chapter IHRXE

The Central Government In the Con fad* racy bi-

chapter three

Thg Central Govenwwit in the Mataiii| Cnnf<»^^racy

The study of the central government of the Marathas In

the elqhteenth century is a search for the dwindling* The

power and authority of the central government under the

Marathas both in theory and practice went on atrophying to

such an extent that by the end of the eighteenth century very

little of it remained. This was quite ironic, because the

central govemiTient of the Marathas# to begin with, was strong

and vigorous*

The central government of ttw Marathas under

and his two sons was mainly represented by the Chhatrap>ati

it was a strcxig and vigorous government* In the eighteenth « century, however, the power, though theoretically in the hands

of the , caiae to^be exercised by the Feshwa* In t^e

^^ c o n d half of the eighteenth centiiry/^the power ceune in the

hands of the Karbharis of the and in due course a

Fadnis became the Peshwa of the Peshwa*

The Peshwa and the Fj>dnis were like the^maller wheels

within the big wheel represented by the Chhatrapati. While the

. Peshwa was the servant of the Chhatrapati, the Karbharis were

the servants of the Peshwa* The theoretical weakness of the

Peshwa and the Karbharis did affect their position in practice ' h V 6

to a ccrtaln extent* ]i" -

Maratha Kinadom and Chhatrapatl "■ --''iiMJwlKii'" ■ -j" 1 Shlvajl, prior to 1674, did lead the Marathas in western

Maharashtra and had aiven them aovernnent, but the important requireinent of a state vig« sovereignty was gained in 1674 by the coronaticm ceremony* The significance of the coronation ceremony of Shivaji has been discussed by historians like

Jadunath Sarkar* Sardesai and V .S. Bendre* Shivaji himself, however* was aware of the significance of the coronation ceremony.

In the agreement^ with the English in 1674, the term kingdom of the MaharaJ is used repeatedly* By the agreement

Shivaji exempted the lakat on the English goods entering in kingdom of Shivaji* The English wanted to use their coins in

Shivaji*s kingdom and to claim goods shipwrecked on the coast of his kingdom*^ Shivaji flatly refused to accept these two requests* £>hivajl was, thus, aware of the concept of territorial sovereignty* In a letter^ written to Maloji Ghorpade Just prior to his Kamatak campaign# Shivaji described his meeting with the Qutb Shah at Hyderabad* Shivaji conmxinicated to Maloji that as he was the Chhatrapati, he did not bow before the

Outb Shah and that he met the ruler of Golecunda on the footing of equality*^ 6 4

Shivaji thus scrupulously maintalnad his position as the head of a sovereign state*

His sons and successors too tried In their way to maintain the sovereignty of the state* Sanbhajl continued the 5 astapradhans and was against the policy of granting sarangams liberally*^ £»ainbhajl was strong In keeping the watjuidars In ccxitrol*'^ But both of them made or had to make significant changes in the form of govemntent* Under 5ambhajl« Kavl Kalas 8 had the yekhtiyar» meaning the sole charge# of administration*

Rajararn^ while proceeding to Jlnjl, had to give the respcmsl- blllty of administration to Ramchandrapant Amatya and

Shankarajlpant*^

Both Sambhajl and Rajaram# thus, delegated their power to other persons* Rajaram was* moreover, unduly liberal In giving different land assignments to different perstxis^®, making the centripetal forces strong in the Maratha state* Rajaram also aave saranjam to the Maratha to enlist them in the war against the Mughal Eimperor*^^ The Maratha sardars, in order to counter the Mughal invaslcoi of their homelands, attacked the

Mughal provinces in the vicinity.

The net result of all t h e ^ developments was the strong j tendency towards decentralisation, which was jiMitl the qLvll war* After the death of Rajaram a civil war started 6 5

bet%Mren Shahu and his atint Tarabal* While Shahu was ostensibly a Mughal prot«g«, Tarabal too had applied to th« Emperor for pardon and submissionThe Mughals knew both of them at first hand* They rejected the request of TarabalThe Mughals felt that In the releast of Shahu there were better chances of stopping the decline of the Mughal Emplre^^ rather than under Tarabal who had tenaciously fought against them for years•

In the civil war, Shahu came out victorious and It was in his reign that the transformation of a kingdom into a confederacy became a reality. It was xinder Shahu ultimately that the power of the Chhatrapati, for practical imrposes, came to be delegated by the Peshwa.

Shalaii

ShahU/ son of Sambhajl and grandson of Shivaji, was bom at Gangavali in north Konkan on 18 May 1 6 8 2 He# along with his mother Yesubai, was impriscnied by the Mughals when

Raigad, the capital of the Marathas# fell in the hands of the 17 Mughals on 3 November 1689*

Shahu was imprisoned %ihen he was seven years old and came out of confinonent in 1706« when he was twenty-five years old* He then passed eighteen years of his formative life as a prisoner, watching the Maratha war of Independence passively and that too from the Mughal camp. The cmly recorded politico- 66

military activity of Shahu in this period was that he merely

accompanied Zulfiqarkhan by the order of on 18 18 January 1706 to take * Ihroughout the period he

lived in the perpetiial fear of losing his life and/or religion,

with the memory of his father fresh in the mind* These eighteen

years of imprisonment must have left an indelible mark on his

character and, therefore, on his policy*

Was such a man fit to lead a turbulent people like the

Marathas 7 I^id he possess necessary military# political and

administrativs experience to tackle multifarious problons

facing the Marai^as at the decline of the ?

Did he share the agony and the glory of the Marathas fighting

a war of independence 7

The answers to these questicxis are obviously in the negative* Accustomed to live a confined limited life at the expense of the Emperor, Shahu perhaps subconsciously created

a prison for himself at where he tried to live at the

xpense of his servants and sardars*

Shahu, in view of the civil war with his aunt and his own

^WMll^character, and weaker purse, was not in a positicm to

-establish his own authority* The opportunists and the careerists

'that asseirbled around him did not wish him to f o i l e d stxo^g-

pollcy for obvious reasons* 6 7

The position of the Chhatrapati* which can be likened to central government* and his relations with his servants# like IQ the Ashtapradhans , and the Maratha nobility form an important aspect of the Maratha confederacy.

The change of Maratha kingdom into Maratha confederacy was perceived and expressed by Rasichandrapant Amatya* The feeling of one kingdom with one frontier was lost*^^ Due to the lack of jadinini strati on chieftains arose at different ^ 21 places^who started fighting among theinselves* The suffering of the subjects* who are called as the life of the kingdcm by the Amatya, knew no bounds; the people instead of being 22 administered by the king* came to be dominated by others*

The Deshmukhs* deshpande* mokadam kulkamis/ mahajan and the balutedars of tarf Arle described the condition in

Maharashtra in one word* bahusahebi* meaning many sahebs*^^ The word saheb was used to refer to members of the Chhatrapati family •

These developments Indicate the gradual transformation of

Maratha kingdom into Maratha cc»ifederacy* Shahu called the

Mughal Emperor as sarvabhOum^^^ meaning th^sovereign* He was* unlike his grandfather, totally unaware of the concept of the sovereignty of the Maratha*.

Ramraja* in December 1751* presented through Khoja 6 S

Jawedkhan a nazar of coie hundred mohors* a golden key along with a letter expressing loyalty and cd^edience to the Mughal s^peror.^^ These presoits and the letter expressing loyalty were* it may be mentioned, brought by Bapu Pandit Hingane,

vakil o f the Pesh%fa at Delhi* Ramraja, therefore* must have sent the nazar and the letter expressing obedience and loyalty, on the auggesticm of Peshwa Balaji Bajirao# as he was quite a new and inexperienced king in 1751* The Peshwa had, therefore, a role in lowering the positicm of the Chhatrapati as the head of the Karatha siate* The process started by Shahu was thus accelerated by Balaji Bajirao to the political disadvantage of the Marathas, though they enjoyed suprmne military position in .

Maratha Confederacy Phase One» Rise of the Peshwa

With the^ r a d u e i l ^ r a n « f o n r » f e U « t h e Maratha kingdomV4nm f4r«r> I t'Xi into Maratha confederacy, the-JgcafaB-JMJg«:~in--power» Though the rise of the Peshwa occurred in the eighteenth century due to personal and circumstantial factors, the office of the Peshwa had a Itxig history* There was an office of Vakil and ir>eshwa under the Nizamshahi of Ahmadnagar• The office of the Peshwa was, therefore, adopted by the Marathas from Nizamshahi, which was destroyed by the ^hlghals in 1536 • , who was the last champicm of Nizamshahi, supplied his own men as the Peshwa, 6 9

Majumdar, Dabir and C h ltniv^^Sh lvaJl probably in 1642»'44.^^

The Peshwa was In th« coronation of Shivajl, one of ttie aahtapradhans or sarkarkuns who were called as the traditional 28 servants of the kingdom. There are references about half a dozen persons from different families, holding the office of 29 the Peshwa prior to the frown the Bhat family.

