgauda watched the land survey by Kamavisdar, and collected money in all the villages of Indapur Pargana except Narsingpur. Khandfuroi Khandfuroi was a judicial fee. In Criminal Affairs, Kamavisdar punished offenders according to an order of the Peshwa Government^', and collected a fine (Gunegari), which belonged to Khandfuroi. And Deshmukh got a share of this fine as his Khandfiaroi^^. In case of a religious or spiritual offence, which was included in Criminal Affairs, an offender had to go through a penance or Devadanda to purify his sin. And subsequently the ceremony to re-admit the offender into his own caste was held, which was known as Gotai or Gotpat among lower castes. In this ceremony, he gave members of his caste dirmer with sweetmeats for social intercourse^^.In this process an offender gave the fees to Peshwa Government. Deshmukh received part of the fees as Khandfuroi. For example, in the ceremony of Gotpat to readmit Subhanji Mala in Palasdeo, who killed a bull and was excluded from his own caste, Deshmukh received Rs. 10 as V.T.Gune, The Judicial System of the Marathas, Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Poona, 1953, p.105. ” The accounts of Deshmukh Watan, Pune Ajmas, Rumal no.64. ” V.T.Gune, op.cit., pp.109 and 114. 39 Khandturoi out of the Government fees‘'‘*. In Gotpat for Dhobi Kumbhar in Bori, which was Izafat gaon oFDeshmukh, he received no less than Rs.lOO as Khandfuroi. And the Government fees are not mentioned in this case'^\ Probably Deshmukh received the full judicial fees as Khandfuroi in his Izafat villages. In Civil Affairs, justice by a Panchayat was popular in the Peshwa period^^. A decision of a Panchayat was authorized by Kamavisdar. The court fees Kamavisdar collected for the approval of the decision consisted of Shemi or Harki from the winning party and Gunegari from the losing party^^. And Deskmukh recieved some of these judicial fees as his Khandfuroi^^. For example, in Lasurne, Deshmukh received Rs. 10 as his share of the Government fees. On the other hand, in Nhavi belonging to Izafat Gaons, Deshmukh received as much as Rs. 100 for Sherni^’. And the Government fees are not mentioned in the latter case. In Civil Affairs also, it is inferred that Deshmukh collected the full judicial fees instead of Kamavisdar in Izafat villages. It is inferred from the above cases that Deshmukh played the judicial role of Kamavisdar in Izafat villages, and collected the full charge of Khandfuroi. In other villages, Kamavisdar worked as the judicial officer of Indapur Pargana, and Deshmukh collected part of the judicial fees Kamavisdar collected as his Khandfuroi. J i t i ^ The account of Deshinukhi Watan (1761). Prant Ajmas. Pune, Rurnal no.64. ‘ . The account of Deshinukhi Watan (1761), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64.. ^W.T.Gune,o/j. dr.. p.83. Ibid.. pp.83, 85 and 86. Even though a civil dispute was settled among the parties concerned without appeahng to Panchayat, an order of the Government was required to authorize the agreement. In the process to issue an order, Deshmukh got a certain sum as Khandfuroi. The account ofDeshmukhi Watan (1765), Prant Ajmas, Pune. Rumal no.64 and the account of Deshmukhi Watan (1784), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.797. The account ofDeshmukhi Watan (1761), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64. 40 Masala Kamavisdar employed a peon called Naikwadi to collect the revenue. His allowance was collected as '"Masala" in the Pargana. Naikwadi helped Kamavisdar as a police of the Pargana, too'"®. Deshmukh also employed three Naikwadis in Izafat villages, and a few Naikwadis in other villages. In orther to pay to them, Deshmukh also collected the item called “Masala.” Batta In the treasury of the Peshwa Government a particular kind of Rupees viz., the Chandvadi rupees were accepted. In Indapur Pargana also, Kamavisdar was told to pay in the Chandvadi rupees. Saraf played the role of exchange of various rupees. The commission which was entitled Batta was charged on his role^'. In order to change different rupees which were paid to Kamavisdar into the Chandvadi rupees, he collected the charges of Batta in villages of Indapur Pargana.. In addition, Kamavisdar collected Siway Jama in various occasions. Yatra Dabi means the offerings of pilgrims. The Government set up the box (Yatra Dabi) to collect the offerings in Nirwangi where Hindus went on pilgrimage. Deshmukh also enjoyed a “ A.R.Kulkarni, “The Deshmukhi Watan (with Special Reference to Indapur),” p. 197, and V.T.Gune, op. cit., p.31. A.R.Kulkarni, “Money and Banking under the Marathas Seventeenth Century to AD 1848,” i ,.icy and Banking under the Marathas Seventeenth Century to AD 1848,” Amiya Kumar Bagchi ed., Money & Credit in Indian History from Early Medieval Times, Tulika Books, New Delhi, 2002, p.104. 41 share of these offerings at Dasara festival, Kamavisdar collected she-goats. Deshmukh also collected it at the same occasion. A tax was levied on pasturage (Wanacharai) pertaining to a village when villagers used it^^. In the collection of Siway Jama, both Kamavisdar and Deshmukh collected various common items such as Jakat, Khandfuroi, Yatra Dabi etc. Basically Deshmukh collected part of the revenue Kamavisdar collected. So Kamavisdar and Deshmukh did not simply stand in opposition, bur their rights were complicatedly related each other. However some items were collected by Deshmukh only. For example, Deshmukh customarily collected a betel nut from each shop of Wani when a market was opened in Indapur Pargana. Deshmukh collected this item in Selgaon, Palasdeo, and Qasba Bawde in the late Maratha period. Probably Deshmukh received a betel nut for his protection of a local market in these town and villages. In 1760s, this collection amounted to Rs.2-4-0, which consisted of Re.l in Qasba Bawde, Re.l in Palasdeo, and Re.0-4-0 in Selgaon^^ In 1771, the total amount increased to Rs.3-4-0, which consisted of Rs. 1-8-0 in Qasba Bawde, Re.l at Palasdeo, and Re.0-8-0 at Selgaon. After 1771, the amount of this item was fixed at the amounts in Kamavisdar did not hold any privileges in any markets of Indapur Pargana. “ The account of 1793, Pune Jamav Rumal no.793. Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64. For example, the account of Deshmukhi Watan (1782), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.797. 42 Management of Indapur Pargana in Revenue Administration In order to carry out Revenue Administration smoothly Kamavisdar played various roles in the whole Indapur Pargana. Management of Saranjami villages It was one of important duties for Kamavisdar to manage Saranjami villages at the Pargana level as the Government officer. According to the Government order, moreover, Kamavisdar resumed or sequestrated Saranjams in Indapur Pargana, and then collected the land revenue there. Resumption Though Saranjams were often resumed^^ in the late eighteenth-century Indapur Pargana, the clear reason was rarely shown in the Government order etc. As far as the related documents in Gadni Rumals^^ show, the person whose Saranjam in Indapur Pargana had been resumed was given another Saranjam in other Paraganas soon. And another Saranjamdar came to the village in Indapur Pargana where Saranjam was resumed. Saranjami villages in Indapur Pargana rarely became Kamavishi villages before The phrase “Dur karne” was used for resumption. the section of Ghadni Rumals in Pune Archives includes collection of Tainat Jabta and the related documents which are arranged according to the name of SaranjamdE' . ; iiis collection makes the whole assigned revenue of a Saranjamdar more clear, which included the documents on 75 Saranjamdars out of 138 or the total number of the all the Saranjamdars in Indapur Pargana. 43 the disasters of 1802-03. So the resumption of Saranjams basically meant the transfer of Saranjamdars. In a few cases, however, Saranjamdars was really deprived of their Saranjams. Saramjam of Sugaon which Man Singh Mane held vvas removed because he rose in rebellion or fitur in 1777. After that, this Saranjam was given to Raghnath Baji Diwan^’. In another case, Saranjam of Setphal Gudhe was removed because Saranjamdar or Raja Ali Khan died in 1782^^ In the late eighteenth-century Indapur Pargana, however, Saramjam was basically inherited to the heir of the late Saranjamdar, mostly their son^*^. After the succession of Saranjam, the heir made an agreement with the Government. The amount of Saranjam in this agreement was generally fixed at the previous one. According to the accounts of Indapur Pargana, the amount of Saranjam was not changed even after the succession. And Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana issued a new Sanad which was based on this agreement to him. As V.S.Kadam gave an example, the heir did not need to pay Nazar or a present to a Superior to the Govemment^'^. When Baji Narshi under Mahadaji Shinde died in 1775, his mother succeeded the assigned revenue of Awsari, Bhadgaon, and Gajiwalan in Indapur Pargana and kept it with the help of his family^'. Judging from this situation Baji Narshi died without male issue. This Saranjam remained in the hand of the family of Baji Narshi even after his death because of the political importance. The family of Baji Narshi had kept it for more 16 Jilhej Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 1 Jamadilawal Shuhut 1182, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. In the case of Setphal Gudhe, the particular reason why the Saranjam was taken away after the demise of the holder was not mentioned in the documents. ™ V.S.Kadam, op.c;7.,p.23. 18 Ramajan 1175, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 44 than 25 years, and a Sanad was issued to Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana in 1801^^. According to this Sanad, the Saranjams of Awsari, Bhadgaon, and Gajiwalan were finally removed from the family of Baji Narishi, and that i. was assigned to Sadashiv Mankeshwar. And Sadashiv Mankeshwar paid Baje Patti at the amount of Rs. 135 as Baji Narshi had done. In other words, Sadashiv Mankeshwar replaced Baji Narshi. In 1800, Sadashiv Mankeshwar was appointed as the ambassador at the Court of Hyderabad, and stayed there when Holkar attacked Pune in 1802. This Sanad implies the Peshwa regarded Sadashiv Mankeshwar as more important even before the Holkar attack, though John Malcom reported Sadashiv Mankeshwar became one of the chief officer under the last Peshwa after his restoration to Pune in 1803^^ And this case shows that the political trend in the Central Government could affect the arrangement of Saranjam in Indapur Pargana. ^ ^ 3TRT STcRTfT cT jffsf cf J|lo(1c|HU| ij ?4HUII1- 3TcTHfr5T/3'^?3IM- ^ 3T5TM/?3Ro| 11 jffsT J||o?|cJdU|/£. 45 Sequestration Under sequestration^'*, Kamavisdcr collected the land revenue. This revenue belonged to the Government, not to Saranjamdar. In Indapur Pargana Saranjams were sequestrated for various reasons. Saranjam of Padasthal in Indapur Pargana which Krishna Singh Bais held was sequestrated in 1767 because he did not carry out his duties^^ It was the minimum requirements for Saranjamdars to perfomi the military service according to Tainat Jabtas. Because most of villages were assigned as Saranjams, Saranjamdars formed the chief military power of Indapur Pargana especially in 1770s- 90s. The Government strictly checked how they performed their military duties. However the sequestration of Saranjam coule be released in order to secure as much military power as possible when the war broke out^^. In 1781 Pandurang Baburao failed to pay Karj Patti’’, which was levied on him, his Saranjams were sequestrated. However this sequestration was loosened soon after his payment of Kaij Patti’^. Saranjam was sequestrated as penalty for non-fiilfillment of various duties. The duties were not always military ones. It was found in 1780 that Moro Hari tried to rise in rebellion. The house in Ratnagiri, where he lived, and the all assigned revenues including Saranjam of Gotodi in Indapur Pargana were sequestrated in that year. In 1797, however, Sardehmukhi in Gadapur Pargana and part of Rasad was assigned to The word “Japt” was used for sequestration. No date Safar Shuhur 1168, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 26 Safar Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. Karj Patti was a tax the Gover;- y .m levied in order to pay the debt which the Government had contracted. SSRPD, Vol.VII, no.482. 15 Safar Shuhur 1181, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 547. 46 Moro Hari. Though the assigned revenue sequestrated in 1780 seemed to be removed, he was forgiven and granted other assigned revenues^*^. In 1776 Manaji Shinde, to whom the revenue of Bhabulgaon and of Shelgaon in Indapur Pargana was assigned, joined the plot to eliminate Nana Phadnis from the Court and supported Raghnatrao, who helped Manaji to become the head of Shinde family in 1764*^°. In 1777 Manaji defected to Hyder Ali’s camp betraying the Marathas at the battle against Mysore*'. So his Saranjam of two villages in Indapur Pargana was sequestrated. During the sequestration this Saranjam was reassigned to Fakirji Fadtare, probably because it was found Manaji Shinde wouldn’t come back*^. When Saranjamdar rose in rebellion, the Government sequestrated his assigned revenue immediately. Saranjams of Kharochi and of Ajoti, which had been to Darkoji Nimbalkar, were sequestrated because he supported and served for Raghunathrao in 1779. Sawai Madhavrao and Nana Phadnis, who controlled the Central Government, were at the war with Raghunatrao over the Peshwaship. Besides Darkoji Nimbalkar, some Saranjamdars supported Raghnathrao. During this war the Central Government temporarily seized their Saranjams in Indapur Pargana*^. This political rivalry in the Central Government, which brought about the first Anglo-Martha War (1775-1782), affected the arrangement of Saranjamdars in Indapur Pargana, too. ™ 7 Rabilawal Shuhur 1197, bundle (Fadke) about Moro Hari, Ghadni Rumal no.408. N.G.Rathod, op. cit., pp.4, and 13-14. C.A.Kincaid and D.B.Prasnis, Comprehensive History of Maratha Empire, Vol.Ill, Anmol Publications, Delhi, 1925/1986, p.120. No date Shuhur 1' ', Trant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 504 and 26 Safar Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas, Rumal no.547. 29 Jamadilakhar Shuhur 1775, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 47 Revenue Administration of Indapur Pargana was connected to the political situation in the Central Government. Tax Reduction In 1773 peasants in Purandhar Pargana, Subha Pune petitioned to reduce a land tax because of calamity, and then in 1774 reduction was made in the whole of Pune Subha. According to the order from the Government, Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana decided to reduce a land tax in most of the villages of the Pargana including Dumale or assigned villages*"*. This case indicates Saranjamdars had to obey the Government policy on the remission of the land revenue. Under the Mughals also, assignees or Jagirdars had to obey to the Govenmient’s policy. At the same time their military duties under the Mughals were lightened accordingly*^. So it is inferred that the duties of Saranjamdars in Indapur Pargana were also reduced. The assignment of a village to Sardars etc. meant not to assign the management of a village but to assign the collection of the land revenue only. Therefore it was also one of duties of Kamavisdar to manage Saranjami villages and to protect peasants from Saranjamdars*^. In the case of 1773, however, Diwan of Indapur Pargana (the chief official of Pargana) reported that the then Kamavisdar collected the full revenue without any permission of the Government and then mortgaged 1 Jamadilawal Shuhur 1182, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. Irfan Habib, op. cit., pp.292. According to the Government order, Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana went to Saranjami villages, and examined •!'