Shaairaj Nilkanth Ranjekar» Moro Pritnal Pingale# Nilakanth

Fioreshwar# Parashram rriwbak Pratinidhi, Bahiro Moreshwar

Pingale and Balkrishna Vasudeo are referred to as the I eshwas in the seventeenth century*^® Shivaji had, thus, appointed different persons from different families to be his Peshwa*

Moropant Pingale, the first Peshwa under was kept ccxifined by him on charges of treachery/ he died in confinement*^

Nilo Moreshwar, son of Moropant, was made the Peshwa by 32 Sambhaji by the end of 1680* But this Peshwa had no powers worth the name; it was Kai^Kalash who enjoyed the ^ ^ t i y a r ^ of the administration*^^ During the reign of Rajaram,

Ramchandrapant Amatya, Shankarajipant had the responsibility of administratic« in Maharashtra, while the Pratinidhi enjoyed 34 the confidence of Rajaram at Jinji*

There was, thus, no inherent strength in the office of the Peshwa by which it could have overriding powerj»,The person holding the charge of the Pesh%«a could be transferred, confined and could be left without any major responsibility in ^ 7 0

administration in the seventeenth century. It is against this

background that the appointment of Bhat as

^ h e Feshwa by Shahu an 17 November 1713 would have to be seen*^^

rhere was nothing that could indicate the rise of the P«sh%#a*

When Bajirao was given the robes of the office of the

Peshwa, his satrdari of the army was transferred to his brother

Chimnaji and then only the title of the Peshwa was given to

him.^^ rhis implies that the person holding the office of the

Peshwa under Shahu could not be a saraniami * In another

document he was said to have been given the dhanda, meaning

occupation of Peshwaj.^^ For the post of the Pesh%*a he was to 38 get tainat# meaning stipend or salary of padashahi hons 39 13,000. In addition he was to get seventeen villages from

different parts. While he was qiven two villages each in prant

Wai and prant Kalyan, he was to get four villages in prant

Pune and three from prant D^ulatabad* The villages, thus from U/ prants Wai# , Junnar, D^ulatabad, Dabhol, Sangamner#

Khandesh and Kalyan and thus did not form a ccmtinuous territory.

However, it was during the peshwaship of Bajirao I that

the Feshwaa and his brother on the basis of their military

strength, pei(^

advice of the Chhatrapati was to be accepted only when it

suitei the selfish interest of the two brothers. In 1729 there

was dispute regarding the share of the Pawars in Mal%ia* Chimaji 7 1

Appa, in a letter^® to Bajirao, exprassed his view that if

Shahu accepte 5 the decision of giving only one-third of to Pawar his word was to be respected and i f Shahu was of th« opinion that Pawar should be given one«>half share of Malwa

Chimaji felt free to accept or reject the opinion. In another 41 letter Chimaji elaborated his attittide* Chiniaji posed a question to Manaji Jadhav that though they killed Triinbakrao

Dabhade, the MaharaJ (i«e« Shahu) could do no harm to them*

Chimaji told Manaji that all the sardars were their servants and he too should loyally serve them (i««*, the PeaYnm and his brother)• Similarly Chimaji sent very arrogant answers to Shahu who had asked him to send swars for the campaign in May 1733*^^ Shahu too had realised the selfish attitude of Peshwa Bajirao* Shahu expressed the opinion that both the Peshwa and Khanderao served him only in the conflict with the Nizan:; their other acts were selfishly motivated.In 1736, the forces of the Feshwa besieged village Halkaxnii, belonging to the khasai of Chhatrapati

Sairi>haji of * When Shahu came to know about this through the letter of Sambhaji, he gave his o»m assessment of Bajirao. Shahu told Pilaji Jadhav that the Peshwa went to the north without his orders* He further repeatedly told Pilaji that in the campaign of Janjira, the Peshwa helped the Sidi and brought about divisicxi in the Angre family and he was fighting with Shahu's own brother (Sambhaji). Shahu 7 2

expr«S8«d the f«ar that the Peshwa might not hesitate to battle with hlm.^^ ^ a h u was by 1736 kept totally in dark about the movements of ieshwa Bajlrao.^^ Shahu's queries about

Bajirao's roovesnents received evasive answers from the Peshwa's mutoliq at Satara*^® Shahu had received charges of mlsT)anage> ment being made -on Feshwa Bajirao and he had openly expressed his displeasure of the practice of selling Justice adopted 48 by the Peshwa> While Shahu was In the dark about the movements of the Peshwa, the mutallq of the Peshwa used to send detailed intelliqence about the developments in the darbar at Satara.^^

Shahu was careful in maintaining the position of Sanibhaji of Kolhapur* Peshwa Bajirao I and his brother Chimajl succoured two sardars Ranoji Shinde and Bhagwantrao Ramchandra who were troubling Sambhajl of Kolhapur. Sambhaji sent a punitive expedition against them while Chimajl sent 500/700 swara to help ^anoji* When the matter was communicated to Shahu by

Sar*haji, Shahu in a strongly worded letter^® severely warned

Chimajl to call back the army and to cause no trouble to

Sambhajl. The letter clearly reflects both ^ ' ^ e defiant attitude of Chimajl against the position of Chhatrapatl of

Kolhapur and Shahu’ s keenness in safeguarding lt>

Declining position of the Chhatrapatl in the Maratha Confederacyt 1740-1749.

Peshwa Bajirao expired on 28 April 1740.^^ In his tenure t^i O

of the peshwaship he gained saranjain worth rupees thirty lac 52 and twenty*thousand* He had gained saranjain worth rupees

9,25,4CK> in prants Khands8h« Doulatabad, Pune, Junnar and

Kadevalit* while the renaining %#orth rupees 20,95# 000 were from other prants*

rhe robes of the Peshwaship were aiven to his eldest son

Balaji Bajirao alias Nanasaheb by the Chhatrapati an v;ednesday, the 25th of June 1740*^^ Chhatrapati Shahu died on 15 Deceiriber, 55 1749. The study of developments in these nine years will have to be separately made, as Shahu was the last Chhatrapati to hold any semblance of control over the Peshwa and other sardars*

Shahu had, however, allowed the situation to turn in favour of decentralisation. Chhatrapati Shivaji had fixed the salaries of the Ashtapradhans; the an»«al- OTlanrynof-irheHPeshwa under-

Shiva j4 -^raw horrK--4X.r)QO. fhA-^selary D f -^the~A«btapgedhang-ti»dttJ>

Shahu,Jias b e ^ given in a yajiiy in it is stated that the

Peshwa was to get hons 13,000. This, however# remained in the y a ^ only and the Peshwa was given seventeen villages in sarkar Narantha and thirteen villafjes In saykgr Goval in rrokasa in lieu of the annual salary of hons 13# 000.

Under such clrcx im stances# the position of the Chhatrapati came to be challenged by even women in the Peshv>a*s family. 74

Radhabal^ mother of Peshwa Bajlrao, gave an order of

prayaschitta - purifying penances - to Govlnd Hari vrtio had

employed a batikj^froni the Kahar caste* Many Brahmins put

forward the view that the order of the prayaschitta should be

crlven by the Jtlng. Radhabal, overriding these views, ordered

the performance of prayaschitta and convnunlcated to Nana

Furandare not to evcm coimitanicate the news to Shahu i f that eg would any complications*

During the peshwaship of Balajl Bajirao, Shahu suffered

on accoxint of health# domestic and financial problems*

Salcwarbai and Sagunabai, the two wives of Shahu, clashed with each other and interfered in the administration* Shahu in

1745, gave an order in writing asking th«n not to interfere 59 in the administration* Yet the ctmflicts ccmtinued* The

financial difficulties became so severe that it became difficult for Shahu to procure ordinary household provisicais*^®

Balaji Bajirao in a letter®^ dated 21 OctcA>er 1746 pointed out that the sarkar of the Swami became insolvent, the expenses and the conflicts of the maha^s were unccmtrollable and the

Swami wholly busy in the home affairs* Due to all these difficulties, Shahu wished to die rather than suffer all 62 these problems*

The reference to the sarkar of the Chhatrapatl made by

Feshwa Balaji Bajirao himself clearly Indicates the line of / o

f policy that the Peshwa was adopting. The Peshwa in the lifetime

of Chhatrapati Shahu %#anted to show the government of the

Chhatrapati as distinct and separate frcm thfi^c^ the Peshwa*

) The financial difficulties of Shahu in face of the

financial prosperity of the Pf^shwa, who had enough money to

sp>end lavishly on the fea^tt and dakshna of the Brahmins

perhaps iW thinkiSI of r^oving Balaji Bajirao from

the Peshwaship and Appointing Mudhoji Bhonsalehis place.

Balaji BaJirao« therefore, was dianissed from the Peshwaship

by Shahu* Though the exact date of the dismissal is not

certain, it appears that the dismissal did take place in

1746®^ But no one could ccmie forward to shoulder the

responsibility of the Peshwaship, as Balaji Bajirao used

conciliation and threat in meeting the demands of Shahu* He,

in January 1747, agreed to settle the debt of Shahu and the

financial problems of his wives, and further agreed not to

enter the territory of Naik.®^ Balaji Bajirao further threat­

ened that i f Shahu did not consider these proposals he would ( 1. / 66 also not respect the d^ulatauiat ofot thetne Chhatrapati*t;nnat;rapatx«

It was with this threat of the Peshwa and the selfish

neutrality of the Maratha Sardars that the Peshwaship was

again bestowed on Balaji Bajirao by Shahu* 76

The two yadls given by Shahu to Balajl Bajirao and the position of the Chhatrapati

67 There are two vadis supposedly given by Shahu to Balaji

Bajirao prior to his demise* By these orders it appears that

Shahu realised the approaching death and was concerned about the continuatic«i of administration* He, therefore, ordered all to run the administration, but they were not interested in it.

He, therefore, gave orders to Peshwa Balaji Bajiraot

(1) to hold or to control the army, (2) to install a successor,

(3) not to install a successor from Kolhapur, (4) to do as was ordered to the Chitnis, (5) to obey the orders of the successor and to cmtinue the Rajmandal, (6) to protect the kingdom in consultatiati with the Chitnis, who was W trustwarthy^ of ahahu.

It was also laid down that the successor would not make any change regarding Balaji Bajirao*

The second vadl laid down that it was the faith of Shahu that Balaji Pandit Pradhan would continue the administration and that the successor would continue his title of Pant Pradhan*

Shahu ordered Balaji to serve by obeying the successor and to protect the kin tlom* These two yadl^» according to Yashwant

Rajaram Gupte, were in the daftar of the successor of Balaji

Awaji Chitnis. The copies of these two ^^dJLs are supposed to be in the Dabhade daftar in the possession of BISM, fune* 7 7

Though the ^dls do not bear any seal or signature of

Shahu and, therefore# lack ffi official sanction, it can be presumed that they were actually given by Shahu to Balaji

Bajlrao* But the prestJinption ^la^Shahu gave the sole charge of administration to the office of the Peshwa cannot be accepted* rhe reasons are as follows! Firstly, the yadi is given to the perscHi of Balaji Bajlrao and there is no mention in the yadis that the title of the Peshwa would be continued in the

Bhat family. Secondly, Shahu in both the yadis ordered Balaji

Bajlrao to serve the kingdom by c^eying the successor. Thirdly, ther« are no extant letters froni Balaji Bajirao or any of his successors in which these yadis were referred to as giving overriding authority to thew-. .

There is a mistaken belief that the Chhatrapati surrender­ ed all his power to the Peshwa by and throuqh these yadis. In the controversy regarding the qenuin^^S^ or otherwise of

Ramraja, Nana Purandare suggested five alternatives to Balaji

Bajlrao. One of the alternatives was that Balaji Bajirao should behave as he used to behave under Shahu* The Peshvra, in answer, did/suagestA that the reinstaticai of the former relationship between the Chhatrapati and the Peshwa was impossible. He did not quote the yadis which were only recently given. He was as a matter of fact ready to accept the alterna­ tive if the members of his croup were kept in good positions. 7 S

There was, therefore# theoretically and legally nothing that could j^scrlba^ the power and the prestige of the

Chhatrapatl In spite of the yadls supposedly given by Shahu to the Peshwa*

P w lse of Shahu and Changes In the C«itral Governinent

Shahu« who was bom on 18 May 1682^^# expired on 15 December

1749^° at the age of 67 years* He had no legitimate sons* It was utterly careless and suicidal to the office of the

Chhatrapatl that Shahu did not think about the succcsslcm In good time and had to order through the two yadls Balajl Bajlrao to Install a successor* Shahu*s Indecisiveness was. It seems, mainly responsible for all the plots and counterplots that occurred after his demise*

Chhatrapatl Shahu^^ himself and Trlmbak Sadashlv^^, the representative of the Peshwa^have said that Ramraja was brought to the forefront by Tarabal. Ramraja, the ccxitroverslal grands(xi of rarabal, himself admitted that It was Tarabal who enthroned hlm."^^

Peshwa Balajl Bajlrao met Ramraja on 26 December 1749 near

Vadut on the north bank of the river Krishna.Nine days 75 later I .e . on 4 January 1750, Ramraja ascended the throne.

It should be noted that two days before the coronation

Matushrlbal (Radhabal 7) and Goplkabal, accompanied by 7 9

Vlshwasrao and Hadhavrao* the t%ro sons of the Peshwa, had paid visit to , when she presented all of them with clothes*^®

Tarabai had taken the initiative in marrying Ranraja to the daughters of prominent Maratha sardars auch as Btirhanji .

These marriages were celebrated in February 1750.^^ Ramraja«

however, was not adopted, as there was none to give or to take him in adoption*

After the accession of Ramraja as the Chhatrapati» Tarabai paid visit to Poona on 29 May 1750, when the Peshwa went out 79 of Poona to welcome her. It was through the good offices of

Tarabai that the Peshwa receive 1 the fort of Sinhagad from the Sac^v on 6 July 1750.®®

There is, however, reason to believe that Tarabai had since the occasion declared that Ramraja was not gentiine* rhere 81 is a letter dated 26 July 1750 written from Pune which refers to the continued insistence of Tarabai that Ramraja was not genuine. The Peshwa, of course, could not question this* He was worried about the dishonour that would be created among the people and, therefore, wanted that Tarabai should declare on oath that Ramraja was genuine. Tarabai was not prepared for this and had firmly decided to bring toryJ,.nc§li i.e . Sambhaji 82 of Kolhapur to be enthrcmed in place of Ramraja. The Peshwa, therefore, in order to settle the problem invited Ramraja to

Poexia; he reached Poona an 14 August 1750.®^ But no agreement J 8 0

could be reached*

In the meanwhile the Peshwa satisfied the Maratha sardars like Raghuji Bhonsale, Jayappa Shlnde and * While

Raghuji was given the Jagir which the Pratinidhi had in the prant Varad, the demands of Shinde and Holkar were also accepted.

rhe Peshwa thus removed the probable supporters of Tarabai.

The conflict between Ramraja and Tarabai was exploited by the

Peshwa and through the initiative of Sadashivrao Bhau the agreement of Sangola was gained in October 1750?^ The agrewnent of Sangola was the result of the campaign of the Peshwa against the)Pratinidhi in order to reduce his strength. By the agreement < \ Peshwa gained territories in Qujrat and Kamatak and made arrangements regarding the maintenance of the Chhatrapati and 86 the ashtapradhans.

Ramraja was put in coofinentent at Satara by Tarabai in

November 1750, the confinement continued till 28 March 1763.®^

During these years there was no Chhatrapati* Though Tarabai declared on oath in 1752 that Ramraja was not the son of

Shivaji II®®, no steps were taken by the Peshwa to install a new Chhatrapati* Tarabai, again in 175B, declar«K3 that Ramraja was not genuine*®^ Tarabai, thus in 1750, 1752 and 1758 repeatedly pointed out that Ramraja was not genuine* 8i

rhe attltxjde of Peshwa Balajl Bajlrao towards these developments In general and Ramraja In particular would reflect upon the policy that the Peshwa was systematically pursuing*

Balaji Baiirao’ s Policy Towards the Chhatrapati

Peshwa Balaji Bajlrao in his letter to Nana iurandare admits that Ramraja, because of the strcMig army of the Peshwa, subrritted to the demand of the Peshwa that the fort of

Sinhagad should be transferred to him from the Sachiv in exchange of Tung and which would be given to the Sachiv and secondly that he would have no friendly relations with 90 Fat^hsing Bhonsale* The Peshwa admitted that he employed a force of 25,000 soldiers for two years to pressurize the 91 Chhatrapati* The Peshwa in the letter puts forward his demands*

i'he first was that the women like Santubai and Oaryabai should be asked to leave* Vfhile Santubai was one of the daughters of Shahu, Daryabai was the sister of Ramraja. Secondly,