. situation of agricultural land by the eye and then settled the reduced revenue. 1 Jamadilawal Shuhur 1782, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503, and 16 Jilkad Shuhur 1774, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 547. 48 the revenue of some villages in the condition that interest would be also collected in villages 87 . So Kamavisdar himself was not always loyal to the Government. So it is the role of Div.an of the Pargana to check the activities of Kamavisdar In the case of the first Anglo-Maratha War, trade routes in Indapur Pargana were damaged and some of them were closed. Jakatdar reported goods such as salt did not come from Konkan coast and that transactions in the Pargana became abnomial and then petitioned reduction of the then contract price of Jakat in 1777. So Kamavisdar deducted Rs.1450 from the Makhta and suspended payment of Rs. 1900 in 1779*’. In Medieval India, roads were unsafe and messengers stood in danger of being murdered in famine or in war‘^°. This led to a close of roads as in the case of Maratha War. And famine brought about not only shutdown of roads but also food shortage'^'. To make circulation of grains smoother, Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana was to reduce the contract price of Jakat according to the Government order, which responded to a local petition’^. The local petitions for the reduction of the contract price of Jakat had been presented not only by Jakatdars but also by Zamindars of Indapur Pargana’^ According to the Government order, Kamavisdar could examine the situation about the collection of the land revenue. The land revenue which was assigned to Saranjamdars did not exclusively belong to Saranjamdars. For the good management of Saranjami Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503.. ** T.T.Mahajan supported this point. T.T.Mahajan, Maratha Administration in the 18''' century, p.28. 12 Moharam Shuhur 1179, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. Jagadish Narayan Sarkar, Muyhal Economy- Organization and Working, Naya Prokash, Calcutta, 1987, p.284. ^' ibid., p.278. ” 11 Moharam Shuhur 1177, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. ” The estimate of 1807, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 16. 49 villages, which was one of duties of Kamavisdar, the assignment of the land revenue could be affected by the Government policy. The Government made decisions responding .0 the local petitions, which Zamindars such as Nadgauda presented representing the local community of Indapur Pargana. The rights and duties of Kamavisdar, Nadgauda, and Saranjamdars were in expricable linked with one another not only in the settlement of f the land revenue but also in the reduction of a tax Remittance Rasad Kamavisdar used to pay part of the revenue to the Peshwa Government in advance. This payment was called Rasad. In Indapur Patgana Rasad was basically remitted by installments. For this remittance, Warat or a bill of exchange issued by the Government was used. Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana also borrowed money from a banker (Sahukar) to remit Rasad often, or Sahukar directly sent warat to the Peshwa Government. The amount of Rasad was determined in each settlement between Kamavisdar and the Peshwa Government. This amount basically fluctuated corresponding to the actual revenue in the late Maratha period because Rasad was based on Ain Jama. In 1760s, Rasad amounted to more than one lakh. It began to decrease in 1770s and reduced into Rs.3100 in 1794'^'* because most of villages in Indapur Pargana were assigned as Saranjam and the area of Kamavishi villages in Indapur Pargana got smallest in 1790s. ‘ The account of 1794, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 50 Antastha In addition to Rasad, Kamavisdar remitted Antastha to the Government. According to Molesworth, Antastha means “Money &etc. given secretly to bribe.*^^" In the original documents in Pune Archives the phrase of “Khashakadil Khasgi Antastha” is always used to indicate Antastha. This phrase means “private money in the government." In other words, this was the private income of the Peshwa in the Central Government. As mentioned above, the assigned revenue in a Saranjami village included the item of Antastha. In other words, Saranjamdar remitted Antastha to the Peshwa by use of his assigned revenue. So Antastha was remitted both in Saranjami villages and in Kamavishi villages while Rasad was remitted in Kamavishi villages only^^. Therefore the total amount of Antastha in Indapur Pargana remained steady even if most of villages in this Pargana were assigned in I770s-90s. And Antastha was always remitted to the Peshwa as his private income while Rasad was used for the local administration quite often. It was also difference between Rasad and Antasta. Babti and Sahotra In the accounts of Indapur Pargana, the headings of Babti and Sahotra are entered together, which were supposed to occupy 7.75% of Ain Tankha at the total. In the late 18‘*’ century Tankha of Indapur Pargana was fixed at Rs.l 10936-3. So the total of Molesworth, op.cit., p.21. Pune Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 51 these two items was supposed to amount to about Rs.8597-8. However the total amount was basically fixed at Rs.3000. It was much below what this amount was supposed to be. This shows that the original percentages of these items were just nominal, as Andre Wink pointed out^’. It was so probably because Ain Tankha itself was nominal in this period. Remittance by Nadgauda Nadgauda remit the money he collected in Indapuar Pargana as the agent of Deshmukh to the treasury of the royal court (Huzur) of Satara. This remittance was also called Rasad. The amount was fixed at Rs.3000 before the disasters of 1802-03“^*. Basically money was remitted by installments. In case that it was difficult for Nadgauda to send the full amount according to a fixed plan, bankers (Sahukars) often remitted the money instead^^. In addition to the Court of Satara, Nadgauda remitted the money collected in Indapur Pargana by use of Warat. The money had been regularly remitted to Nadgauda himself and to Khando Shivdeo Pansi from the early 1760s to the early I790s''’‘^. The remittance to Nadgauda formed his salary as the agency of Deshmukh. The relationship between Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana and Khando Shivrao Pansi was not made clear from the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan. The amounts of Warat were not fixed ” Andre Wink, op.cit., p.312. The accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64, and Pune Jamav, Rumal no.797. 20 Jamadilakhar Shuhur 1203, Pune Jamav Rumal no.797. The accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64 and Pune Jamav, Rumal no.797. 52 throughout this period. Besides, Money was often given to the cavah'y and clerks at the record-office (Daftar) in the Court of Satara. Judicial Administration In Judicial Administration, Kamavisdar investigated a criminal case and then levied a fine as the Government officer of Indapur Pargana. An administrative offense such as the forgery of documents also belonged to Criminal Affairs, and was subject to the judicial jurisdiction of KamavisdarIn Civil Affairs, Kamavisdar summoned Panchyatat and authorized a decision settled there, though he did not get involved in a trial in Panchyayat'*^^. In both Criminal and Civil Affairs, Kamavisdar collected Khandfliroi, mentioned above. Deshmukh was not basically engaged in the judicial administration of this Pargana. However Deshmukh was considered to summon Panchyayat and authorize its decision in Izafat villages only. And Deshmukh could participate in a trial in Panchyayat as a chief or an important member of Indapur Pargana. Probably Nadgauda acted judicial roles of Deshmukh in this Pargana. Saranjamdars in Indapur Pargana did not take part in the judicial administration. V.T.Gune, op. cit., p.105. Ibid.. p.83. 53 Military Administration Shibandi As the Government officer, Kamavisdar maintained ShibandiIn the Sanads which was issued to Kamavisdar of hidapur Pargana, the allowance of Shibandi was usually mentioned with that of Kamavisdar and of Darakdars or Pargana Officials'”'’. Their allowance formed the stipends (Baddal Muhsahira) of Indapur Pargana. This shows Shibandi under Kamavisdar was the regular army of this Pargana. The allowance to Shibandi was originally fixed at Rs.3300 according to the account of Indapur Pargana. This amount is entered in the Sanads mentioned above, too. However it was reduced to Rs.2860 in 1778 because many villages in Indapur Pargana were assigned as Saranjam. As more villages were assigned in the final quarter of the 1S'*’ century, the amount decreased more. In 1799, it reduced to Rs.2760'°^. It indicates the allowance of Shibandi was based on Ain Jama^^^. And the reduced share of duties of Shibandi was supposed to be served by Saranjamdars. T.T.Mahajan, Maratha Administration in the 18''' Century, p. 170. Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. The account of 1799, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. The allowance of Shibandi did not exactly correspond to Ain Jama. When the allowance of the Shibandi exceeded the amount calculated according to Ain Jama, the deficit was supplemented by use of irregular expenditure (Gairsanads) of Indapur Pargana. The accounts of 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1804, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 54 In addition to Shibandi, three offices viz., Ushtarkhana for camels, Pilkhana for elephants and Tofkhana for artillery were closely related to Military Administration of Indapur Pargana. Ushtarkhana Ushtarkhana means “the place where camels are tied up'”V' The Ushtarkhana whose jurisdiction covered Indapur Pargana was located in Gadvadi, Akluj Pargana, which was south of Indapur Pargana. In other words, camels came from Ushtarkhana in Gadvadi to Indapur Pargana when they were needed. According to the accounts of Indapur Pargana, the administration of this Pargana supported the Ushtarkhana in three ways. The first way is to send Uhtarkhana grain such as black gram (Mug), chickpeas (Harbara), grass peas (lak), legume (Math), pigeon pea (Tur), rice, sorghum (Jowar), wheatevery year. Kamavisdar procured these kinds of grain from the treasury, or by purchase'*^^ or by use of forced labour' ’®. The second way is to feed fodder to camels at Ushtarkhana. Fodder was basically procured around Ushtarkhana in Gadvadi, Pargana Akluj. In addition, so many bundles of fodder were sent from Indapur Pargana to Ushtarkhana every year. In Indapur Molesworth, op. ch., p.108. The account of 1788, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.62. The grain such as rice, which did not grow up in Indapur Pargana, was got at the market in Pune when it was difficult to procure it enough in Indapur Pargana. The account of 1768, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.58. It does not seem that Kamavisdar usually use forced labour to collect grain for Ushtarkhana. When immediate supply of grain was necessary, he resorted to it according to the Government order. Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 55 Pargana, Kamavisdar basically procures fodder by use of forced labour'When it was very difficult to procure fodder enough to feed camels at meadows in Gadvadi only, Kamavisdar was asked to send more fodder. Or Ushtarkhana sent camels to Indapur Pargana. Camels were brought under the supei-vision of staffs at Ushtarkhana"^. When it was difficult to get enough fodder even in Indapur Pargana, the Government ordered Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana to get 10 bundles of fodder per day by purchase. The money for this purchase was to be paid back by the Government within a year' When more camels were sent to Indapur Pargana than expected, the extra expenditure was to be paid back by the Government."'' The camels which were sent to Indapur Pargana were supposed to return to Ushtarkhana as soon as grass grew up in Akluj Pargana"^. The third way is to feed sick camels nutritious foods such as black hellebore (Kutki), clarified "'27 Jilkad, Shuhur 1180, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. " ‘ 24 Sawal, Shuhur 1173, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 30 Ramajan, Shuhur 1176, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no,547. ' Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. The related Government order, which clearly shows the role of Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana in the case of a short of grass in Akluj Pargana, is as follows: “On 22 Rabilawar, the following order was issued in Pune at the presence of Naro Apaji: The place for 22 heads of camels of Jafardur Khan was in Garvad, Akluj Pargana. The post to feed them was appointed you [= Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana]. According to the duty, send grain. Grass is to be given by forced labour in Garvad, but it has been already taken away [in this year]. So collect grass and grain in every village and give it until grass [in Akluj Pargana] grows up. Or if it's not difficult for you, bring camels to your own place, give grass and grain and set up the place for camels until grass in Garvad grows up. If so, send camels to Garwadi as soon as possible grass grows. If bushes grows ripe in the fallow [in Indapur Pargana], keep camels there. Do this only. This order was issued under the name of the Peshwa.” “i3:R9 ^ ^^cHlcf^ flcPRT 3Tim:5fr ^ tfwm 3tt|;h. F^rrrfr d,.^|cb'^ 3TT^. r-UiU-Hlul SfMT ^ cl ^rsJloT cfTW qWHT ^ 3PTT JliyJM! c^fUT ^ eft q^cT ^ JRcJSRT ^JTcTJIRfr ^sfTt qt ?R ^ 3llL|(viJMcJH qWTT 3TFTH ^ ^ dlMic)dt 3IMT ^frM. ^ di^ipil JUcjsm j)^tu|lryiH ^TlfRT dl^rai 31-Hc-ill-H 3Rlt ^ >ni^ ^ IF?? ?, ^IT^.” Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 56 butter, dill (Owa), flour, garlic, ginger, mustard, oil, pepper, raw sugar, sulfur, and tamarind"*'. Pilkhana Pilkhana means “the place where the elephants are tied or kept''^.” Pilkhana was not located in Indapur Pargana, and maybe it would be the Pilkhana of the Peshwa Government. In the accounts of Indapur Pargana, the sentence of “Hatti Pargana Majkuri (= Pargana Indapur) chamis hote” is always written down under the heading of Philkhana. This means that elephants came to Indapur Pargana from outside and grazed there. So it was considered Pilkhana was located out of Indapur Pargana. According to the accounts, elephants basically stayed in Indapur Pargana for two to four months''*. During their stay, Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana provided them with medicine"^ and nutritious foods such as clarified butter, flour, masala, rice, raw sugar, salt, and sugar as well as fodder’^^. The staffs at Pilkhana such as rocketeers and spear-bearers sometimes came to Indapur Pargana with elephants. When they came, their wages were also paid by Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana'^*. When an elephant was called up during its stay in Indapur Pargana, 116 The account of 1788, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Ruinal no.62. 117 Molesworth, op.cit., p.520. For example, The account of 1768, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.58. ' Medicine consisted of clarified butter, chebulic myrobalan (jagali Hirda), a drug or Oriodaphne Opifera (Maidal), a medical tree named Ativish, red sulphuret of arsenic (Manshil), Arabian Costus (Chokh), A tree/ Morinda Citrifoiia (Aal), red lead, camphor and etc. The account of 1768. Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.58. The account of 1768, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.58. For example, The account of 1788, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.62. 57 Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana sent it to a body of horses or to a camp according to the Government order Tofkhana Tofkhana means “a place of cannon and artillery storesIn the Peshwa period, the Government began to make their own artillery and ammunition in Tofkhana'^"'. In 1766, a cannon-ball factory was established in the territory of Pune Subha, and in 1770 the construction of a new cannon factory started at Pune'^^ In these factories and artillery stores, gun carriages were used to carry cannons, guns etc. A number of bullocks dragged them. It appears that these bullocks were exhausted soon because they worked hard in very heavy roads and fed ill'^^. So it was necessary to get a new supply of bullocks. In Indapur Pargana one bullock was sometimes collected per village and sent to Tofkhana, which was out of Indapur Pargana, according to the Government order'^^. Or the Government ordered Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana to purchase bullocks. In 1790 Kamavisdar bought 25 heands of bullocks in a good condition at the market in Indapur Pargana and then sent them to Tofkhana according to the Goverrmient order*^*. Not only bullocks bur also fodder and grain were sent from Indapur Pargana. Fodder was basically ''Mo Ramajan, Shuhur 1177, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. Molesworth, op. cit., p.390. Surendra Nath Sen, The Military System of the Marathas, K.P.Bagchi & Company, Calcutta and Delhi, 1928/1979, pp.101-102. SSRPD, Vol.IX, nos. 366 and 370. Surendra Nath Sen, The Military System of the Marathas., pp.107-108. 16 Moharam, Shuhur 1177 Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 50 ' ; ..u 29 Jilhej, Shuhur 1177, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 6 Ramajan, Shuhur 1190, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 503. 58 collected by forced labour and grain was purchased at the market in Indapur Pargana'^*^. Iron, which was procured within Indapur Pargana, was directly sent to Tofkhana as it needed at Tofkhana'^'’. When a new Tofkhana was prepared in 1778, Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana collected 8 annas per Rs.lOO of the revenue in every village as a temporary extra tax according to the Government order'^V Shibandi under Deshmukh Deshmukh also maintained his own Shibandi to keep the order in Indapur Pargana. According to the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, the allowance paid to Shidandi under Deshmukh amounted to Rs.320 in the late 18'*’ century Saranjamdars The main duties of Saranjamdars were to maintain their military equipment, mainly horses and to serve for the Government. According to the list of feed and allowance, horses were fed with vetch, sorghum, and other cereal crops (Bajri) as well as fodder. Besides, rice, wheaten flour (Kanik), salt, butter, clarified butter, jaggery, pepper. '■’ 29 Jamadilahar, Shuhur 1161, Prant Ajmas, Pune, no.504 and the account of 1775, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.60. The account of 1775m Prant Ajmas, Pune, Ruma' i .oO. 11 Rajab, Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. The accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64 and Pune Jamav, Rumal no.797. 59 and mixed spices (Masala) were sometimes given as nutritious foodsIn the case of Sakhoji Kate to whom the revenue of Kalasi in Indapur Pargana was assigned at Rs.588- it is fortunately found that it cost Rs.40 p^r year in 1787 to feed his horses with vetch, cereal crops, salt and sugar'^^. But the information about the price of crops which were given to horses is not available in the list of feed and allowance etc except a few cases. It is inferred that these crops were rarely procured by purchase in a market but rather sent to Saranjamdars directly from farmland in assigned villages. However Saranjamdars had to purchase at least rice and salt, which were produced mainly in the coastal area. Staffs of Khanderao Jiwaji Siledar bought rice and salt, and brought them to Indapur Pargana The fodder which was fed to horses of Saranjamdar was cut in his assigned village. The peasants in the surrounding Kamavishi villages were brought as forced labourers'^’. And they were forced to work to cut and pile fodder when Saranjamdar was order to set out for the military service. Or the bonded labourers were used for the collection of fodder, the payment to whom was fixed at Rs.1-8 per 1000 bundles'^*. Burton Stein remarked that the pressure for elite comsumption placed heavier demands upon labourers in the late eighteenth century south India together with the Nutritive foods were fed to stallions while mares were posted at a station in an assigned village. While mares were in a military campaign, they were not given to stallions. 18 Saban Shuhur 1185, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. This settlement was carried out in 1783. No date Mauj Kalasi Shuhur 1183, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.504. 23 Jilhej Shuhur 1187, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 3 Jilhej Shuhur 1175, bundle (Fadk ■; .L^out Khanderao Jiwaji Siledar, Ghadni Rumal no.404. 29 Jilhej Shuhur 1177, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 29 Moharam Shuhur 1186, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 60 increased demands of state regime to meet military costs. And this high demand brought about the competition of labour among elites to attract agrarian and artisans. This attraction was often done on the one Land through the granting of privileges to migrants, and on the other hand such forceful migration as Tipu Sultan practiced in the war against the Nawab of Arcot'^^. In the late eitheenth century Indapur Pargana also, Saranjamdars put high demand on labour to meet military cost. In order to procure fodder, the forced labour was basically used in Indapur Pargana. And the labourers were forced to migrate from Kamavishi villages to Saranjami villages according to the Government order. The payment to the bonded labour, which could cause the competition of labour, was fixed in this Pargana. At least in the late eighteenth century Indapur Pargana, Saranjamdars could control the competition of labour with the help of the Peshwa Government. And they were often ordered temporary migration, though it was not such devastating plunder of labourers as Tipu Sultan carried out. Besides horses, Saranjamdars kept camels, bullocks, and sometimes elephants. For example, Sakhoji Kate, the above-mentioned Saranjamdar, raised 40 head of horses and 7 heads of camels in 1778''**’. Narshig Udhav, whose Saranjam of Setfal Taveli in Indapur Pargana amounted to Rs.2515 in 1778, kept 67 heads of horses, 13 heads of camels, 4 heads of bullocks and an elephant''*'. It seemed to vary according to the size of Saranjam how many animals Saranjamdars kept. The bank of the Bhima River was suitable to raise horses. The horses which grew up in Indapur Pargana were sold at a Burton Stein, “Eighteenth-century India: Another View,” p.72. 5 Safar Shuhur 1178, Prr . vjmas, Pune, Rumal no. 503. Mauj Shetfal Haveli Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.504 and 9 Rajab Shuhur 1180, Prant Ajmas Pune, Rumal no.547. 61 market in Peth Indapur. And fragmentary information about the price of a horse is available in the Modi documents. It seemed that a horse cost at least Rs.SO''*^ in the late 1780s. The Peshwa Gover.iment often ordered Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana to pay the subsidy for the purchase of animals such as horses and camels by using part of Rasad''^^ This order indicates that the purchase of a horse could be the financial burden on some Saranjamdars. According to the list of feed and allowance, female domestic slaves (Kunbin), Mahar*'*'* and boys (Porga) usually worked for Saranjamdar. Their allowance was paid in kind only. Besides Saranjamdars employed some staffs for their military duties. Though the members of the staffs varied from village to village, they mainly consisted of one or two clerks (Karkun), a water-carrier (Palkhi), a guard of meadow (Kumya) and bodyguards who were made up of Marathas, Mahars, and Mangs. Sometimes a goatherd (Shelkya) and a cowherd (Gaykya) joined the staffs'"*^. The allowance to these staffs was paid in money. For example, Sakhoji Kate hired two clerks for Rs.l5 per person, a water- carrier for Rs.4, a guard of meadows for Rs.4, a goatherd and a cowherd for Rs.4 per person, and 4 Marathas for Rs.4 per person and 9 Mahars and Mangs as bodyguards for The animals which were purchased by a Sardar were basically exempt from Jakat. So the prices of the animals were written in the order of this exemption. For example, Mankoji Nimbalkar bought a horse at Rs.300 from Sadashiv Wani. Balaji Anant bought two heads of horses at Rs.400. Raghunat Anant Indapurkar bought a horse at Rs.l30, a horse at Rs.88, and at 200 in Qasba and Peth Indapur. Abaji Raghunath under Mahadaji Shinde bought two heads of horses at Rs.l90. Though the price of a horse varied, it seemed that it cost at least Rs.80. 21 Jilkad Shuhur 1186, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 503 and 30 Jamadilakhar Shuhur 1183, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 2 Rabilawal Shuhur 1195, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.504. In the list, the word of “Rabta Mahar” was used to refer to Mahar. “Rabta” means from whom the public work was exacted. So this indicates that the Mahar in the list was not the private servant of Saranjamdar. Molesworth, c; .. p.693. 5 Safar Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas Pune, Rumal no. 503 and 8 Jamadiilawal Shuhur 1180, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 62 Rs.3 per person in 1778. So the allowance in that year amounted to Rs.89 at the total Besides, Sutars and Kumbhars in Saranjami villages were sometimes demanded to work for Saranjamdai For example, carpenters in Daij in Indapur Pargana, where the cavalry of Khandoji Jagthap were stationed in 1768, cut 50 acacias in meadows and then made a one-story house (Khan) for him'"^^. As A.R.Kulkami pointed out''’’’, many Saranjamdars were stationed in Indapur Pargana in 1770s-1790s. They kept horses, camels etc. and formed military forces in Indapur Pargana. To maintain equipments such as horses, Saranjamdars not only spent money but also used grain and fodders in agricultural land directly. While their Saranjams were converted into money in Tainat Jabtaa, their actual services in their Saranjami villages were not completely monetized at least in the late eighteenth century. So the assignment of villages by which not only money but also provisions for their duties were easily available was favourable to Saranjamdar as the payment for their military services. So the military forces in Indapur Pargana consisted of Shibandi under Kamavisdar, Shibandi under Deshmukh, and Saranjamdars who were stationed in this Pargana.And Ushtarkhana. Pilkhana, and Tofkhana joined the military acitivities in Indapur Pargana. 5 Safar Shuhur 1178, Prant Ajmas Pune, Rumal no. 503. Jainadilawal Shuhur 1180, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 7 Sawal Shuhu 1168, Prant Ajmas Pune, Rumal no. 547. A.R.Kulkami, “Towards A History of Indapur,” p.202. 63 Military Expenditure In addition to these regular forces in Indapur Pargana, a new head entitled “Military Expenditure (Lashkar Kharch)” appeares in the account of 1799. After Bajirao II took the office of Peshwa, the civil war widened in the Maratha territory. In the foreign relations, a strong policy of the English East India Company under Wellesley began to threaten the Marathas'^®. In this context, military forces of Indapur Pargana were also reinforced according to the order issued in Pune Subha. For this reinforcement, the extra revenue was collected from many of villages of Indapur Paragana under the heading of “tribute (Khandni)'^'.” When Military expenditure exceeded the revenue from tribute, the excess was often covered with debt. By use of “Military Expenditure,” more Sardars including those under Daulatrao Shinde'^^ were employed and stationed in Indapur Pargana. In 1800, the money was spent for Vithoji Holkar, the brother of Yashwantrao Holkar. In addition, some money was sent to Tofkhana in Pune Subha, which also served for the defense of Pune' Besides, Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana often supplied military provisions including fodders to a Sardar and the wages of his messengers, his foot-soldiers etc., who Stewart Gordon, The Marathas, (The New Cambridge History of India II-4), Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 1998/2005, p.171. According to the account of Indapur Pargana, tribute was collected from not all the villages of Indapur Pargana at once. The account of 1800, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. The accounts of 1799, 1800, 1802, and 1804, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 64 was stationed in this Pargana temporarily or passed through the Pargana'^"*. In 1760, Deshmukh, more precisely Nadgauda paid Rs.20-8-0 to Hari Gopal who came from Kamatak to Pune. The money was chiefly used for a supply of fodder. And part of it was given to Diwan and Rocketeer in Tofldiana, who was considered to be concerned with the mission of Hari Gopal. At the same time Kamavisdar of this Pargana also paid the same amount of money for the mission of Hari GopalIn 1786, Sakhoji Kate, who was a Saranjamdar in Indapur Pargana, provided 13 khandis of vetch, 27 khandis of cereal crops, and 50000 bundles of fodder for the cavalry of Balaji Janardan who came from Kamatak'^^. The above cases indicate that not only Kamavisdar but also Nadgauda and Saranjamdars carried out the same military duty. Indapur Pargana occupied the strategic position under the Marathas. For, this Pargana was located not only near from Pune but also on the bank of the Bhima River where bourses were raised under the Marathas'^^. So this military assistance was quite important in Indapur Pargana. The Pargana Office Kamavisdar and Deshmukh were administratively the two heads of Indapur Pargana, though the largest Saranjamdar in this Pargana got involved in at least Revenue Administration. In order to administer Indapur Pargana smoothly and properly, the The account of 1773, Pune Jamav Rumal no.790, the account of 1793, Pune Jamav Rumal no.793, and Hisebi of 1790, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 503. The account of Deshmukhi Watan (1760), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.64. 7 Saban Shuhur 1186, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.504. V.S.Kadam,o;?. «7.,p.ll6. 