Narojikaka, Malharpant, Dinanathii^nt and Manakopant should also be asked to leave. They may be given villages for maintenance. Thirdly, the post of Sarlashkar should be given to Sambusing or Sairibaji Naik. Fourthly, the Chhatrapati should do regarding the Sachiv, as would be decided and communicated in writing from Pune. Fifthly, Yesaji and Kusaji, the dasiputras (the illegitimate sons) of Shahu would be given 8 2

saranjam for maintenance while Sidoji Thorat and Govlndrao

Chitnls would be given aaranjain as would be decided. Sixthly,

the Peshwa and Tarabai after a year or two#.would decide about

the persons that would remain in attendance with the

Chhatrapati*

■These demands of the Peshwa show the manner in which he was imposing restrictions on the Chhatrapati by utilizing armed

force and not the force of any documents* The allowances for

Laxmibai and Gajarabai were fixed at rupees 253 and 250 ^

respectively by the Peshwa; these allowances were for the self 93 and the attendants* Both the sisters were to go to Vadagaon of Bande*®^

Balaji Bajirao decided the policy tot#ards the relatives of the Chhatrapati, like L>aryabai, at Satara on the basis of the suggestions that he received from Nana Purandare, his agent AC at Satara* He gave responsibility to his a g ^ts and yet suggested the line of action, that was most suitable to his 96 interests* foyv^.- Yamaji Shlvadeo was the mutaliq of thei^Pratinidhi at

Satara and an opponent of the Peshwa. The Peshwa, in his handwritten confidential letter®^ to Nana Purandare, wrote on

27 July 1750 that the family of Yamaji should be given in his

possession and that Yamaji should be made his servant. If S3

YajnaJl would not behave properly as the «ervant he would be destroyed* This# the Peshwa says# was a better course than a campaign worth rupees ten lac. He further asked Nana to persuade

Rajaahri (i.e . Ramraja) and Daryabal regarding this and said

that he would help Daryabai if the family of Yamaji were given in his possession*

If this could not be done# Yamaji would# the Peshwa writes# 98 control the cattle of Mahuli* The cattle of Mahuli were nothing but the Chhatrapati and his family residing at Hahuli« a place near Satara*

Balaji Bajirao had shrewdly tmderstood the political situaticm and had decided the policy which should be adopted to the economic and political advantage of the Peshwa. In a 99 letter written to Nana Purandare# in his own hand# he suggested the policy* The ccmtrol of the king# the Peshwa says# should be weak# Daryabai should have the saranjam of the Sarlashkar#

Tarabai should get sc»ne prominence and the Peshwa should gain advantage* The Peshwa clearly was suggesting such a balance between Ramraja and Tarabai that the Peshwa would be having all the advantage* This reflects upon the clearer understanding of the situation which the Peshwa had. The Peshwa wanted seme mild misunderstanding or some sulking and pouting which would 100 postpone the fulfilinent of any promises from his end* He did not want that Ramraja should be destroyed and Daryabai 8 4

driven out not becaus® he had any sympathy for them, but

because Tarabal with Govlndrao Chltnis^ Dabhade and Babajl

Nalk would become too strong*

Nana Purandare had. It appears, suggested fine alternative

policies to the Peshwa Balajl Bajlrao to be adopted towards

the Chhatrapatl• The Peshwa In ireply suggested his reactions

to the three of the five alternatives*

The first alternative suggested by Nana Purandare was that

the Peshwa shoul

Peshwa In reply to this did not quote the yadls given by Shahu,

as suggesting that It was difficult or in any way impossible

for him to behave as under Shahu* The Peshwa, as a matter of

fact, was ready to behave as he used to do so under Shahu,

provided the men of his party would be kept at good places*

The Peshwa, thus, unlike some researchers In Maratha

history, did not feel that the yadls given by Shahu gave him

such an authority that the relationship as It existed between

Shahu and the Peshwa could not be repeated* He did not accept

this alternative because, he felt that the m«nbers of his ______------/ [iJ e-A party were liable control or demotljon* Peshwa Balaji Bajlrao

himself thus felt even after the demise of Shahu that he had

no overriding power*

The second alternative of taking the side of the Chhatrapati 8 5

of Kolhapur was not acceptable as Ramraja was still alive and that would be a breach of faith towards Rainraja* Moreover^ the

Peshwa says, the facts were not in his hands and it was not certain on which side Raghoji and other Maratha sardars would incline*

I^ie third alternative of putting guards on the Chhatrapati 1 would lead to cwiflict, as Gamajipant and Antajipant would provide for an army* The Peshwa appears to have been favourably inclined towards this alternative which he felt could have been successful had there been no difficulty from the Nizam's side*

Under these circisnstances# Balaji Bajirao suggested the use of force to protect whatever he had and to succour those who were on his side and at the sanie time speaking softly with

Tarabai attempt to bring her down the fort. Secondly^ he wanted to exert his military might over the Nizam (the Moghal) so that domestic problems could be pacified* He also wanted to talk things over with Raghoji and Fat(^hsing. He had, he says, three checks v iz* Gaikwad, Tarabai and the Nizam (Moghal)* His army was divided at different places and the trustworthy sardars were at a longer distance* He was afraid that in case the Moghal

(the Nizam) attacked all would Join him against the Peshwa*

This reflects upon the viniyersalvBiiy opposition which was

gathering around the Peshwa in case of foreign aggression 86

all would Join the aggressor* » Maratha Cwifederacy Phase Two Rise of the Karbharl

Just as the Chhatrapatl was b^^o^i^naq^powerless -)»ej^re his

own servant, the t^shwa by 1760 became helpless before his own

Fadnisl The helplessness of Peshwa Balaji Bajirao before his CHaTja

FadnisJcan be understood from the letters published^®^ from

the Chitnis daftar of Sangli*

It was expected that the/Fadnis/fs would gain a fixed amount A of rupees one lac and ten thousand# out of which he was to pay

to the clerXs a sian of rupees ten to t%«elve thousand*It

was also expected that the Fadnis should explain the income

and exp^diture to the Peshwa.There was dispute between

Baburao Ram Fadnis (the uncle of Nana Fadnis) cwi the cme hand and Sadashivrao Bhau and the Peshwa cxi the other regarding

these official duties of the Fadnis*

Feshwa Balaji Bajirao, while proceeding to succour

Sadashivrao Bhau, wrote a letter on 26 November 1760 to Baburao

Fadnis coimiunicating to him that he, as the Fadnis. had agreed

to take a saranjam of rupees one lac fifteen thousand and to

pay the renaining amount to the sarkar*^^^ The Peshwa

complained that even after a lapse of a year, Baburao Fadnis

did not explain the accounts* In still another letter the 8 7

Peshwa referred to the insistance of the Fadnis in not showing the detailed accounts every year, and the Peshwa, therefor*, had no other alternative but to fix the amount at rupees one lac ten thousand.The Fadnis thought It below his dignity to show the detailed accounts to his own master and to swear

It a^ true»^^® — y-

When the Marathas were facing the Afghans on the plains of Panlpat, the Peshwa In grave financial difficulties# was pleading helplessly to his own Fadnis» to give a sum of rupees one lac ten thousand* The Peshwa cited a popular belief that while the Potnis gets one lac to one lac and a quarter, the 1 OQ Fadnis gets 2 5 0 ^ more than the Potnis* In a letter the

Peshwa taunted Baburao Fadnis that while the wealth of Baburao increased with the dfailat> the Peshwa gained only huge debt.^^® I,

This might explain, in the words of Peshwa himself,

%rhere the golden river was accumulating its outpour*

I*he respc«se of Baburao to the pathetic letters from his master was that he wanted to go on pllgrimage^^^, rather than explain the accounts or to pay the amount according to the agreement* All these developments appear as dress-rehearsal of what was to occur at a later stage under Nana Fadnis; the

Peshwa was becoming powerless before his own Fadnis*

Madhavrao, the second son of Peshwa Balaji Bajlrao bom 8 8

112

Satara. Madhavrao urged him to accompany him while visiting the Chhatrapati and Tarabai* Nana Fadnis, on his own a

The earliest problems which Peshwa Madhavrao fiaced were \ financial, administrative anj^* l^fensive* To face the shortage of money he ordered the melting of gold and silver ornaments ^ 115 to mint rupees and moh<^r^s« tried to regulate the working of / 116 governmental potnisi and jamdarkhana, and took a loan of rupees 45,000, with 15 per cent interest per annum, from the bankers*The invasion of the Nizam was settled by the agreer.ent of XJrali giving, in the opinion of Naro Shankar 118 Rajebahadar favourable treatment to the Nizam cc»itrary to the wishes of the sardars*

Eaburao Fadnis and Sakharaitiiapu were given the entire responsibility of the administration iimnediately after the 119 death of Peshwa Balaji Bajirao* Both are referred to as karbharl and were united in purpose, along with and *^^® At the end of the official documents,

Sakharairbapu enterei the word Karar< ^ i l e Raghunathrao entered 89

the word dyave meaning, may be given* 121

One of the duties of the karbharis# at the time was to finalise any agreement by entering the word karar^ meaning agreetnent# The letters reflect upon the karbharis coming to the forefrcxit after the demise of Peshwa Balaji Bajirao* The administrative problent, involving various factors, however/ became crucial with the resignation of Sakharaml^apu from the 122 karbhar and the disinclinaticn of rriiribakrao Pethe, thete 123 maternal uncle of the Peshwa, from becoming the karbhari

However Trimbakrao Pethe and Baburao Fadnis were asked by

Gopikabai to be ^rbhari*^^^

The administrative prcA>lem had one facet in the ccxiflict between deshastha and konkanastha suboastes of Brataiins^^^ and another in the conflict between the Peshwa and his uncle. \ SakharaiT^apu, the main advisor of Raghunathrao, the uncle of i the Peshwa^was criticized as desiring the destructicm of the

Konkanastha Brahmin subcaste.The conflict between the

Peshwa and his ambitious uncle reflect upon the rising authority of the karbharis and the demand of partititicxi of the d ^ l ^ by Raghunathrao*

The karbharis demanded an oath from the Peshwa that, despite the oppositicai of Raghunathrao, the Peshwa should join I 20 their group* The Peshwa was not prepared to take oath* 90

It was with the Interventicm of Goplkabal/ the mother of the

Peshwa^that a compromise was wherein It was agreed

that Trimbakrao would be karbhari and his proposals would be

accepted by the Peshwa and Raghunathrao.

Raghunathrao, on 13 March 1762, met the Chhatrapatl at

Satara and discussed with him in the night.He, in July

1762, asked the teshwa for the partititl

telling him that It was not possible for him to remain

jointly*rhe Peshwa was not ready for the partitition but

offered Raghunathrao all the adroinisttation as he was older

than him.^^^

^ • The word dg^lat, as used by Raghunathrao and as understood by the Peshwa, was equivalent to Jagir; Raghunathrao as his demanded five forts and Jaglr worth rupees ten lac.^^^ While

the Peshwa and his mother called Raghunathrao as dhani meaning 134 master, Raghunathrao called the Peshwa as dhani ; both of

them were called as xibhayata chiranjiv, two sons, by

Gopikabal.^^^

Raghunathrao, as his demand for five forts and jagir worth

rupees ten lacs was not accepted by the Peshwa proceeded to

Vadgaon where the Peshwa, Trimbakrao and Malharji Holkar went

to pacify himt Yet Raghunathrao proceeded to Koregaon*^^^ This

ultimately led to the battle of Ghodfitadi between the Peshwa 91

and his uncle In which the Peshwa was defeated*

This was the first armed conflict bet%reen inentoers of the

Bhat family, on the Issue of partltitlcn of ^ranjain* Shahu

and the Peshwas had accepted the principle of partl^tlon of

faranjam among brothers; this principle bo

In the division and cOTfllct In Bhat family.

The Peshwa himself regarded that Baburao Fadnls wanted

that all the acteilnlstratlon should be run according to his 137 wishes, as he expressed in a letter to his mother*

Raghunathrao surrendered the entire responsibility of

administration which he and Sakharai^apu ^^Joyed, by his letter 138 to Goplkabai, to the Peshwa and Beiburao Fadnls. Gopikabal

saw through this and made arrangements to htanour Raghunathrao.

In her letter to Raghunathrao, she arranged that the karbharls 139 would administer according to the orders of Raghunathrao*

The role of Oopikabai, »rtio was statlcaied at Fxjne# in the

administration created problans, as Raghunathrao and the

Peshwa in their Joint letter felt that they would have to

explain in person to Gopikabal, the complications occurlng in

the administration

Dualism in the Peshwa Govemnient

The debt of Peshwa Kadhavrao, amounting to rupees fifty lacs, was by an agreeinent^^^ to be paid In three years by

Tukojl Holkar and Kahadaji Shlnde* In the agreem^t« there Is

a mention of the division of the Incorne frow north India. It

Is as followsi-

Rs« As* Details

30/- Sarkar 25 Swarl Pradhan Swarl Dada 30 23/5 out.. Holkar

23/5 ^ , Shlnde

2 2 / ^ ^ - The share of the Sarkar's army golnq for the campaign*

1 0 0 /m

The name of Haghunathrao Is, thus, mentlcmed under the head of Sarkar and he was to have 5% share of the income from north India* This is the indication of a sort of dyarchy that was established and referred to officially by the Peshwa government*

Just as Shahu was totally ignorant about the irovanents of Peshwa Bajlrao. PeshTi« Madhavrao, it appears, was not in touch with the developiTi«rit8 in north India* In his letters to

Vlthal Shivdeo^^^, in 1766.'67, the Peshwa displayed his

disfavour for not writing letters to him about the develop«ents 9

in north India.In his letter^^^ dated 27 September 1766, ^

the leshwa inquired about the itaperor, ^uJa.ud-Daula, Gazi*ud-din A and tried to understand the plans of the English, the Jats and

the Rohillas*

The Feshwas thus with his headquarters at Pu|^e was not

aware of the developments in north India* Yet# unlike the

Chhatrapati, the i eshwa did try to move out and to see the

situation at first hand.

Since 1760 the increasing importance of the Fadnis in

the administration and the development of dualism in the

Peshwa government can be discerned* Xhese developments were

definitely lowering the power and positicxi of the Peshwa in

the Maratha confederacy* The nadir was reached on 30 August

1773/ when in broad daylight and in the Shanwarwada itself

the qardis hacked Peshwa Narayanrao to pieces.One can see different developments accelerating the dec®itrailsation

after the demise of the Peshwa. The civil war# the infancy of

the Peshwa and the rule of the Bart>hai, a reoency council,

were the developments weakening the positiwi of the office of

the Peshwa. Out of the chaos, the position of Nana Fadnis,

formerly only one of the members of the Barbhai became supreme

at Poona, ^ioreover, the Maratha sardars in general and Mahadji

Shinde in particular, gained greater prominence and independence. 94

After the murder of Peshwa Narayanrao civil war broke out bet>«een Raghunathrao and Barbhai.^^® Raghunathrao, the uncle of the deceased Peshwa and the inain suspect In his murder# had great fascination for the Peshwaship and received the rcd>es \ 1A7 of the Peshwaship in October ^ other hand,

Sawai ^^dhavrao, bom on 18 April 1774, gained thfe robes of

Peshwaship at the age of ana month and ten days on 28 May

1774»^^® Yet Raghunathrao always called himself Pant Pradhan*^^^

On the one hand there was a man with overriding and inordinate ambitlcm, on the other there was an infant* Both of th«n were unsuitable to hold the office of the Peshwa and the Chhatrapati had no strength to have his own Peshwa* The Barbhai supported the infant Peshwa not because of their respect for the principle of primogeniture^which had been c«»veniently violated in cases of some Maratha sardars like the Angres by the Poona covemment# but because their very existence depended upc»i it-

The extant published sources do not give us any understanding about the function of the Barbhai, the regency council* The unjptiblished docximents from the Kolhapur archives Indicate a that both the torms Barbhai and Bai^hai were used by the perscais in their letters regarding the group that assisned power after 150 the death of Peshwa Raghunathrao. Hyder Ali in his letter dated 5 November 1773 and Raghunathrao in his letter^^^ dated

16 December 1781 %nritten to the Chhatrapati of Kolhapur have used the word Barbhai. However Hyder Ali in his other letters 95

to Chhatrapati Shivaji^^^ of Kolhapur and Yashwantrao Shind*^^^ has used the word Barabhal*

Out of the oligarchy of Barbhal« there onerged the rule i of Nana Fadnls* Though Nana Fadnls enjoyed supreine position at Pune, there appears to be no official basis for his position*

Nana Fadnls, In his letter to Sadashlv Pant, dated 24 May 1780, adir.ltted that he was not a karbharl but merely a sevak meaning a servant of the Peshwa.^^^ Nana Fadnls, thus, himself was aware of his officially weak position. There is no reference about the robes etc. received by Nana Fadnls as an indication o£ his official position in the available publishctd sources.

The author cine across a reference in one of the wpiijlished documents In the Gulgule daftar^where the ceremony of Nana r^. Fadnls receiving the robes of mutalaqj^ Fadnishi in 1794 has J been described* Thus for two decades since 1774 there appears very little official basis to the power and the position of

Nana Fadnls.