65 Pargana officials, other hereditary officers such Deshpande, and some assistants of Deshmukh worked in Indapur Pargana. All of them comprised the Pargana office Kamavisdar Kamavisdar was the top of the Government side of the Pargana office. As mentioned above, his duties ranged over Revenue, Judicial, and Military Administration of Indapur Pargana. And the following order tells his rights: “4 Jilhej (= the twelfth Muslim month), the Krishnaji Khanderao held the Kamavis [of Indapur Pargana], The Government removed the Kamavis (from him) and appointed you [Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana]. Check official procidere which have continued for generations, and its estimate will be settled in of the account of Indapur Pargana separately. Carry out the procedure according to this estimate. If the revenue comes into the hand of ex-Kamavisdar besides this year [=1806], the expenditure of the allowance in this region and Rasad will be determined within a certain period. If some money remained after deducting what was remitted to the Government within [the total amount of] this money and Rasad of this year, took back this money from him. And if a balance came [to you] concerning the expenditure of the administration'^'^ of Indapur Pargana, Kamavisdar and the Government official literally worked at the Pargana office (Kacheri) in Peth Indapur. Deshmukh was in Satara, and their assistants lived and worked in Peth Indapur. It was not made clear if these assistants had their own office or worked in kacheri. Probably Marathi Word ’ is the abbreviation of the phrase “3TT^ JTSIJgT.” This pharase in the accounts basically means various expenditures in the administration of a certain region viz., “Mahal”. 66 L9 >5 I'd ‘SDlflDJD]^ Bill Jo UI3ISAS BAtfDMSlUIUipy ‘USS'NS -,| •/,t7g ou iBiurra ‘aunj ‘sEuifv IUEJJ tOS'ou lEuiira ‘3unj ‘sEUify Jubjj ‘6031 -inqnqs fsMllf V Iniife IPr:>lh ifiiib ^ ^ J2 •Ih^'^l> J£112^ Jf4^ U£12 '^ue 11^ jlnite Mii 12 ifeihiif J2yii ^ y24Mh i^Tntfi^ i-^trjf Miut u tjite=> Iiosh |joh>(r Jilli Jj£U£ 12 J,aiit2 tt>1nP>h> l^nltfnit?-^ l^>CI)-P E2^^MUe i>U£EK' lhi|,^l5>IH>l^ J:ii£l€ P^Ph> ^>.P$ j{^Plfjl>» im: ityziEtfc j2ii|ia ^pina^ ‘j£:^£jy o„ •^^|30IAJ3S oijqnd jpijj jo uoijmSooaj UI IU3UI JBpads JO SJ90IJJ0 OJ PSJUBJS 3J3M S9pBl{SUnS pUB SUinbUBJBd P35JJBUI3J uss H ’S 'SUI31I 3UI0S pspnpui Ajb[bs sih '(g, IJl'S'a aoj (uiSBdjv bXjmiq) duiBj b JO apBqsuns jBjusraBiuo ub pue ‘008's^ Joj (iipnej) uinbuBiEj ‘0003’S'a (ub;3M buijbs) S3§BM JBnUUB JO pSJSlSUOO A j BJBS Siqj ‘SJBpSIABlUB')} OJ pSnSSI 9J3AV qOIlJM SpBUES 01 guipjoooy '08AI IIP uasq pBq Xjejbs siqjo junouiB aqj ‘euBgjBd jndBpuj UI ’uouisod siq m p3/^Bis aq sb §uo\ sb /Cjb|bs ibhuub ub ;o§ JBpsiABUiB-^ ‘sapisag 3nu3A3J puBj aqj jo uoijosjioo aqj XnBioadsa ‘uouBJjsiuiuipv snusAa-a oj pajoauuoD Xjpajip 3J9m jBpsiABUiB;^ jo sjqSu aqx -juamaiips paqsiuijun aqj dn SuipuiM joj JBpsiABuiB-^ m 3u b papjBMSJ auiooui siqx 'JBpsiABuiB;;^ -X3 0} 3UIB0 3nU3A3J JBUISUO 3qj J I U9A3 JBpSIABUIB;)! SuiJOB 3qi OJ p3§U0J3q 30UBJBq aqi ‘pBUBg siqj oj g u ip jo o o y 'JBpsiABUiB;^ oj paSuopq juauioiaAoo aqj oj aouBwiuisj aqj puB bubSjbj jndBpuj sqj ui aanjipuadxa aqj Suoipnpap j3jjb pauiBuiaj qoiqM aouBjBq aqj^ uo9|’JU3UIOI9AOO sqj .loj jdiaoai sqj dn MBjp uaqj puB ‘ji p9i[oo puB sjBqs siq o; Asuoui siqi ppB The amount of his salary was supposed to be determined according to Tankha of Indapur Pargana‘^^ However his saraly reduced to Rs.l921 in 1781 correspoind to the decrease both of the number of Kamavishi villages and of Ain Jama^‘^. This reduced amount had been fixed till the disasters of 1802-03 till though the number of assigned villages in Indapur Pargana increased more in 1790s. In fact his salary was affected by the actual revenue, expeciallyyi/« Jama. The Pargana Officials The Pargana officials, who were called Darakdars, were mainly composed of Diwan, Chitnis (Under Secretary), Fadnis (Registar), Majumdar (Auditor), Daftardar (Record-Keeper), Potnis (Treasurer) and Potdar (Assayer) in Indapur Pargana. Diwan was the chief among these officials. He watched the work of Kamavisdar'^^, and cosigned all the orders and letters in the administration of Pargana'®^. In Indapur Pargana, Kamlakhar Bhaskar Diwan collected Baje Patti instead of Kamavisdar in 1767'^’. This indicates that the position of Diwan in the administration of Indapur Pargana was high enough to do the duties of Kamavisdar, instead. The Salary of Kamavisdar occupied only 2% of Tankha. This rate was below the general rate of 4% under the Marathas. After introducing this general rule, however, S.N.Sen pointed out that it was not always followed under the Marathas. The case of Indapur Pargana is not the sole exception. S.N.Sen, Administrative System of the Marathas, p. 152. The account of 1781, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.61. See the section of “Tax Reduction” in this chapter. 156 j -p Mahajan, Maratha Administration in the 18''' Century, p.28, GBP Vol.XIII, pt.2, p.332, and S.N.Sen, Administrative System of the Marathas, p.l 56. 30 Ramajan Shuhur 1167, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 68 The Sanads to appoint Kamavisdar stated that Kamavisdar could not interfere with the office of Majumdar and of Fadnis'^’^. In other words, Darakdars kept independent of Kamavisdar. According to the contemporary documents of Indapur Pargana, the office of Darakdars was basically hereditaryThe Peshwa Government generally promoted smooth succession of Darakdars*™. And Kamavisdar could not remove Darakdars from their office freely, though the Peshwa Govemment could'^'. The income of Darakdars was basically an annual salary, and it belonged to the Stipends (Baddal Mushahira) of Indapur Pargana as that of Shibandi did. Before the disasters, their salaries were fixed (See Table 1). The salary of Diwan was much higher than that of other Darakdars. In order to pay a salary to Diwan, Takali in Indapur Pargana was assigned to him in 1775'^^. After this year Diwan collected his income from Takali only instead of getting an annual salary. This means the position of Diwan was more important than those of other Darakdars. In addition to a salary, Chitnis held 2 chawars of The work of produce documents should be kept in the hands of Majumdar and Fadnis. 21 Saban Shuhur 1175, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. For example, Pandurang Kamlakar succeeded his father or Kamlakar Bhaskar as Diwan in 1770. Mahipat Khando inherited the post ofPotdar from his father or Khando Vinayak in 1790. 28 Rajab Shuhur 1170 and 15 Rawilawal Shuhur 1190, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. The following quotation in the estimate of 1808 clears this policy of the Government: “Khandov Naik Potdar died. So the payment to Potdar was deducted in 1804 from the allowances to Darakdars. However Potdar is essential to examine Rupees in the Pargana. Therefore it was authorized by the Govemment that the amount of Rs.50 out of the payment to the late Potadar [=Rs.l00] should be paid to his son Baiaji Khando Potnis.” “^sl^ 3TRTT3ft The estimate of 1808, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 16. In 1766, the Peshwa Government sent Baiaji Krishna as new Fadnis and Ganesh Vishwanath as new Majumdar to Indapur Pargana removing their predecessors from their posts, though the rason was not metioned in the original documents. And in 1774, the Government dismissed Baiaji Krishna from Fadnis and appointed Bhaskar Hari Fadnis. This reason was not mentioned in the document, either. 15 Sawal Shuhur 1166, and 2 Rajab Shuhur 1174, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 21 Saban Shuhur 1175, Prant Ajmas Pune, Rumal no.547. 69 Inam Land in Qasba Indapur'^^. Other Darakdars enjoyed salaries only. Next to Diwan, Chitnis appeared to be important in Indapur Pargana. Table 1. The Salary of Darakdars of Indapur Pargana Darakdar Diwan Chitnis Fadnis Majumdar Daftardar Potnis Potdar Salary(Rs.) 1000 200 200 200 250 200 150 Besides Darakdars, Kamavisdar used his staffs (Karkuns) to carry out his duties in Indapur Pargana smoothly. Not Kamavisdar but the Government paid salaries to them in the same way as Darakdars. It indicates they were not Kamavisdar’s private staffs but the Pargana officials The amount was fixed at Rs.200 before 1804. Deshmukh Deshmukh was the chief local hereditary officer of Indapur Pargana. His duties were also connected to Revenue, Judicial, and Military Administration of Indapur Pargana, as mentioned above. And his duties and rights were determined by Deshmukhi Watan. The following chart represents the average ratio of main items in the revenue of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana in 1760s. 18 Sawal Shuhur 1166, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.547. 70 Chart 3. The Revenue of the Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana in 1760s The Revenue of Deshmukh Izafat villages N e m n u k Siw ay J a m a T h e Revenue of Patil According to the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, the revenue of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana roughly consisted of Izafat villages, Nemnuk, Siway Jama, and the revenue of Patilki Watan of Qasba and Peth Indapur. This chart tells that two items entitled “Izafat villages” and “Nemnuk” occupied most of his revenue. Nemnuk, the allowance of 71 Deshmukh, consisted of Kabulat Patti'^'’, Bhet'^^ Hak, Dasara, and Sanki’ant. These five items were basically collected in every village, and formed the largest incoe for Deshmukh in total. The items of Hak, Dasara, Sankrat, which were connected to the cultural life in Indapur Pargana, are dealt with in the next chapter. As mentioned above, Deshmukh, more precisely Nadgauda collected various items such as Khandfiiroi and Masala in Indapur Pargana. In the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, these items are entered under the heading of Siway Jama. Deshmukh of Indapur Paragana, who was the Satara Raja, was Patil of Qasba and Peth Indapur. The rights of Patilki Watan also belonged to the income of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana. The rights and duties of Patilki Watan are considered in Chapter 4. While the income of Kamavisdar was basically connected to the collection of Ain Jama only, the income of Deshmukh Was collected in various scenes. Assistants of Deshmukh The most important assistant of Deshmukh was Nadgauda. In order to help Nadgauda, Fadnis and Majumdar worked in Indapur Paragana. These Fadnis and Majumdar were different from those of the Pargana officials. Afterwards, the Inam Commissioner in the Bombay Presidency reported that Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana ' See the section of Jama" in this chapter. See the section of'‘Siway Jama” in this chapter. 72 used his own Fadnis and Majumdar in Indapur Pargana “for his own convenience'^^”. So they were Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh'^^ Nadgauda The following letter is the Sanad which was issued in 1775 to Nagoram Meghsham Nadgauda under the name of Kamlakar Bhaskar Kamavisdar: 6* Moharam [the first Muslim month], with the witness of Naro Apaji who lived in Pune. Maharaja Chatrapati held Deshmukhi Watan of Pargana Indapur. The revenue which was collected from his Izafat villages and from Hak amounted from 8000 to 9000. Rs.3000 out of this revenue was collected (and remitted) for the expenditure in Satara. The remainder was used for the regular Warat (the remittance) and for the allowance in Mahal Kharch. In this year, however, the allowance was not paid to a person in Satara. The expenditure in Satara is so huge. In this year it was told Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana to give Krishnarao Anant Rs.3000 as the rights Deshmukhi Watan and the allowance from the regular Warat and from Mahal Kharch. But he didn’t give it. Collect the revenue and gave the allowance instead of Deshmukh. In this year it rained well and no riot occurred. So the revnue as the rights of Deshmukhi Watan [of Indapur Pargana] will increase by Rs.l200. Give him the amount of Rs. 1000 out of Rs.2000 now and the remaining Inam Commissioner Northern Division to Revenue Department, No. 1021 of 1859 dated 30 June 1859, “Indapur Deshmukhs Watan,” FileNo.134, Rumal No.8, List No.l3, Section, Pune Archives, p.41. The accounts of Deshmukhi have the phrases of “Deshmukh’s Majumdar (Deshmukhiche Majumdar),” and of “Deshmukh’s Fadnis (Deshmukhiche Fadnis).” 73 Rs.lOOO in Chaitra [the first Hindu month], (The order was issued) under the name of Kamlaicar Bhaskar'^**. The above Sanad indicates that it was the most important duty for Nadgauda to collect the revenue of Deshmukhi Watan and then to remit it to Satara. The main sources of the income were Haks and the land revenue from Izafat villages. Instead of Deshmukh, Nadgauda witnessed the settlement made by Kamavisdar in Indapur Pargana and collected Hak, Kabulat Patti and Bhet'^'^. In order to collect the revenue from Izafat villages, Nadgauda actually managed these villages. Instead of Deshmukh, Nadgauda settled the revenue of Izafat villages with Kamavisdar at the village level. In reducing the land revenue, Nadgauda surveyed the real situation of Izafat villages and then settled with Kamavisdar'^'’. And Nadgauda paid Baje Patti to Kamavisdar. From the revenue in Indapur Pargana, Nadgauda remitted Rasad, which was fixed at Rs.3000, and paid the money to some particular persons including Nadgauda himself by use of Warat. And Nadgauda gave the allowance to Nadgauda himself, Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh. In the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan This payment is entered under the apiur gut an^. JTTcraT ct ^crsr fJraW snz ^ r^llijcpl TOHRT 3TT^. cTT# ;nfrHr. r-MlijcPl cRT?T cl 3 ? ^ 3 ^ . ^ITfT 7TRT 7TT?TTtr 3JRT UWit qrcJeTT ?nfr. 'm 3TT^. cRIcHxTT cl OcJdl^N^ ?TT?1Tfr ^ c^C-UKIcJ 3TRH 5T5?IR1^ 3TT5icP^ ^fcJxfT ST atr cJv^JT M ’ETRTNT cT ^ ?3TR 6lRT9t WZt 3TraiR HtT ?3nT ^ ^ ^tcH^r cT ^(cp ?:3fR ^ Jinfr ^ EF3T 74 heading of the local expenditure (Mahal Kharch) in Indapur Pargana. According to the above letter, the revenue was collected more than usual in 1775, and the surplus was sent to Satara. According to the account of Deshmukhi ^^'atan (1775), Rasad amounted to Rs.3000 as usual and the irregular remittance was directly made to a Karkun in Satara. The above example shows that the surplus in the revenue of Indapur Pargana could be remitted to Satara and used for the Satara Court without being returned to Indapur Pargana. Nadgauda actually carried out various duties in Revenue Administration of Indapur Pargana. And it was the peculiarity of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana that much of the revenue collected as the rights of Deshmukhi Watan was not used in the Pargana but remitted to Satara. In Judicial Administration, Nadgauda was considered to collect Khandfuroi instead of Deshmukh. However it was not made clear from the original document in Pune Archives that he could play the same role as Deshmukh in Panchayat etc. In Military Administration, he was considered to pay the allowance to Shibandi under Deshmukh as he did to Fadnis and Majundar under Deshmukh. The actual relationship between Nadgauda and Shibandi under Deshmukh was not made clear from the related documents, either. Nadgauda enjoyed various rights in reward for his duties. As the above letter shows, he was paid the allowance by use of Warat. The amount of this allowance varied from year to year, though maney was regularly paid in the period of 1760s -1790s. Besides, he was paid the allowance by use of mon. frir the local expenditure of Deshmukh Watan. 