During these two decades, the territory under the control of the Peshwa came to be called as the Brahmani d<^U_t, meaning the dc^lat by, for and of the Brahmins. It was , the wife of Pesh'wa Raghunathrao, who called it as the Brahtrani

Anandibai, the wife of Raghunathrao, was kept confined by 96

the Karbharis, while her husband proceeded to Gujrat* She wrote two letters on 2 Septennber 1778, erne to Nana Fadnls and

the other to Sakharan^pu* In her letter to Nana Fadnls^^® she

discusses the establishment of Brahmanl d^ulat, by the

lUrbharis in the past* She pointed out to Nana Fadnis that he was the Fadnis of a dQ^ilat of three generations and that this

Brahinanl d ^ l a t %fas suffering a decline* She informed him

that two English regiments had reached and other

regiments were following. She quite clearly pointed out to

Nana that her hu^and had taken the aid of the English only to

protect his life* She was/ however^ keen an upkeeping the

Brahmani Q^ulat* Anandibai in this letter had used the word

Brahmani repeatedly and had indicated her concern about its

continuaticm*

157 In her letter to Sakharan£apu she has# quite obviously, elaborated her views and shown a clear understanding of

future* and especially the policy of the English* She explained

that only to avoid running front place to place (due to the

pursuit of the minister's army) they had chosen to join the

English* The ccxiditions of the English for their help —

regarding the places to be given for factories and the presence

of their army were accepted by Raghunathrao with great unwillingness* She# however, showed her clear understanding of

the policy of the English towards Stija-ud-daulah and Muhammad 9 7

Alij[in both of which cases, she «ays» the British quite huBttoly went as servants and after their entry in their affairs became a the masters of their d<^ulats« ^ja-ud*daulah and Muhanmiad All came in the difficulty even though they thanselves were alert and had good advisers* 'he frankly admitted that her husband had no competent karbharls and that the character of her hudoand was known to him. She accused the karbharls that despite their knowledge of all these factors the iCarbharis weire bringing out the downfall of the Brahroani d ^ l a t . She, however, showed her confidence in the karbharis that inspite of the terrible odds, they would be in a position to turn the tide A in favour of Bratwani d^ulat and Raghunathrao* If, however, they failed to do things required of them they would get all the blame of surrendering the Brahmani d^ulai: to the English.

She repeated the reascns of joining the English! the policy of the Itorbharis either to bring Raghxmathl^o in difficult sltuaticm or to end his life* She did not want that>the

Brahmani /should fall in the hands of the English.

Three years later i«e«, on 12 January 1781 another remark- 158 able woman, ^was reported to have praised the rule of the Brahmin icarbharis at Pune* She spoke that the

^ r b haxis shouldered the responsibility of the dc^ulat when their master was minor and they had no sufficient m<»ey. They, she further pointed out, kept communication with all and tried 9H

to manage the political affairs*

Sakharai|^pu and Nana Fadnis were the two prominent

jKarbharis at Pune. In the year 1778-79 both of them wade an 159 agreement on oath* The agreement, containing eighteen

articles, begins with the intenticn that it was drafted for I . the proper •idministration of the ddulat of Madhavrao Narayan

Pant Pradhan* The agreement, however, is mainly concerned

with the positicms of the two karbharis in the d^ulat and the

need of acting in uniscm* It was laid down that cm the official

doctanents of administration, called the karbharachi vadi. Bapu

should write devave, meaning may be given and Nana should write

yenepramane, meaning ^like thist If Sakharanibapu would give birth to or adopt a son, another article says, the son of Bapu

should be trained and raised to the same position with the

right of writing devave the official letters* The article,

thus, reflects upon the attitude of the karbharis, who wanted

to keep the power of administration not caily in their hands but also in their families* The conflict among the Deshastha

and the Konkanastha subcastes of the Brahmins was also referred

to in one of the articles, where it is stated that any of them

should not trouble the siibcastes of the other. It was further

laid down that the financial matters, administration of forts

and the punishment of the traitors should be dealt with mutual

understanding and with open minds* The oft-repeated sentence 99

In the agreement was that there whould be no duplicity between the two and forgetting the previous acts of omission and comtlsslon the ubhavata Karbharij should act in concert* rhe agreement* it appears# was concluded on sacred oath by both of them. And yet# Nana Fadnis in April 1779 i*e. imnedlately after signing the agreement^kept Sakharaii^apu confined at

Sinhgad on charges of treacheryHe was then shifted to

Pratapgad and thence to Raigad where he expired on 2 August

1781.^®^

I'he main significance of the agreement between ^akharai^apu and Nana Fadnis lies in the fact that both of them were solely concerned in maintaining their position in the djiulat of the

Peshwa. In the agreenient there is no reference to the authority of the Peshwa; the agreement reflects upon the supreme control

N.ana Fadnis had assigned in the affairs of the Peshwa. iei- Nana Fadnis had wielded a thorough control on Peshwa -r ' Madhavrao Narayan^who was his trump card in the power-politics within and outside the Maratha confederacy. The Peshwa, however# met with an accidental death on 27 October 1795* 5^e only surviving male members in the Pesh%#a's family were the three sons of Raghuna: hrao x ^z., Amritrao# Bajirao and chimnaji

Appa. While Amritrao was adopted by Raghunathrao in 1768 and

%^s about 31 years old in 1795^®^, Bajirao and Chimnaji Appa 1 0 0

wer« his na^)i

respectively.^®^ They were, like Moroba Fadnis, kept confined

by Nana Fadnis since the death of Raghiinathil^o in Decerrtoer 1783.

The successicm to the Peshwaship hereafter, came to be

decided by Nana Fadnis, the servant of the Peshwa, and the

Maratha sardars especially D^latrao Shinde and his advisers.

I i £ While the case of Amritrao, the eldest W d adopted son

of Raghimathrao, was not at all ctmsidered, Nana fadnis %»anted

to sidetrack the claims of the sons of Raghunathrao

to Peshwaship. But when that could not be done, Nana Fadnis

preferred twelve years* old Chimnaji Appa to twentyone years'

old Bajirao for obvious reasons. I^ulatrao Shinde supported

the claim of Bajirao because he v;as elder than Chimnaji and

also because he had promised him money and jagir.^®^

The succession thus, became controversial and what was

worse, selfishly motivated by both Nana Fadnis and D^ulatrao

)^Shind^resulting in dis\inion and weakness of the Maratha power rN in India. The position of the Chhatrapati became miserable-

While Chimnaji was Invested with the robes of Peshwaship cwi

2 June 1796, Bajirao was given the rctoes of Peshwaship on

5th December 1796 by the Chhatrapati.

Bajirao II thus became the Peshwa not because of the 101

favour of the Chhatrapatl, nor becaus® of the wish of Nana

Fadnis, but because of his own shrewdness and the support of

Ooulatrao Shinr^e*

Yet Nana Fadnis had a strong desire to control the young

Peshwa as i« evident from an agreement^®® made between the^v>

on 31 December 1796* The agreement contains six articles*

These six articles were written by Nana Fadnis and Peshwa

Bajirao II wrote yenepraroane karar* meaning agreed as written, t at the end of five articles*

The only article which Peshwa Bajirao II did not accept was regarding the restriction on his private expenditure*

Nana Fadnis wanted to fix the annual expenditure of the Peshwa, which could not be Increased once it were fixed* Bajirao II was not ready to accept this fixation.