75 The amount of this allowance was fixed at Rs.SOO'**'. So the amounts were different between both these allwances. hi the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, the fonner allowance is entered under the heading of Warat, and the latter is under the heading of the local expenditure (Mahal Kharch). Besides, Nadgauda held one Izafat village viz., Pimpri Budruk, two assigned villages viz., Kaltan and Wamkute Budruk, Inam land in Qasba Indapur'^", and Nadgaudaki Watan. This Watan chiefly consisted of Hak from every village in Indapur Pargana'*^ and from the revenue of Jakat in hidapur ParganaThe documents in Ghadni section show that he enjoyed his rights out of Indapur Pargana. When Nagorao Meghsham died in 1782, Meghsham Nagnath was supposed to inherit the following revenue items from Nagorao Meghsham In addition to Rs.500, the amount of Rs.200 was paid to Nadgauda for the agency of Patill of Qasba and Peth Indapur. The accounts of Deshmukhi Watan (1764 and 1765), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumai no.64. '*■ 30 Jilhej Shuhur 1175, bundle (Fadke) about Nagorao Meghsham, Ghadni Rumai no.406. For example, Akar Indapur Pa-^ .m (1762), Pune Jamav Rumai no.790. The accounts of Jakat (1782, 1785, 1792 and 1793), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumai no.64. 21 Rabilakhar Shuhur 1182, bundle (Fadke) about Meghshamrao Nagnath, Ghadni Rumai no.408. 76 Table 2. The Account (1782) of the Privileges of Meghsham Nagnath No. Village Pargana Prant Items 1 Warkute Budruk Indapur Saranjam 2 Kaltan Indapur Saranjam 3 Pimpri Budruk Indapur Izafat Ganv 4 Qasba Indapur Indapur Inam land (5 Chawar) 5 Lavte Havel! Wai Khalsa (= Jagir) and Sardeshmukhi 6 Kanur Haveli Wai Mokasa 7 Jisarle Wadan Wai Khalsa (= Jagir) and Sardeshmukhi 8 Matyapur Wadan Wai Inam Land (1 Chawar) 9 Kanur Haveli Wai Inam Land (1 Chawar) 10 Jisarle Wadan Wai Inam Land (1 Chawar) 11 Karnawadi Nithadi Pune Saranjam 12 Pisaruti Sin/val Jagir 13 Kuganv Chand Bhagay Inam Village 14 Paytane Ambejogay Mokasa, Babti, Sardeshmukhi, and Sahotra 15 Naleswar Wanwale Mokasa, Babti, Sardeshmukhi, and Sahotra Many of the inherited itemswere located in Prant Wai in Satara Subha. Though only the letter in the inheritance, on which the above table is based, covers all the revenue items of Nadgauda, various documents in Ghadni Rumal no.408 support that Nadgauda held these items in the late 18* century. The above table indicates Nadgauda of Indapur Pargana was a powerful Saranjamdar in Pune and Satara Subha. The items were nc :..iniediately inherited. For example, two assigned villages in Indapur Pargana, which are included in the inherited list, the name of Meghsham Nagnath first appears as Saranjamdar of these villages in the accounts of 1784. See Appendix III. 77 Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh actually assisted Nadgauda in Indapur Pargana. The following letter is the Sanad about Sadashiv Yadav Fadnis, which was issued in 1772: 8*'’ Jamadilawal [the 5* Muslim month], Shrawan [the 5* Hindu month], Fadnis both for Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana and for Patil of Qasba and Peth Indapur was Yadav Bapuji. However he died in this year. So the new settlement on Fadnis was made under the name of his son Sadashiv Yadav. It was determined in the settlement that he carried out the service of Fadnis as before and that the money of Rs.200 and 10 maunds of Sorghum, which were measured by the exchange rate of 16 payali - 1 maund, were given for Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana and for Patil as before. The Sanad is issued to Sadashiv Yadav**^ In reword for his service, Fadnis under Deshmukh enjoyed not only money but also Jowar as his allowance. The payment to Fadnis was entered under the heading of the local expenditure (Mahal Kharch) in the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan. And Majumdar was also paid the allowance. According to the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, the (^TTcm) W M T ^ aracgr ^ r W ^ 3JF3T 3T9IR1M^ ^ JTTcT WifRfr £fRR cltr ^ Tpsnfptfrt cMJHciiM ^ w z r ^00 cTHTtr ?it9Tfr w tr l 5m ^r9lv^U 78 payment to Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh was fixed at Rs.200 respectively before the disasters of 1802-03. In 1780, Nadgauda complained that Fadnis did not work and that Fadnis kept the documents on Deshmukhi Watan in his own house only and then asked for the evidence that Sadashiv Yadav had worked as Fadnis for a long time from the court at Satara 188 . This petition clears that Nadgauda supervised the works of Fadnis under Deshmukh. Pargana Administration after the disasters of 1802-03 Revenue Administration New Settelement of Ain Ja m a after the disasters of 1802-03 Kamavishi villages The disasters viz., the invasion of the Holkar army in 1802 and the drought in 1803 hit Indapur Pargana. The account of 1807 tells the then situation and the process.of the new settlement of 1807: 4 Jamadilawal, Shuhur 1180, Prant Ajms, Pune, Rumal no.503. 79 In the division [, which means Indapur Pargana,] [Peasants] abandoned their field which was destroyed by the invasion of [Holkar] Army and [many peasants] dispersed or died btoause of the famine. Some villages have a few residents. Other villages were totally depopulated. The collection of the revenue according to Kamal assessment became impracticable. Therefore peasants have abandoned the current system where Kamal Assessment gradually increased according to the plan of Istawa and then left their village. Zamindar [such as Deshmukh] of the Pargana petitioned to bring the peasants who left their villages back and new peasants, to settle the assessment and collect it according to the plan of Istawa, and to make this Pargana prosperous. So from this year [=1807], [Kamavisdar or his gent] was to settle Istawa plan based on Tankha or the rent-roll after doing the eye-survey of fields. The total of the Tankha assessement'^'’ and Jakat, [which was settled] as mentioned above, with the exclusion of assigned villages Because of this desolation, Ain Tankha reduced to Rs.103821-3-0 in 1804'^^. This indicates that Ain Tankha reflected the productivity of Indapur Pargana in a certain degree. As mentioned above, a contract between the Peshwa Government and According to Wilson, Tankha means not only the old assessment but also “the standard rent-roll of a village or a ditrict.” Wilson, op. cit., p.509. As we saw above, the new settlement of 1807 began with reducing rhe Tankha assessment. “3TW ^ 5TWT ^ ^ ^ tRRTETr ^ cT JTTcI 3TT^ 3TFPR ^ ^TT^. ^JTTTcT^ ITHIcll T2TH H<|Jkl 3 ^ . cT ^Tcft TZIrT JIN-il'-m 3TP]^ pTTcPJfr cl iJNufl 3TT5I0 duflciK' W P n 3T;5tcj^ fctHctT clipfr. (HN'TI sraT rt^TE^TT^ siTatEIT fTcTTcIT ^TToT 'Ulcj.qr^ W M T 5T5Ti^TtTr ^JTT^ ^ rCTGTT ^ olcnicTl-Jl cftrST...” The account of 1807, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63, The estimate (Ajmas) of 1813, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.l6. 80 Kamavisdar was based on Ain Tankha. So it is infen-ed that the reductions oiAin Tankha affected conditions in the contract between Malhar Mukund, who was appointed Kamavisdar after the disasters, and the Peshwa Government, although it was not made clear from the documents concerned in Pune Archives what changed in a contract. And the above quotation shows that the disasters completely destroyed the regular system of Kamal Assessment. In 1807 the Peshwa Government decided to adopt Istawa^^, which would last for ten years, responding to the petition of Zamindars''^'*. The process of Istawa in the account goes as follows: First, Kamavishi villages at the time of the disasters of 1802-03 were categorized into two groups. One group was the villages in which people survived the disasters of 1802-03. The other was depopulated villages in Indapur Pargana. Out of nineteen Kamavishi villages only seven villages including Qasba Indapur belonged to the former group (see Table 3). Twelve villages including Peth Indapur were depopulated. “Istawa” means the practice of gradually increasing the reduced revenue up to the full assessment. In 1807, Kamal Assessment was determined at Rs.229027 based on Kamal Assessment of 1772 as before the disasters. After the disasters, not only Tankha but also Kamal Assessment became nominal figures because the land revenue of Saranjami villages was fixed at the amount before the disasters without regarding their actual productivity. The estimate of 1808, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.l6. 81 Table 3. The list of villages in the new settlement of 1807 Populated Villages Depopulated Villages Qasba Indapur Wojhar Nimbganv Pimpri Khurd Nirgude Gokhali Kalas Kati Lakdi Pitkeshwar Katwali Balpudi Qasba Bawde Rajewadi Sanasar Rui Akole Bhadalwadi Path Indapur By 1807 twenty-one Saranjami villages had been resumed because of the depopulation. In nine villages out of twenty one ex-Saranjaini villages, a slight productivity remained enough to be counted in the new settlement. It means the remaining fourteen Qx-Saranjami villages were totally ruined. Nine ex-Samnjami villages were also added to the second group. In these ex-Saranjami villages, new peasants from other villages were positively accepted and pieces of the land where peasants had run away before the settlement of 1807 were allotted to them, and then Istawa plan was settled per family according to the then situation''^^ Probably Saranjami villages which were especially depopulated had been resumed. For, Saranjamdars could not realize the ftill amount of the assigned revenue there. There is a high possibility that they abandoned the assignment and then asked for the payment in money or another assignment in the 195The account of 1808, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 82 area which was unaffected by the disasters. H.Fukazawa remarked that Mansabdars refused Jagir and asked for he payment in money instead in the later 17* century Deccan where they could not collect tLe assignment properly’^^. A crisis in the assignment system, which many scholars discussed in the context of the Mughal administrative system under Aurangzeb, occurred again'^^ in Indapur Pargana after the disasters. As Table 4 shows, the Istawa for the first group and for the second group were planned differently and both plans covered the period from 1807 to 1816. It is clear from Table 4 that the assessment in the second group was much lower than that in the first group. H.Fukazawa, “Mughal Rule in the Deccan during the Seventeenth Century: The Jagir System and its Decay,” H.Fukazawa, op.cit., pp.63-65. As mentioned in inUoduction, Indapur Pargana was a disputed area between the Mughal Empire and the Adil Shahi dynasty in the later 17* century. So it is inferred that the crisis of jagir hit Indapur Pargana in the reign of Aurangzeb. 83 Table 4. Istawa plan of the populated villages and of the depopulated villages Populated Villages Depopulated Villages (The First Group of Villages) (The Second Group of Villages) 1807 Rs.8500 Rs.O 1808 Rs. 10500 +RS.1550 Rs.200 +RS.200 1809 Rs.11650 +RS.1150 Rs.1550 +RS.1350 1810 Rs.13950 +RS.2300 Rs.2850 +RS.1300 1811 Rs. 16900 +RS.2950 Rs.4300 +RS.1450 1812 Rs.20350 +RS.3450 Rs.7500 +RS.3200 1813 Rs.23300 +RS.2950 Rs.10200 +RS.2700 1814 Rs.27051 +RS.3751 Rs.12700 +RS.2500 1815 Rs.27051 + 0 Rs.15200 +RS.2500 1816 Rs.27051 + 0 Rs.16725-8-6 +Rs.1625-8-6 Table 5 shows the total amount of the Inad revenue in Indapur Pargana according to the Istawa Plan of 1807. Table 5. Istawa Plan (1807-1816) Year 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 Assessment (Rs.) 8500 10250 13200 16800 21200 27850 33500 39751 42251 43776-8-6 Although the Istawa Plan of 1807 was never completed, the contract of Istawa was renewed and extended in 1812 as follows'^*: 198The estimate of 1812, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 16. 84 Table 6. Istawa Plan (1812-1819) AssessmertYear (Ffe.) 32650 1812 39850 1813 48201 1814 53201 1815 58426^ 1816 62765-156 1817 64915-156 1818 67145-14 18 In the new Istawa Plan (Table 6), the land revenue of 1812 was assessed at Rs.32,650. But the assessment of 1812 in Table 5 is Rs.27,850. In order to explain this difference it is necessary to focus on the account of 1811. According to the estimate of 1812'^^, the land revenue of 1811 was assessed at Rs.24,725 based on the Istawa plan of 1807. According to the account of 1811, however, the land revenue which was actually collected in 1811 amounted to Rs.25,288-1-4^*’”. In other words, Kamavisdar collected the land revenue more than estimated, although this estimate itself exceeded the amount in the Istawa Plan of 1807. This indicates that the productivity had recovered earlier than expected in 1807. It is inferred thtat this early progress prompted the Peshwa Government to revise the Istawa Plan and to increase its assessments in 1812. In other words, the situation of Indapur Pargana was improving towards the end of the Peshwa Government, and the Government accordingly tried to secure as much land revenue as possible. The estimate of 1811 is not available in Pune Archives. So the data on 1811 which is entered in the estimate of 1812 is used here. ■“ The account of 1811, Pune Jamav Rumal no.714. 85 hafat villages of Deshmukh The disasters badly affected Izafat villages of Deshmukh also. The total land revenue there reduced to Rs.57 in 1809. In 1809, the land revenue was not collected at all in Rui^°'. After 1809, the revenue started to increase slightly. And Istawa was adopted there in 1813 as in Kamavishi villages. According to the Istawa Plan of 1813, the actual land revenue there increased immediately and reached Rs. 1936-11 in 1815. This amount was the average of the land revenue during the period of 1760s-80s^®^. Saranjami villages During the period of 1803-1807, thirty-seven Saranjami villages had been resumed. According to the account of 1807, the number of Saranjami villages was twenty-nine only. Because Visaji Shamrao, who was a Sardar under Holkar, regained his Saranjami village^®^, its number increased into thirty. No more Saranjami villages had been resumed up to the end of the Maratha period (1818). Saranjami villages of Patwardhan and a Sardar under Holkar survived the disasters. This indicates that the political influence of a Saranjamdar was regarded as important even in the crisis of Saranjam. But Pandurang Bapurao lost most of his Saranjami villages, and Nadgauda lost his all Saranjami villages. And Saranjami villages Sadashiv Mankeshwar, who had The account of Deshmukhi Watan (1809), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.797. The account of Deshmukhi Watan (1815), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.799. The account of 1808, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63, Pune Archives. 