The other articles which Bajirao II accepted are signifl-

cant as they throw flood-11 aht c»i the position of the i^eshwa vis-a-vis that of the karbharl*

The Peshwa could not, according to the terms of agreement,

act independently in important matters* The Peshwa could not

give any amotint of money without the consent of the l^rbharl

i .e . Nana Fadnis* The soldiers standing guard on the Peshwa were to be truetworthy^-off Nana Fadnis* The Peshwa, moreover. 1 0 2

should discuss all the matters of the State for his knewledge, but he should accept the 'request* made by the icarbharl. The

Feshwa should have no direct correspondence# coRirunicatlo:i and dlplcwatlc relatiw^wlth any c«e. £ven the official document should not be sealed without the knowledoe of the karbhari*

The P«shwa should discuss with the karbhari about the favour or disfavour that he wanted to show to a person and act

The karbhari i .e ., Nana Fadnis was, thus, to control the financial and the diplomatic of the Peshwa* Even the

Maratha sardars, except during the occasicmal darbar. were to be called to his presence by the Peshwa not on his own but through the kartharl* the Peshwa agreed to accept the

* request' made by the j^rbhari in all matters of the State, the Peshwa in fact accepted the end of the Independence of the Peshwaship*

# Bajirao II# however, had no intenticm of following the agreement to the letter* Yet the agreement stands as an indlcatiCHi of the ambition of Nana Fadnis and his attitude of lovjering the power and the position of the Peshwa*

Amongst the four prominent sardars in North India —•

Shinde, Holkar, Gaikwad and Bhonsale — the position of

Shinde and Holkar as the real supporters of the dfialafe of th* 103

^eshwa was understood* It waa clearly expressed by Miilyabat

Holkar* In a letter she Is reported to have said that while

the Bhonsale would support the King or would claim the kingdom

for themselves and the Galkwad hold Gujrat* the iibhayata

sardars# meaning Shinde and Holkar^would wish well for the

d^ulat of the Peshwa*^^"^

Though the power of Nana Fadnis had by 1763 become supreme

in Poona affairs, the Europeans with political experience and

foresight foresaw the rising power of Mahadji Shinde* Sir

C.W* Malet in his letter to Rawson Hart Boddam^dated

23 April 1783^depicted the future in a sentence* He wrote

"Should Nana be able to weather the present threatening period

and either establish his own or restore his s«lf*cr«ated

master's power* I doubt not, the day will come when ^(indhia's

independence# usurped in the present treaty, unauthenticated

by any previous instrument will be no less disputed than

FateA Singh's in his dealing with us***

Sir• Malet, thus referredL to the power of the Peshwajas

-treated by Nana Fadnis^andy^redicted that if he established

his own power directly or indirectly# it would lead to the

reestablishment of the independence of Mahadji Shinde, vrtio

was a sardar of the Peshwa*

The study of the central government of the Marathas in 104

eighteenth century show the shifting concentration of power

In the hands of the Peshwa and In turn the Fadnls. All these shifts, as already discussed, had 11 tt l^ official] sanction

The first chancre can be noticed under Peshwa Bajlrao I i^o created his own sardars to further hls^^/^lltlcal ambltl

As bis military power Increased, the Peshwa and his brother became arrogant and over>riding towards Shahu. Peshwa Balajl

Bajlrao went a step ahead and mentioned the sarkar of the

Swaml as something distinct and separate from the Peshwa*s ri^ulat. Though the Peshwa himself did not regard that the vadls given by Shahu, gave him all the power In the confederacy, he exploited the demise of Shahu and RjunraJa episode to further the power of the\peshvia* while Shahu \^s called Swaml or « A , Ramraja came to be referred to as Rajashrl* /

In the post-1760 period one can notlc^ anottwr change v lz*^ the rise of karbharl and afthat of Nana Fadnis after 1773. All these changes had no official basis*

^ o J j l ^ Despite these changes, theffountaln of the Maratha power remained the Chhatrapatl, as the sole surviving 'office' representing the central government# The Peshwa had to seek fCr

saiiw sort of relationship was also maintained the ' 170 ^ Chhatrapati of Kolhapur* Both Raghunathrao and Peshwa

Bajirao 11^^^ described themselves as the servants of the ~ I ... c w Chhatrapati of Kolhapur/ Nana Fadnis too formally inaAtitained .

the-relations*^ •€ a servant the Chhatrapati of 172 Kolhapur* All these statements were merely eye-wash as all

these three persons were interested in furthering their own

ends; they are good examples of hypocracy. There were also

proposalsrestoring the Chhatrapati to power*

V The Mahadiks^*^^ in 1766 and Nagpurkar Phcxisale^^^ in

1797 were planning to restore the Chhatrapati to Power* But

all these remained only proposals* ______As there was nq\^3»hatrapati^'re6toratio«y ^the power and

authority of the central government of the Marathas in the

in the nineteenth century, restored the Meiji, the Emperor#

after removing the Shogxinate* Such a restoration was beyond

the Marathas in the eighteenth century. lOG

NOTES

1 MIS, V III, 29.

2 Ibid.

3 V .S. Bendre, Maharashtretlhasachi Sadhane« II,

(Bombay: MvOTbal Marathi Granth Sangrahalaya, 1966), No. 142.

4 I & 4 ^

5 MIS, V III, 4.

6 SCS, III, 438.

7 MIS, XV, 342.

8 TKK, I, 143.

9 MIS, XV, 349.

10 TKK, I, 30, 31, 32, 41, 43 to 50, 52, S3, 64, 65, 76,

77 and 80.

11 MIS, XV, 347.

12 Manucci Niecolao, Storla Do Mogor or Moqul India 1653-1708

Translated with Introduction and Notes by William Irvine,

Vol. Ill (Londont John Murray; 1907).

13 MIS, V III, 56.

14 Ifeid^

15 107

16 PDSM, p* 1; D.v* Apte and S»M. oivekar (ed.), Shlvacharitra

Pradip (Pune; 1935) Karina, p. 47.

17 G.S. Sardeeal* Marathi Rlyasat« Bala 11 Vlshwanath, p« 29.

18 D.v» Apte and S»M. Dlvekar (ed.). Op.clt»» Gadadhar

Pralhad Shakayall, p. 69.

19 MIS, V III, 99.

— eirr h t erfurnia w —

20 Adnyapatra, Ch. I, p« 1.

21 Ibid.m p. 3*

22 Ibid., Ch. II, p. 5.

23 D.B. Parasnls, Prachln Marathc Sardar, pp. 11-12.

24 SPD, XI, 23 dated 7.3.1736.

25 B.D. Vertoa (ed«) Newsl«tters of Mughal Court (Reign of

Ahmed Shah, 1751-52 A .D .) (Bombay; 1949), No. 108*

26 Sayyad All, Burhane Maslr^translated In Marathi by

B.G* Kunte, Ahmadnagarchl Nlzamshahl (Bombay; 1962),

pp. 243, 245-248.

27 Marathi Rlyasat, Shakakarta Shivajl (Bombay, 1935)» p. 23.

28 MIS, V III, 99.

29 PD, I, 100, pp. 41-42. lO S

30 115, I, 100» pp. 41»42* ^

31 3CS, XII, 89.

32 D.V. Apte and S.M. Dlvekar (ed.), Op»clt«» Jedhe Yanchl

ShakavaU. pp. 30-31.

33 TKK, I, 143.

34 MIS, XV, 349.

35 PD, 1, 100, pp. 42-44.

36 PDSM, p. 127.

37 ID, I, 102.

38 Moles%forth, p. 387.

39 FD, I, 102.

40 SPD, X III, 56 dated 10.11*1729.

41 SPD, XVII, 30 dated 17.11.1731.

42 D.B* Parasnls (ed.), Bharatvarsha, I (Satara; 1898),

No. 38; AP, 17.

43 SPD, III, 123 dated 17*10.1735.

4 4 SPD, XI, 23 dated 7.3.1736.

46 SPD, XVII, 67 and 68.

46 IJaM-

47 AP, No. 22 year 1736. ♦ 1 0 9

48 SPD, XVII, 52.

49 AP, No. 22.

50 a t . I, p. 36 undated.

51 SPD, XXII, p .89.

52 PDSM, pp. 131-132.

53 Ibid*

54 MIS, VI, Purandare Roz., pp. 34-35.

55 PD, III, 123.

56 I.5., A.S.L., II, p. 40.

57 PD’ I, 114 dated 16.8.1740.

58 I.S., A.S.L., II, p* 14. Radhabai's letter to Nana*

59 AP, 39.

60 AX, 44, dated 2.8.1746* *

61 KSPY (1930 Ed.), 55.

62 AP, 44.

63 Vaidya Daftar, IV (1747), No. 24

KSPY (1930 Ed.), 48, dt. Oct. 1746.

64 AP. 65 dated January 1747* See also Shahu Maharajanche / Charitra bv Malhar Ramrao Chltnls.

65 AP, 65. 110

66 kP, 65.

— ^ meiT ^ aiTrrtra ar UT eiraariir ? a r r ^ fer airTr €7TJn«rr m in ifr s ^ f ^ gr5*n:iwTirf

5Tir SsT^ Jtr>—

67 IS, ASL, IV, pp.15-16.

68 BISMQ, XXVII (ASS, V II), 23 undated (The date given

by the editor is 1751 end).

69 PDSM, p. 1.

70 PDSM, p. 2.

71 MIS, V III, 171.

72 SPD, VI, 147.

73 PDSM, 44.

74 PD, III, 115 dated 26.12.1749.

75 PDSM, p. 2/ PD, III, 127.

76 PD, III, 126 dated 2.1*1750.

77 G.S. Sardesai, Marathi Riyagat, Peahwa Balajirao Nanasaheb

(1749-1761), (Bombay; 1953), p. 21.

78 JJiiA.

79 MIS, VI, Purandare Roznishi, p. 52. H i

80 MIS, VI, Pur. R0 2 ., p. 54.

81 MIS, XXI, 38 dated 26 July 1750.

— (Tiirr^ afr arr^amiTua J #4 iitt ^5

i=$vra 3rria—

82 Ifeil*

83 SPD, VI, 36, 57, 103.

84 G .s. Sardesal Marathi Riyasat# Peshwa Balajlrao Nanasaheb,

(1749-1761) pp. 30-31.

85 XfeM*

86 G.S. Sardesai, Marathi Rlvaaat, Madhya Vlbhag, III#

(Bombayy 1922). pp. 247-257.

87 Ibld«» p. 254.

88 S 9 D , I, 369; MIS,VI, 257.

89 TKK, III, 123.

90 BISMQ XXVII (ASS, V II), No. 13 undated* The date given

by the editor v iz.^ July-Aug. 1750 is not acceptable as

the fort of Sinhagad came to the Peshwa on 6 June# 1756.

me letter must be prior to 6.6*1750.

91 IM l * , . ^ ar?TT #trth «rn*r «T|TBT ^ $ T jjrrviT -awra 113

92 BISMQ XXVII (ASS, V II), No. 13 undated. The date given

by the editor viz* July»Aug. 1750 Is not acceptable as

the fort of Sinhagad came to the Peshwa on 6 June, 1756*

The letter must be prior to 6.6»1750»

r 3IVTT m m n «rrirT W r

»rni

93 FD, III, 130 dt. 31 July 1750.

94 PD, III, 130; Marathi Riyasat, Peshwa Balajirao, p. 187.

95 BISMQ, XXVII (ASS, V II), No. 12 dated 27 July 1750.

96 Ibid.

97 BISMQ, XXVII (ASS, V II), 12 dated 27 July 175Q.

98 Ibid.

99 BISMQ, XXVII (ASS, V II), 11

— aj^rr m m vr^\ «?lT5Tf 3«=rr

x i p I *TT^awwsT

^3=r=i rfia\ arrws^T^r 5 ^ 1 m p % m x ^ TTfi

^TteTtl 5IT^ 5EJT ^T9Ta ^ --

100 Ibid. 1 1 3

101 PISMQ, XXVII (ASS, V II), 23 Undated (Date qlven by Ed.

1751 end).

--?TTi^ HinT4TQT^ m ,ar I ^

6T*B ♦nrrii^T armi PTfr^ w f r

ar far #rra ^rar arrar Turfr i «

qitr^ ^ ^ 3 ?uTl^^rr 3 t r ^ 31711^^ $0 14

t w r 58tt5 3iT»:fT 54fv^ar^cmT n \ a ?pn? #rcf

^Tft 3rrp$Te 5 aTfr^R r u ^ ^ r m awara 7»n'n?tt

i^ga #rcf q w ist? ^^eirri 3rr|™

1 0 2 P.M. Llmaye ^ al*# Nana Fadnie Yanche Shabdat lanipatcha

Ranasanorawi (Sangll# 1965)« No*. 24»3S*

103 Ibli.. Ho. 24, p. 23 dared 23.7.1760.

104 Ibid.« No. 28# p. 65 dated 27.9.1760.

105 Ib M * 106 Ibid., No. 31# pp. 68-69 dated 26.11*1760.

w a m fcrr (f irrr) W r or4TSi tniTsrr irnr^r fRjss a en »n ra curi ai^T trrr 4T$3T o»ar «irr« — l U

107 P»W« Llinaye et al«, Nana Fadnls Yanche Shabdatt^anlpatcha

Ranasanqreun (Sangll, 1965), No. 34, pp. 72-73 dt. 8«12«1760.

— f|?T3i ^ ariTii

err?T $irr #rrr ^(t —

108 IfeM*

— 2fT q*n? amrr arfTxrT ;ifo«eff

i 5F§-ra ^ ^ $5rrr ^rrr #3 —

109 I]24ii., 31, pp. 68-69 dt* 26.11.1760.

110 Ibid.. 34, pp. 72-73.

111 Ibid.. Nos. 29, 30 and 37.

112 MIS, IV, p. 179; BISMQ, X III, p. 73, MIS, II, p. 100.

113 K.V. Purandare (ed.), Purandare Daftar (Punes BISM;1929).

114 KSPY (1889 E d .), p. 41

(Autobiography of Nana Fadnis).

115 IS, Ar, II, pp. 2-4 dt. 18 October, 1761*

116 K.V* Purandare (ed«). Op.cit*, III, No* 14; StD, XXXVIII, 39*

117 KSPY, No. 195 dated 27 November 1761.

118 AP, No. 103, dated 29.12.1761.

119 KIS, I, 286, 289. 1 1 5

120 MIS, I, 292 dated 6.7.1761.

121

122 ALS, I, 54 dated 6.1.1762.

123 55 dated 6.1.17 62.

124 Ibld«« 58, dated 8.1.1762/ Ichalkaranli. 62.

125 ALS, I, 54, 71.

126 ALS, I, 59, 60. 61.

127 ALS, I, 54, 71.

128 ALS, I, 59 dated 5.2.1762.

130 AF, 104 dated 17.3.1762*

131 V .S. Chitale (ed.), Pethe Daftar, I (PunejBISM; 1948)

19 dated 26.6.1762.

4 132 Ibid., Ichalkaranll, 67.

133 Ichalkaranjl, 67; ALS, I, 68, 69.

134 Ichalkaranji, 67.

135 ALS, I, 61.

136 Ichalkaranjl, 67; ALS, I, 68, 69.

137 ALS, I, 64.

■f^iiTT #Tn?Tr «nf§3— l i b

138 ALS« I, 56 received 7.2*1762.

139 hhSt 61.

140 ALS, I, 60 received 22-2.1762.

141 FDSM, pp. 202-203.

142 CD, I, 116, 117, 119.

143 D.V. Apte (ed.), Chandrachud Daftar^ I (Punet B1SM;1920),

No. 119 dated 18.12.1766, and 116 dated 12.7*1767.

144 Ibid., 117 dated 27.9.1766.

145 G.S. Sardesai, New History of the Marathas, III# pp.25-26;

G.S. Sardesai, l^rathi Riyasat Madhya Vibhag IV, pp.335-336'

146 Af, I, 54; MIS, XII, 166, ALS, V, 1363, 1367 and 1382.

147 G .S. Sardesai, Marathi Rigavat, Madhva Vibhao, IV,

pp. 355-356.

148 Ibid., Uttar Vibhag, I, p. 2.

149 MIS, XII, 143, 157.

150 Kolhapur Archives# Niwadi Daftar# Rianal No. 1#

£udke No. 1# E*25 dt. 5.11*1773.

151 Ibid. , Rumal No. 10# Pudke No. 2, A-1325 dt« 16.12*1781.

152 Ibid., Rxiinal No.l, Pudke No. 2, E-69 dt« 6.3.1777;

Ibid., E-75 dt. 6.12.1779.

153 Ibid., E-70 dt» 6.3.1777* 117

154 KSPY (1930 ed.), 262.

155 RL, GD, X, no. nil dt» 28.5.1794.

156 AT, I, 19 dated 2.9.1778.

157 IfeM*

158 hDB, I , 3 9 dt. 12.1.1781. . . ^ 7 ^ i

160 G.S. Sardesal, Marathi Rlyasat. Uttar Vlbhao. I, pp*195-196. 161 Ibid.

162 G.S. Sardesal/ Marathi Rlyasat Madhya Vibhaq/ IV, p. lio.

163 G .S. Sardesai, New History of the Marathas. III» p« 311;

G.S. Sardeaai, Marathi Riva»at Uttar Vibhaq, III, p. 25.

164 G.S. Sardeaai, New History of the Maratha», III, p. 127.

165 PP« 313-322

166 AT, I, 4 dated 31.12.1796.

I 167 MDB, I, 33 dated 17.12.1780.

—HTB3 rrrflm «f»iar3 *n^#2rT«: (S'htrff r r ^ T ^ B 3»T i GRTrr a fTwar®— IIB

168 Raghublr Slnh (ed*) Selections from Sir C>W. Malet's

Letter Book 1780-1784 i-oona Residency Correeponflence

Extra Voltime (Eoiribay; 1940), No» 79*

169 KSFY (1930 e d .), 262; PDSM, pp^ 74-75 dated 21.6.1792.

170 S.M. Oarge, Karvlr Rivasatiehi Kaoadpatre» I,

(Poonat Author, 1970) Nos* 12, 13, 19*

171 Ibid.. No. 52.

172 Ibid., No. 73.

173 SPD, XXXIX, 76.

174 RL, GD, X, No. nil, dated 31.1.1797.