86 replaced a Sadar under Shinde just before the disasters, also sui-vived. This implies the Government considered him politically important. In Saranjami villages, which sui-vived the disasters, Istawa was not adopted and the amount of assignment was also fixed as before the disasters. So the actual situation of Saranjami villages is not clear from the related documents in Pune Archives. Saranjami villages had been out of Revenue Administration of Indapur Pargana at least during the period from 1807 to 1818. Other revenues An influence of the disasters on the collection of other revenues varied according to the item. The amounts of the following items were reduced after the disasters. Jakat Jakat was reduced in some places as it needed. For example, Peth Indapur was depopulated by the disasters. So Kamavisdar settled with a head of a market called Pethkar to whom Kamavisdar farmed out the collection of Jakat, and then reduced Jakat in 1807. Both Thalmod (duties on imports) and Thalbharit (duties on exports) were 87 reduced in this settlement^*’'^. Accordingly the total amount of Jakat in Indapur Pargana decreased after the new settlement of 1807^°^ And Istawa was introduced to a contract price of Jakat^°^. After that the actual revenue of Jakat generally increased except the temporal decrease in 1812. However the amount had never restored to the amount fixed in the later 18*’’ century. As the total revenue of Jakat decreased the amount of Hak given to Deshmukh decreased from Rs.225 to Rs.lOl, and then generally fluctuated between Rs.lOO and Rs.150 in the last phase of the Maratha period. Baje Patti Baje Patti, which was collected from three Izafat villages of Deshmukh and Deshpande and from five Saranjami villages of Sardars under Shinde and Holkar, was also reduced in the new settlement of 1807. This was done in order to lighten the tax burden on these influential persons. The amount of Baje Patti which was collected in Izafat villages of Deshmukh reduced into Rs.40 in total, and gradually increased in the last phase of the Peshwa Government. Wheareas its amount in Izafat villages of Deshpande after the new settlement remained Rs.40 as before the disasters. In 1807 Baje Patti which was levied on Sadashiv Mankeshwar amounted to Rs.l5 and that on Visaji Shamraji amounted to Rs.42. The amount of Baje Patti on both gradually increased^^^. In The estimate of 1807, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 16. The estimate of 1807, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no. 16. Wahiwat Mahal 1210, Pune Jamav Rumal no. 793. The account of Indapur Pargana (1801), Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 88 1817, Baje Patti on Sadashiv Mankeshwar amounted to Rs.l35 as on Baji Narshi in the 18* century and that on Viaji Shamraji amounted to Rs. 121 as before^*’*. Basically the items such as Khandfuroi and Batta were collected as before.the disasters. These items were collected as they needed. However some items ceased to be collected after the disasters. Masala Even after the disasters, Kamavisdar employed Naikwadi in order to collect the revenue. And a tax called “Masala” was collected as before the disasters. In Izafat villages of Deshmukh, however, the payment to Naikwadi ceased after the disasters^®^. In other words, Deshmukh stopped using Naikwadi probably because it became difficult to manage Izafat villages where the land revenue utterly decreased. After the disasters Deshmukh could not collecte a betel nut in three market places of Indapur Pargana, either. For, a market had not been opened in these places in The estimate of 1817, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.l6. See the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan (1809-1815), Pune Jamav, Rumal nos.797-799. 89 the last fifteen yeas of the Peshwa period^This collection shows the economic change which occurred in Indapur Pargana after the two disasters. Remittance Rasad and Antastha The amount of Rasad utterly decreased according to the decrease of Ain Jama after the disasters. It reduced into Rs. 1149-603 in 1803^". In the new settlement of 1807 it was decided at Rs.3500^’^. It increased again as Indapur Pargana restpred its productivity, and exceeded Rs. 10000 in 1810^'\ However in 1810s not Malhar Mukund Kamavisdar but with Sadashiv Mankeshwar settled Rasad with the Peshwa Government. And Sadashiv Mankeshwar paid Rasad and Antastha instead of Malhar Mukund. The payment of these two items was one of the most important duties for Kamavisdar. As the Government order in 1813 mentioned^''*, Malhar Mukund was Kamavisdar in name only and Sadashiv Mankeshwar actually administered Indapur Pargana instead of him. It is clear from the settlements of Antastha that its amount was detemined not according to the Pargana but to the payer. Sadashiv Mankeshwar held the Kamavis of While no data is available in the accounts of 1800s, the accounts of 1810s give Re.G as the amount of this item with the reason that a market was not opened in the year. The account of Deshmukhi Watan (1813), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.798. ■" The account of 1803, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. The account of 1807, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63 The account of 1810, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. ? 90 Barshi Pargana, Solapur Pargana, Karyat Baramati, Lohgad Pargana, Visapur Pargana and part of Dhoki Pargana. The amount of Antastha which Sadashiv Mankeshwar would remit was settled with the Peshwa Government not separately for each Pargana but as a whole after calculating its basic amount for each Pargana^'^ The basic amount of Antastha in the accounts of Indapur Pargana fluctuated in the late Maratha period, which probably denpended on each settlement. It was not greatly affected by the disasters as far as the accounts of Indapur Pargana show. In order to remit Rasad and Antastha, Kamavisdar borrowed money from Sahukar. According to the payment list of Antastha which was addressed to Malhar Mukud Kamavisdar^Govind Keshaw Bedekar lent Kamavisdar money not only for Rasad but also for Antastha^In 1810s, this Sahukar lent money to Sadashiv Mankeshwar for the remittance of Rasad and Antastha. Sadashiv Mankeshwar remitted Antastha concerning various Parganas in the territory of the Maratha Cenfederacy. Govind Keshw Bedekar paid the total amount of Antastha to the Government instead of Sadashiv Mankeshwar^' Babti and Sahotra Neihter Babti nor Sahotra were mentioned in the settlement of 1807. These items can not be found in the account of 1807, either. In the account of 1808, they are entered For examples, lists (jhada), Shuhur 1214 and 1215, Ghadni Rumal, Indapur Fadke, Rumal no.572. The payment list of Antastha was nominally issued to Malhar Mukund. But Sadashiv Mankeshwar actually paid it. Ghadni Rumal, Indapur Fadke, Rumal no.572 and Shuhur 1214, Pune Jamav, Rumal no.794. Shuhur 1214, Pune Jamav Rumal no.794, and Ghadni Rumal. Indapur Fadke, Rumal no.572. Ghadni Rumal Indapur Fadke, Rumal no.572. 91 again. Accodring to this account, their total amount reduced to Rs.600^'^. In the last decade of the Peshwa period, the total amount gradually increased and reached Rs.860 in 1817^^'^. Remittance by Nadgauda When the Holkar army hit Indapur Pargana in 1802, it was settled between Deshmukh and Nadgauda that the amount of Rs.300 was remitted as Rasad in 1802. In spite of this reduction, it was difficuh for Nadgauda to collect the revenue for the remittance. In 1802, Nadgauda finally remitted only Rs.50 by borrowing the money from a banker^^’. During the period of 1803-1808, no infoiTnation on the remittance is available from the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan. According to the account of 1809, its amount decreased to Rs.650 . The disasters badly affected the income of the Satara Raja from Deshmukhi Watan of Indapur Pargana. However, it gradually increased again and reached Rs.2551 in 1814^^^. After that, its amount fluctuated around Rs.2000 as before the disasters. Judicial Administration The account of 1808, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. The estimate of 1817, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.l6. 20 Jamadilakhar Shuhur 1203, Pune Jamav Rumal no.797. ■■■ The account of Deshmukhi Watan (1809), Prant Jamav, Rumal no.797. The accounts of Deshmukhi Watan (1817 and 1818), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.798. 92 As far as the original documents about Indapur Pargana in Pune Archives show, it is seemed that Judicial Administration of Indapur Pargana was carried out as before the disasters. Kamavisdar collected Khandfuroi, and Deshmukh enjoyed its sh^re as before.. Military Administration Shibandi and Saranjamdars The disasters caused a crisys in the assignment system in Indapur Pargana. And the great decrease of Saranjamdars greatly affected Military Administration of Indapur Pargana. The disasters damaged the maintenance of Shibandi under Kamavisdar, too. In 1804, their salaries were paid as before the disasters, though the revenue utterly decreased^^'*. In the new settlement of 1807, however, the allowance to Shibandi under Kamavisdar reduced to Rs.l 100. However it recovered to the pre-disaster level earlier than salaries of Darakdars and even than salary of Kamavisdar himself. This indicates that Shibandi became especially important in Pargana Administration after the disasters. In contrast, the number of Saranjami villages never increased again after the new settlement of 1807 except that one Saranjami village was re-assigned to a Sardar under Holkar in 1808. In Indapur Pargana, the balance of military powers between Shibandi under Kamavisdar and Saranjamdars changed after the disasters. The account of 1804, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 93 Table 7. The Salary of Kamavisdar, Darakdars and Shibandi^^® Before 1804 1807 1808 1809 1811 1812 181" 1814 the Settlement in 1804 Kamavisdar 1921 200 286 300 500 600 700 700 921 Darakdar Diwan 1000 100 105 106 n.d. n.d. n.d.’'* n.d.** 200 Majumdar 200 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Daftardar 250 100 103 107 155 175 195 195 250 Shibandi 2760 1100 1300 1881 2760 2760 2760 2760 2760 Karkun 200 n.d.* 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 ** no data Shibandi under Deshmukh According to the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, the allowance to Shibandi under Deshmukh reduced into Rs.250. And it gradually increased again and in 1814 it returned to the pre-disaster level (Rs.400). Military Expenditure Though the amount of “Military Expenditure” had increased since 1799, the disasters greatly changed this new military policy. In 1804 this amount sharply decreased to Rs.693-13-0 from Rs.34570-1-3. This item is not found in the account of 1806. The estimates of 1807,1809,1811, 1813, 1814, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.l6, and Hiseb Shuhur 1190, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.503. 94 Military Expenditure seemed to be abolished when the new settlement was made in 1807^^^ After the disasters, Shibandi under Kamavisdar became the most important in Military Administration of Indapur Pargana. Pargana Office The disasters affected the members of Pargana office on Indapur Pargana. Kamavisdar and Darakdars On the Government side of the Pargana office, the impact of the disasters came to the salaries of Kamavisdar and Darakdars. In 1804, their salaries decreased because the revenue utterly decreased. In the settlement of 1807, the salary of Kamavisdar got still lower (Rs.200). After this settlement his salary gradually increased up to the newly- settled amount (Rs.700) within ten years as Ain Jama increased according to the Istawa plans^^^. After the disasters, the salaries of Darakdars also reduced, and it gradually increased after the new settlement of 1807. However the salary of Karkun of Kamavisdar did not increase again after it decreased in 1804 (See Table 7). Wahiwat, Indapur Pargana in 1806, and the account of 1807, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. The estimates of 1807 and 1809, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.l6. 95 Deshmukh The disasters directly affected the revenue of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana, which consisted oilzafat villages, Nemnuk, Siway Jama, and the revenue of Patilki Watan of Qasba and Peth Indapur. As mentioned above, the revenue from Izafat villages of Deshmukh utterly decreased. The settlement and the collection of the allowance were not carried out in many villages after the disasters. Accordingly the amount of Nemnuk including Kabulat Patti and Bhet decreased after the disasters. Some items such as the collection of a betel-nut, which are entered under the heading of Siway Jama in the accounts of Deshmukhi Watan, ceased after the disasters. These changes^^^ after the disasters greatly decreased the total revenue of Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana. Assistants of Deshmukh After the new settlement between Malhar Mukund Kamavisdar and the Peshwa Government, the following Sanad was issued to Krishnarao Meghsham in 1808: The change about the revenue of Patilki Watan of Qasba and Peth Indapur will be considered in Chapter 4. 96 Izafat villages of Deshmukh are in Indapur Pargana. These villages fell into ruin because of the riot. Therefore Kaul or the deed for the collection of the revenue^^^ was issued and then Trigul was appointed to make the settleme.it according to the custom in Indapur Pargana. The order was just issued that Krishnara Meghsham is appointed again for the work of the settlement in Izafat villages as before. So get ready with Trigul, make the settlement and remit the collection smoothly, Sanad dated 24 Safar [the second Muslim month], Shuhur 1208, Chaitra [the first Hindu month]^^°. Copies of this Sanad were sent to Trigul and Patils of Izafat villages respectively. In 1808, the post of the agent of Deshmukh was returned to Krishnarao Meghsham. However, Ki ishnarao Meghsham neither reported the situation to the Government nor remitted the revenue collected in Indapur Pargana to Satara according to the Government order. So the Peshwa Government sent the clerks and gave the order to Nadgauda again. And the settlement of the land revenue was deteiTnined and then the Government ordered Nadgauda to give the revenue both from Deshmukhi Watan and from Patilki Watan of Qasba and Peth Indapur to Satara as before. Copies of this order were sent to Malhar In revenue transactions a Kaul usually means the document granted by the collector, proprietor, or receiver of the revenue to the subordinate payer of the revenue, or the actual cultivator, stating the terms of the agreement and the amount to be paid, and securing him against further demands. Wilson, op. cit., p.270. -30 qWTT 3 ^ . aT?T HNuTl-ct mm 3TTF2IT ^TRT ^ qcJcIH cPT3T ^ 3f3fm 3T# Htr wiKf^cWr otsr oTraufr crj^ ? 3TTJ=2iT ^ sncT 3TiJ=3r^/? cMt/? ;=?icfr/? ^ f^r^r jttcri v 3n?r?r jncixfr m stt^prrt arrnftH ^nwqr err ^ 3 m m M Hfr 3T?iHi^^ ^ it at U 97 Mukund Kamavisdar, Deshpande of Indapur Pargana, Patils of Izafat villages respectively. It is important here that the Peshwa Government did re-appoint Krishnarao Meghsham the agent and settle with him. And a copy of the order to reappoint him was sent to Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana as well. Through the process of the recover of the agency of Nadgauda, the Government began to interfere with the relationship between Deshmukh and Nadgauda. When Nadgauda did not send his clerks to Satara for the settlement of 1817, the Peshwa Government ordered Nadgauda to settle with Deshmukh and to send the revenue to Satara^^'. The great decrease of the revenue of Deshmukh in Indapur Pargana made it dificcult for Nadgauda to remit money as before. Probably this worsened the relationship between Deshmukh in Satara and Nadgauda in Indapur Pargana. In the end of the Peshwa period, the Pehswa Government played an important role in cormecting both of them. After the new settlement of Indapur Pargana, the allowance which Deshmukh paid to Nadgauda reduced from Rs.700 to Rs. 110. After the disasters, Nadgauda lost his two Saranjami villages in Indapur Pargana. It is inferred that Nadgand himself became less powerful than before the disasters. Probably this change also made the interference by the Peshwa Government easy. -^'27 Moharam, Shuhur 1217, Pune Jamav, Rumal no.800. 98 Fadnis and Majundar under Deshmukh The disasters changed Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh as well. Fadnis survived the disasters, but his rights and duties had been seized by 1814. Probably Majundar ran away after the disasters. And nobody had occupied the post of Majumdar in the period of 1807-1814. In 1814, Sadashiv Mankeshwar sent his two staffs viz., Wamanrao Govind and Daji Narshinha and then appointed the former as new Fadnis under Deshmukh and the latter as new Majumdar under Deshmukh^^^. The Peshwa Government and Kamavisdar increased the power began to interfere with the relationship between Nadgauda in Indapur Pargana and Deshmukh in Satara after the disorder. This situation made it possible for Sadashiv Mankeshwar, who took the olace of Kamavisdar, to post his staffs as Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh. By this appointment Sadashiv Mankeshwar increased his power in Indapur Pargana. The allowance to Fadnis and to Majumdar reduced after the disasters. In 1814, the allowance to a new Fadnis amounted to Rs.55, and that to a new Majumdar amounted to Rs.45^^\ while the allowances to them were fixed at Rs.200 respectively before the disasters. They increased again gradually. In 1818, the allowance to Fadnis reached Rs.l33 and that to Majumdar amounted to Rs.l 15^^"^. The account i:cshmukhi Watan (1814), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.799. The account of Deshmukhi Watan (1814), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.799. The account of Deshmukhi Watan (1818), Pune Jamav, Rumal no.801. 99 Sadashiv Mankeshwar " " ' ’ As shown above, Sadashiv Mankeshwar played various important roles in the administration of Indapur Pargana. The family of Sadashiv Mankeshwar had held the Watan of Deshpande of Temburai Pargana for generations. Sadashiv Mankeshwar himself started his career at the central level as the ambassador at the Court of Hyderabad in 1800^^^ When the army of Holkar attacked Pune Subha, he was in Hyderabad. And Bajirao II appointed him Diwan at the Central Government after Wellesley restored Bajirao II to power at Pune in 1803^^*. So Sadashiv Mankeshwar got the position to communicate with the British Resident at Pune and retained it till 181 So a lot of English documents about Sadashiv Mankeshwar are available. These documents tell that Sadashiv Mankeshwar had good diplomatic skills. In the Peshwa Government, he was the person to connect with Yeshwantrao Holkar"^*, who was one of the most important persons in Maratha Confederacy in the final phase of the Peshwa period. 7k |2-3^e> Besides, he negotiated with the southern Jagirdars such as Patwardhan and the Kolhapur Raja as the representative of the Peshwa Govemment^^'^. The Modi documents Major General Sir John Malcom’s minutes, p.63. Jaswant Lai Mehta, op. cit., p.685. Grant Duff, A History of the Marattas, Vol.Ill, the Exchange Press, London, 1826/1864, pp.336.and 346, and J.Sarkar, and G.S.Sardesai, Poona Residency Correspondence, Vol.13, Government Central Press, Bombay, 1952, Letter No.36, pp.142-143. The English original documents imply that both the Resident at Pune and the Governor General tried to get information about Yeshwantrao Holkar through Sadashiv Mankeshwar. Political Department Diary no. 170 of 1805, Mumbai Archives, Mumbai, and Foreign Department, Political Branch, Original Cor ':!.uiion, 7 November, 1808, No.33, National Archives of India, New Delhi. Foreign Department, Political Branch, Original Consultation, 8 September, 1807, No.31, National Archives of India. 100 kept in Kolhapur Archives support this. For example, Sadashiv Mankeshwar played the role of managing an exchange of letters between the Peshwa and the brother of the then Kolhapur Raja or Shambhuji II (1812-1821)^''°. And Sadashiv Mankeshwar helped the communication between the Peshwa and Shidojirao Naik Nimbalkar or the chief of Nipani^"*', to whom the territory around Nipani was granted for the reward of his military service to the Peshwa Government. And for example, Sadashiv Mankeshwar reported to the Peshwa Government that the Desai-ship of Khanapur Pargana, which is located in Belgaum district, changed^'*^. His works which he did or was supposed to do in these cases covered a wide range of topics. It is inferred that he took the full responsibility for the communication with both the southern Jagirdars and Kolhapur Raja. Probably Sadashiv Mankeshwar gained the confidence of the Peshwa thorough his diplomatic skills, and became the most influential minister in the Central Government, though his influence in the Central Government began to be encroached in 1815 when Trimbakji Danglia was appointed to conduct the Peshwa’s negotiation with the British Resident at Pune'^^ In the first fifteen years of the nineteenth century, the Peshwa had given so many revenue items to Sadashiv Mankeshwar. These items mainly consisted of Saranjams and Kamavis. Unfortunately complete accounts neither about Saranjams nor Kamavis are Chitnis Rumal no. 15 Phadke no.l, Patra no.754, Kolhapur Archives, Kolhapur. Chitnis Rumal no. 15, PhaHke no.l, Patra no.750, Chitnis Rumal no.57, Phadke no.l, Patra no.238, and Chitnis Rumal no.58, Phadke no.3, Patra 518, Kolhapur Archives. Chitnis Rumal no.83, Phadke no.l, Patra no. 179, Kolhapur Archives. J.Sarkar and G.S.Sardesai, Poona Residency Correspondence, Vol.12, Poona Affairs Part 1 (1811-1815), Government Central Press, Bombay, 1950, Letter No.201, p.463. 101 continuously available in Pune Archives. It is attempted here to make it clear how Sadashiv Mankeshwar managed his revenue items, though partially. Saranjam of Sadashiv Mankeshwar According to the account of his Saranjams, Sadashiv Mankeshwar held Saranjams which amounted to Rs.31900 in total in 1802. The details are as follows^'''*; Table 8. The Account (1802) of Saranjams of Sadashiv Mankeshwar Rs.6667-6 Indapur Pargana Awsari Saranjam Bhaladgaon Saranjam Gajewalan Saranjam Rs.23370-4-6 Wagi Pargana Rs.9377-12 Kela Jagir, Babti, and Sardeshmukhi Rs. 13992-8-6 Bithargaon Chauth Selgaon Chauth Malwadi Chauth Sewde Chauth Dhokari Chauth Surli Chauth Nibhore Chauth Rs. 1448-12 Jamkhade Pargana Ghodegaon Mokasa and Jagir Rs.413-9-6 Karde Rajangaon Pargana Bori Mokasa, Jagir, and Sardeshmul' Rs.31900 The Total This account includes the information about the Saranjams in Indapur Pargana. According to t^>is account, the whole territory of Wagi Pargana had been given to Yadi Shuhur 1202, bundle (Fadke) about Sadashiv Mankeshwar, Ghadni Rumal no.51S 102 Balwantrao Krishna as his Saranjams. Probably part of it, more precisely the above revenue items in seven villages were deducted from his Saranjams and then assigned to Sadashiv Mankeshwar. Mokasa and Jagir of Ghodegaon had been assigned to Parasharam Ramachandra, and then they were transferred from him to Sadashiv Mankeshwar. And the two items in Bori were also removed from Anandrao Bhikaji and Shamrao Lakshman Raste, who had held these items, and given to Sadashiv Mankeshwar. This account indicates that Saranjams of Sadashiv Mankeshwar at least in the account were procured by the re-arrangement of Saranjams, not by the new assignment. According to the account of his Saranjams (1803) new Saranjams, which amounted to Rs.30000, were added to the Saranjams mentioned above. The details of new Saranjams are as follows^''^: Yadi Shuhur 1203, bundle (Fadke) about Sadashiv Mankeshwar, Ghadni Rumal no.518. 103 Table 9. The Account (1803) of Saranjams of Sadashiv Mankeshwar Rs.5006-3-9 Prant Junnar Rahkadi Kaddhe TarfKhande Saranjam Chatus TarfChakan Saranjam Mohkal Tarf Khande Saranjam Rs.6744 Prant Bhose Ghochi Saranjam Jakeli Saranjam Rs.3412-10 Kathi Pargana Suste Saranjam Rs.878-9-6 Prant Pune Bolewadi TarfHaveli Saranjam except Sardeshmukhi Rs. 11625-3-9 Karde Rajangaon Pargana Sadalgaon Jagir and Sardeshmukhi Salsagaon Jagir and Sardeshmukhi Walavne Jagir and Sardeshmukhi Ghargaon Jagir and Sardeshmukhi Abale Jagir and Sardeshmukhi Ghochwi Jagir and Sardeshmukhi Khothle Jagir and Sardeshmukhi Rs. 1762-10 Wai Pargana Surur Saranjam Rs.570-11 Prant Kalyan Pothal Tarf Nasarpur Saranjam Rs.30000 The Total In the account (1803), it is not written down how Sadashiv Mankeshwar was given Saranjam. In 1803, Sadashiv Mankeshwar held Saranjams which amounted at least to Rs.61900 at the total. The items of Saranjams spread widely. Many of revenue items in the above accounts which were assigned to Sadashiv Mankeshwar were located in the areas near from Pune. But Wagi Pargana in which eights items were assigned was located in today’s Sangli District. According to the.English documents, Sadashiv Mankeshwar 104 himself resided in Karyat Baramati^'*'’. He held some Saranjams which were located near from the place he lived. Saranjams in Indapur Pargana are also included in this group of Saranjams. The collection of the documents about Saranjams of Sadashiv Mankeshwar includes the account of Saranjams (1811). More precisely the account of 1811 consists of the part of Saranjams and of Kamavis. By use of the Saranjam part, it is possible to study his Saranjams after he started to play an active role in the Central Government. Its details are as follows^"*^: Major General Sir John Malcom's minutes, p.63. Yadi Shuhur 1211, bundle (Fadke) about Sadashiv Mankeshwar, Ghadni Rumal no.Sli 105 Table 10. The Account (1811) of Sadashiv Mankeshwar, Saranjam-part Rs.3412-10 Kathi Pargana Suste Saranjam Rs.6744 Bhose Pargana Ghochi Saranjam Jakeli Saranjam Rs.18156-9-6 PrantJunnar Chatus TarfChakan Saranjam except Sardeshmukhi Qasba Ketur Tarf Pabal Saranjam Qasba Pabal Tarf Pabal Saranjam Rs.570-11 PrantKalyan Pothal Tarf Nasarpur Saranjam Rs.878-9-6 Prant Pune Bolewadi TarfHaveli Saranjam except Sardeshmukhi Rs. 113-8 Jagir Land Qasba Pune Kothrud Bawdhan Budruk Rs.124 Prant Pune Lavate TarfHaveli Mokasa and Sardeshmukhi Rs.30000 The Total This account does not include any information about Saranjams in Indapur Pargana, though the Saranjams in hidapur Pargana continued after the disasters. In short this account is incomplete. Bhose Pargana in Pune Subha also suffered the attack by the Holkar army. It is inferred that the Holkar attack affected his management of Saranjams because he had many Saranjams in Pune Subha. The above account made it clear that Sadashiv Mankeshwar kept Saranjams which amounted to at least Rs.30000 even after the disasters which led to the crisis of Saranjam system in Indapur Pargana. Sadashiv Mankeshwar was a great Saranjamdar in the last phase of the Peshwa period. 106 Kamavis In addition, Sadasliiv Mankeshwar held huge Kamavis. The details of the part of Kamavis of the above-mentioned account (1811) are as follows^''^: Table 11. The Account (1811) of Sadashiv Mankeshwar, Kamavis-part Rs.30369-13 Ratajan Pargana (31 villages) Rs.47007-2-9 The revenue of Ratajan Pargana Rs.3461-5-9 The deduction of the assigned revenue (4 villages) Rs.1210-14-9 Yawali under Adi Narayan Bawa Rs.830-2-9 Upali under Adi Narayan Bawa Rs.473-6 Bhalgaon under Govind Gosawi Rs.946-14-3 Dhamangaor under Bodhne Bawa Rs.9626 The deduction of three revenue items in the Pargai Rs.3636 Sardeshmuk sent to the Government Rs.5445 Mokasa under Rangrao Mahadeo Rs.545 Sahotra sent to Pant Sachiv Rs.3550 The administrative expenditure Rs.400 Kamavisdar Rs.200 Pandurang Krishna Fadnis Rs.200 Krishnaji Gangadhar Majumdar Rs.2550 Shibandi Rs.200 Kherij Mushahira Rs.30369-13 The net revenue Yadi Shuhur 1211, bundle (Fadke) about Sadashiv Mankeshwar, Ghadni Rumal no.518 107 Rs.36750-7 Barshi Parg Tarf Agalgaon Rs.52175-12-9 The revenue of Tarf Agalgaon, Barshi Pargana Rs.2409-3-9 The deductioaof the assigned revenue (2 villages) Rs.1003-11-9 Ubarge under Balwantrao Mudhe Rs. 1405-8 Agalgaon under Gangadhar Ganesha Rs.10466-2 The deduction of three revenue items Rs.5062 Sardeshmuk sent to the Government Rs.5379-2 Mokasa, Chauth, and Sahotra assigned to Sard Rs.25 Inam land in Khandkal under Mahadeo Gosawi Rs.2550 The administrative expenditure Rs.300 Kamavisdar Rs.100 Kakuns under Kamavisdar Rs.300 Kherij Mushahira Rs.1850 Shibandi Rs.36750-7 The net revenue Rs.67120-4 The total net revenue The net revenue in these areas remained to Sadashiv Mankeshwar after deducting some particular revenue items which was assigned to other persons, and the basic administrative expenditure^**^. From the net revenue, he was to remit Rasad and Antastha according to the settlement with the Peshwa Government. And the balance after the remittance was to be his share. So the amount as the net revenue entered in the above account includes the amount of remittance. According to the above account (1811), all the items had been assigned to Pandurang Bapurao as Saranjams. Pamdurang Bapurao was one of the most important Saranjamdars for the Peshwa Govemment^^'’. And he died in 1810, and the Peshwa Government seized his Saranjams and appointed Sadashiv The word “Kherij Mushahiri” in the above table means contigent charges, extras, presents, occasional allowances. This item was used for the grant of Inam, Dharvadav, Dewasthan etc. Wilson, op. cit., p.280. Pandurang Bapurao was the largest Saranjamdar in Indapur Pargana. And the documen' : .idted to him in the section of Ghadni shows Saranjams of Bapurao Sadashiv and his son Pandurang Bapurao spread in the large territory of the Marathas. bundle (Fadke) about Bapurao Sadashiv, Ghadni Rumal no.454. 108 Mankeshwar to collect the land revenue under seizure. In this appointment, the Government gave the Kamavis of the above areas to him^"^'. The table below is based on another account of Sadashiv Mankeshwar which was produces in 1811. This account itself indicates his income and expenditure in Karyat Baramati and Indapur Pargana. According to this account, the Peshwa Government seized Saranjams of Pandurang Baburao in these areas when he died in 1810. And the Government gave Sadashiv Mankeshwar the Kamavis to collect the revenue of these villages under seizure. This Kamavis covered the following villages^^^: Table 12. The Kamavis which Sadashiv Mankeshwar gained after the death of Pandurang Bapurao Karyat Baramati Indapur Pargana Qasba Baramati Palasdeo Katpal Daij Kalad Kajhad Gunawadi Chikhali Mekhali Rui Jalochi Kabaleshwar Kautwadi Gojebawi Peth Badshahpur (Qasba Baramati) dIcfl-H ST WTTM TRT5TWRT ?trTT. r^IRT ^ ?jr3I TTOtRTcT zpTTTfRT 'HlRldcTl 3TT^...” Yadi Shuhur 1211, bundle (Fadke) about Sadashiv Mankeshwar, Gha... '’..imal no.518 Taleband Ijmali Karyat Baramati and Gav Indapur Pargana, Prant Ajmas, Pune, Rumal no.63. 109 The accounts of Indapur Pargana^^^ tell that the above four villages in Indapur Pargana belonged to Pandurang Bapurao as his Saranjams even after his death. Officially these four villages continued to be Saranjami villages up to the end of the Maratha period. But actually Sadashiv Mankeshwar collected the land revenue there while these villages were under sequestration. It is considered that the above villages in Karyat Baramati, Ratajan Pargana and Tarf Agalgaon in Table 11 were in the same situation. The above tables indicate that Sadashiv Mankeshwar replaced Pandurang Bapurao after his death. However this does not mean that the Saranjams of Pandurang Bapurao were resumed immediately. The collection the revenue from his Saranjams was temporarily entrusted to Sadashiv Mankeshwar as Kamavis. Unfortunately the situation about his temporal Kamavis was not made clear from the documents related to Sadashiv Mankeshwar in Pune Archives. The lists of Rasad which Sadashiv Mankeshwar was to remit in 1815 show that he held Kamavis in various areas under the Marathas, too. Ghadni Rumal (No.529) includes two lists of the installments of Rasad. One list covers the period from Bhadrapad (August to September) of 1814 to Vaishakh (April to May) of 1815. The details are as follows^^'^: The account of Indapur Pargana (1812 and 1813), Prant Ajmas nc, Rumal no.63, and see Appendix III. Rajeshri Sadashiv Mankeshwar Swami Gosawi(1815), Fadke no.9, Ghadni Rumal no.529. no Table 13. The Schedule of Rasad in 1814-1815 (Bhadrapad to Vaishakh) B a tta Rs.7000 Taluka Solapur Rs.140 Rs.40000 Taluka Lohagad and Taluka Visapur Rs.800 Rs.4000 Solapur Pargana, and Qasba and Peth Solapur Jakat Rs.80 Rs.500 Songaon Karyat Baramati Rs.10 Rs.2000 Qasba Bawde Indapur Pargana Rs.40 Rs.14000 Barshi Pargana etc. Rs.280 Rs.1000 Villages in Prant Solapur Rs.20 Rs.6000 Villages in Karyat Baramati and Indapur Pargana Rs.120 Rs.300 Upale Khoki Pargana Rs.10 Rs.3000 Qasba Sanal and villages Prant Warad Rs.60 Rs.200 Chital Wedhe Akola Pargana Rs.10 Rs.400 Ware Tarf Wanes Nasarpur Pargana Rs.10 Rs.1000 Villages in Bhose Pargana Rs.20 Rs.2500 Hipargi Jamkhadi Pargana Rs.50 Rs.7000 Sarkar Mahur etc. Sardeshmukhi Rs.140 Rs.300 Chadkhande and Katpadak Tarf Pabal Rs.10 Rs.150 Radi Ambajogai Pargana Rs.10 Rs.89350 Rs.1810 The other list covers the period from Jeshth (May to June) to Shrawan (July to August). The details are as follows^^^: 255Rajsehri Sadashiv Mankeshwar Swami Gosawi (1815), Fadke no.9, Ghadni Rumal no.529. Ill Table 14. The Schedule of Rasad in 1815 (Jeshth to Shrawan) Batta Rs.2100 Taluka Solapur Rs.42 Rs.12000 Taluka Lohagad and Taluka Visapur Rs.240 Rs.1200 Solapur Pargana, and Qasba and Peth Solapur Jakat Rs.24 Rs.150 Songaon Karyat Baramati Rs.3 Rs.600 Qasba Bawde Indapur Pargana Rs.12 Rs.4200 Barshi Pargana etc. Rs.84 Rs.300 Villages in Prant Solapur Rs.6 Rs.1800 Villages in Karyat Baramati and Indapur Pargana Rs.36 Rs.90 Upale Khoki Pargana Rs.3 Rs.900 Qasba Sanal and villages Prant Warad Rs.18 Rs.60 Chital Wedhe Akola Pargana Rs.3 Rs.120 Ware TarfWanas Nasarpur Pargana Rs.3 Rs.300 Villages in Bhose Pargana Rs.6 Rs.750 Hipargi Jamkhadi Pargana Rs.15 Rs.2100 Sarkar Mahur etc. Sardeshmukhi Rs.42 Rs.90 Chadkhande and Katpadak Tarf Pabal Rs.3 Rs.45 Radi Ambajogai Pargana Rs.3 Rs.26805 Rs.543 His schedule of Rasad which covers the whole year viz., from Bhadrapad of 1814 to Shrawan of 1815 can be seen by putting these two lists together. Both schedules are composed of the exactly same Kamavis items. According to a fanning calendar the period which the first list covers corresponds to the season when Rabi crops grew up and were harvested, and the period of the second list does to the season of Kharif crops. So these lists indicate that Sadashiv Mankeshwar collected both Rabi crops and Kharif crops in the same area. And Ghadni Rumal (No.572) which is entitled “Antasta and Khasgi” includes fourteen fragmentary lists of Antasta which Sadashiv Mankeshwar actually paid. This series of the lists covers the period from Ramajan (the 9*'’ Muslim month) of 1813 to (the Muslim month) of 1815 at the total^^^. All the Kamavis items in these fourteen lists are emtered in the above tabler '^'^’able 13 & 14). So it can be said that the above two Bundle (Fadke) about Indapur Pargana, Ghadni Rumal no.572. 112 tables comprehensibly show all the Kamavis items belonging to Sadashiv Mankeshwar at least in the period of 1813-1815. This period corresponds to his golden age in the Central Government. According to the above taLles, his Kamavis spread widely as his Saranjams did. However many Kamavis items were located in Solapur Taluka, which was near from Tembhumi Pargana, and its surroundings. The items in Indapur Pargana are also included in this category. He was not only a great Saranjamdar but also a great Kamavis-holder. How did Sadashiv Manlceshwar manage Indapur Pargana? The location of Indapur Pargana was very important for Sadashiv Mankeshwar. Indapur Pargana was located between Pune and Solapur. Sadashiv Mankeshwar basically worked at Pune. And his Kamavis items were around Solapur Pargana. And Indapur Pargana was next to Tembhumi Pargana. Sadashiv Mankeshwar held Inam, and built a fort in Tembhumi Pargana^^^. And he established a mint at Tembhumi at the same time as the fort was buih. The Tembhumi mpees were stmck there^^*. So this Pargana became more and more important in his time, though his family had held the Watan of Deshpande of Tembhumi Pargana for generations. According to the above schedules (Table 13 & 14), Sadashiv Mankeshwar held Kamavis of Qasba Bawde in Indapur Pargana. This Qasba occupied an important position as the town next to Tembhumi Pargana. When the Peshwa Govemment seized Saranjam of Qasba Bawde, which Ramrao Krishna had James M.Campbell ed., G5", '. ul.XX, Solapur, Government Photozinco Press, Pune, 1884/1997, p.503. K.K.Maheshwari and Kenneth W.Winggins, Maratha Mints and Coinage, Monograph No.2, Indian Institute of Research in Numismatic Studies, Bombay, 1989, p.96. 113 held^^*^, in 1803, the Government appointed Sadashiv Mankeshwar to collect the revenue under sequestration^^”. However this Qasba was Kamavishi village in the settlement of 1807. So Saranjam of this Qasja had been resumed by 1807, and Sadashiv Mankeshwar continuously held Kamavis of Qasba Bawde after this resumption probably because the position of this Qasba was important for him. Besides, he held Kamavis of Palasdeo, Daij, Kaljhad, and Chikali in Indapur Pargana after the death of Pandurang Bapurao as mentioned above. Officially he collected the revenue instead of the late Pandurang Bapurao, and the villages still remained Saranjami villages. In this context, the administrative situation about these four villages^^' was different from that about Qasba Bawde, although he actually held Kamavis of these five villages. In addition to Kamavis, Sadashiv Mankeshwar held Saranjams of Awsari, Bhadgaon, Gajewalan replacing a Sardar under Shinde. The above analysis of the powers of Sadashiv Mankeshwar made it clear that he did not play the role of Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana but directly got involved in the management of eight villages consisted of five Kamavishi villages and three Saranjami villages. It is easy to imagine that Sadashiv Mankeshwar had much interested in the whole management of Indapur Pargana because the Pargana administration could control his own rights and interests in Indapur Pargana and because this Pargana occupied the Ramrao Krishna was a son of Krishnarao Bapurao and nephew of Pandurang Bapurao. He managed the assigned revenue of Qasba Bawde in the late 18"' centurv. Ramrao inherited his father’s position. 16 Moharam Shuhur 1203, Pune Jamav Rumal no.756. Concerning the ■ 'i^^ges in Indapur Pargana in Table 16 & 17, neither the number of villages nor the amount of Kamavis is not cleared. So it is impossible to indentify the villages in Table 16 & 17 with these four villages. 114 strategic position in his all activities and interests. So he administered Indapur Pargana instead of Malhar Mukund Kamavisdar. It is imaginable that he tried to advance into the other administrative field, which was controlled by Deshmukh in order to make his control stronger. His intention corresponded to the then change of the relations among the Peshwa Government, Deshmukh of Indapur Pargana and Nadgauda. Sadashiv Mankeshwar could get information about the real situation on the relationship between Deshmukh and Nadgauda because the Government got involved in their problems after the disasters. So Sadashiv Mankeshwar successfully interfered with the administration which the hereditary Pargana officers carried out by sending his staffs as Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh in 1814. And then Sadashiv Mankeshwas became the most important person in Indapur Pargana. This period agrees with his golden age in the Central Government. The administrative power in Indapur Pargana was centralized under Sadashiv Mankeshwar bu use of the place of Kamavisdar in this period. Sumit Guha argued that a local chieftain could acquire considerable powers and perquisites by use of hereditary local viz., Pargana and Village offices, taking the example of Dessai of Kittur in Sampgaum Taluka at the beginning of the 19* century^^^. In Indapur Pargana, a bureaucrat in the Peshwa Government gathered power and perquisites. The centralization of power in Sanpgaum Taluka was carried out from the local side while that in Indapur Pargana was from the Government side. Sumit Guha, “Society and Economy in the Deccan 1818-1850,” Burton Stein ed., Burton Stein ed., The Making of Agrarian Policy in British India 1770-1900, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1992, p.193. 115 However his power began to decline after Trimbakji Danglia was appointed negotiator with the British Resident at Pune in 1815‘^\ And he died in 1817. At that time M.Elphinstv^ne, who was the then Resident at Pune, reported that his death made no change in the Central Govemment^^'* because he had already lost political influence there. Conclusion Under the Marathas, Indapur Pargana was administered by both the Government officer and by the hereditary local officer. The Peshwa Government appointed Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana based on contracts between Government and Kamavisdar. In Indapur Pargana, Nadgauda played the role of Deshmukh as the hereditary local officer. In 1770s-80s, the number of Kamavishi villages decreased because most of villages in Indapur Pargana were assigned as Saranjams. Nadgauda, Patwardhan and Sardars under Holkar and Shinde were included in Saranjamdars of Indapur Pargana. After the disasters caused by the invasion of Holkar Army in 1802 and by the drought in 1803 the number of Saranjami villages utterly decreased, and Kamavishi villages increased again. In Revenue Administration of Indapur Pargana, the collection of Ain Jama was the most important. Kamavisdar surveyed agricultural land and settled the land revenue with the Government. Deshmukh, more precisely Nadgauda witnessed the settlement of ’ J.Sarkar and G.S.Sardesai, Poona Residency Correspondence. Vol.12, Letter No.201, p.463. Political Department Diary no.438 of 1817, Mumbai Archives, and J.Sarkar and G.S.Sardesai, Poona Residency Correspondence, Vol. 13, Letter No.64, p.221. 116 the land revenue which Kamavisdar, and collected Kabulat Patti. In Izafat villages, Nadgauda settled the land revenue with Kamavisdar, and collected it. In Saranjami villages, Saranjamdars enjoyed the land revenue only. Kamavisdar collected Siway Jama both in Kamavishi villages and Saranjami villages. It varied from village to village who collected Siway Jama in Inam villages including Izafat villages. And Deshmukh also collected Siway Jama, and enjoyed customary privileges in various places. Before the disasters, Kamavisdar, Nadgauda, and Bapurao Sadashiv, who was the largest Saranjamdar in Indapur Pargana, got involved in the settlement of the land revenue. According to the Government order, Kamavisdar reduced the land revenue not only oiKamavishi villages but also of Saranjami villages. Likewise he could seize and resume Saranjams. In the disputes between Raghnathrao and Nana Fadnis, the Saranjams whose holders supported the former were transferred or resumed in 1779. It was also very important for Kamavisdar to remit money according to the schedule which was settled between Kamavisdar and the Peshwa Government. The remittance consisted of Rasad and Antastha. The balance which remained after deducting the remittance and the expenditure in Indapur Pargana from the revenue Kamavisdar collected was his share. Besides, he got a salary. Its amount was related to Ain Jama in a certain degree. Nadgauda also remitted money to Satara as Rasad. Kamavisdar of Indapur Pargana was responsible for Judicial Administration of Indapur Pargana. He levied a fine (Khandfuroi) in Criminal Affairs. In Civil Affairs, 117 Kamavisdar summoned Panchayat. Though Kamavisdar himself could not judge cases in Panchayat, Kamavisdar collected Khanfuroi from both parties and authorized a decision. In Izafat villages, however, Deshmukh took the place of Kamavisdar. In Military Administration, Kamavisdar maintained Shibandi, which was the regular army of Indapur Pargana. The allowance to Shibandi corresponded to Ain Jama in a certain degree. And he helped Ushtarkhana, Pilkhana and Tofkhana which was concerned with military activities of Indapur Pargana. However this support for these three offices was not his regular duty but carried out as it needed. Deshmukh also kept his own Shibandi, to which Nadgauda paid the allowance. In the late eighteenth century, many Maratha Saranjamdars were stationed in Indapur Pargana. It was very important duties for them to keep their horses. In roder to do that, they procured vegetables, grain and fodder from agricultural land, and purchased rice, salt and sometimes horses thenselves. And they paid money to their staffs. So the assignment of villages which gave money and provisions such as grain to Saranjamdars was very important for Saranjamdar to carry out their military duties. Besides, Kamavisdar, Nadgauda, and Saranjamdars assisted Sardars who came into or went though Indapur Pargana. This duty was very important because this Pargana occupied a strategic position in the tenitory under the Marathas. 118 Before the disasters, the relations among Kamavisdar, Nadgauda, Bapurao Sadashiv or his son Pandurang Bapurao were very complicated, and these three powers were opposing one another to administer Indapur Pargana. The disasters of 1802-1803 greatly affected the administration of Indapur Pargana. The Peshwa Government newly appointed Malhar Mukund as Kamavisdar. The sharp decrease of Saranjami villages after the disasters meant the collapse of Saranjam system in Indapur Pargana. According to the new settlement of 1807, Kamavisdar re-arranged villages for the collection of the land revenue, reduced its amount greatly and adopted Istawa plan. So the productivity of Indapur Pargana recovered earlier than expected. By the disasters, the income as rights of Deshmukhi Watan decreased utterly. And Nadgauda lost their Saranjami villages. Pandurang Bapurao lost many of his Saranjams in Indapur Pargana. Consequently Kamavisdar started to play more important roles in Revenue Administration after the disasters. While Revenue Administration greatly changed after the disasters, Judicial Administration was carried out as before. In Military Administration, Shibandi under Kamavisdar was more important as a result of the collapse of Saranjam system. After the disasters, it became difficult for Nadgauda to remit the money to Satara as before because the revenue of Deshmukh utterly decreased. This made the relationship between Deshmukh and Nadgauda worse. So the Peshwa Government began to intermediate between both of them. By this intervention the balance of power between 119 the Government side and the local community side in the Pargana administration got upset little by little. Consequently Kamavisdar was more and more important in the administration of Indapur Pargana. At least 1810s, however, Sadashiv Mankeshwar carried out the administration instead of Malhar Mukund Kamavisdar. Sadashiv was a bureaucrat in the Central Government. His career there started in 1803, and the Peshwa had had the greatest confidence in Sadashiv Mankeshwar in the Central Government at Pune till 1815. Even after the disasters, he held an enormous amount of Saranjams including those in Indapur Pargana. In 1811, the Government entrusted Sadashiv with the collection from the revenue from the Saranjams which had belonged to the late Pandurang Bapurao. Besides, he held a large amount of Kamavis which spread over the territory under the Marathas. Many of Kamavis items were located around Solapur Pargana. Indapur Pargana was located between Pune and Solapur, and next to Tembhumi Pargana where he held Inam and established a mint and a fort. So Sadashiv was very interested in the management of Indapur Pargana which occupied a strategic position for his power and interests. So Sadashiv Mankeshwar administered Indapur Pargana at the place of Kamavisdar. He held Saranjams of three villages and Kamavis of five villages in Indapur Pargana himself. Taking the advantage of a change in the balance between Kamavisdar and Deshmukh, he appointed his staffs Fadnis and Majumdar under Deshmukh in 1814. In the administration of Indapur Pargana, power had been centralized under Sadashiv Mankeshwar before the British rule started in 1818. 120