CHAPTER BXQHT Conclusion 26i c h a p t e r e i g h t Shivajl was aware of the sovereignty that he as the Chhatrapatl and his kingdcxr. the Swarajya enjoyed* He had all the powers in the Swarajya and had a thorough control over the administration in the kingdom. His sons, though aware of the sovereignty of the kingdom, started the practice of Informally delegating their power to others* Rajararr;, the ^ 1 second son of Shivaji, most probably on the counsel of his / advisers,! started the practice of granting land for military ) services, in face of the massive Mughal invasion* His ultimate successor £hahu, the son of Sambhaji, was utterly unsuitable to lead a turbulent people like the Marathas* The character and the policy of 3hahu accentuated the trend of decentralisaticm* The saranjam system initiated by Rajaram was conti^nued by Shahu* ~ ---- - ^ Though the Marathas knew the jam systemi of the Kuhamiradans from within, the saranjam system of the Marathas had its own peculiarities which vitally affected the constitutional, the financial, the administrative and the military 'systems* of the Marathas* The saranjair. was the assignment of land to a person for military services* There was, therefore, a donor who assigned 262 land to a donee* The donor in the saranjair system, ultimately, in the formal sense was the Chhatrapati* Iftider an inactive and non-martial ruler like- Shahu, Peshwa Bajirao gained power not because of any inherent strength in the "office" of the ieshwa, but because Bajirao was active and rrartial* The sardari of the army was not given to Bajirao; it was givn to Chiroaji, his brother* Both were strcxig and selfish and, therefore, audacious towards the Chhatrapati* Peshwa Bajirao was given seventeen villages while giving the robes of the Peshwaship; at the time of his death he left behind saranjam worth rupees thirty lacs* iie, moreover, left behind his own sardars, who <iould be loyal to the Peshwa alone. By distribu- ting his share of the mokasa in Malwa and Gujrat to Maratha / sardars, Holkar, Shinde and Fawar, he created a following. This follow|<^ was useful to Balaji Bajirao, son and successor of Bajirao* During the Peshwaship of Balaji < Bajirao, Shahu had probl^s of health, wives and mcxiey in superlative order* These problems of the Chhatrapati made the Peshwa bold in referring to the government and kingdom of iShahu as soiriething distinct fr«n the s a ^ ^ J ^ and the saranjamdars of the Peshwa* Balaji Bajirao was dismissed from the Peshwaship by Shahu. He, however, regained it by using conciliation and threat towards the Chhatrapati and 263 satisfying the cupidity of the Maratha sardars* The Rainraja episaie after the demise of Shahu in 1749 was fully exploited by Balaji Bajirao by making Chhatrapati financially dependent on the Peshwa, as is clear from the arrangeroents of Sangola. rhe vadis supposedly qiven by Shahu to Balaji Bajirao, it is averred, gave all the power in the hand* of the Peshwa. i'his asserticm does not stand to analysis* The vadis were given to the person of Balaji Bajirao, who was ordered to serve che kin^ and were never for\^;ar:3«d by any of the Peshwa as giving overriding power to them* Nana Purandare gave advice to Balaji Bajirao to serve Ramraja as he had served Shahu- Balaji Bajirao was inclined to accept the advice* The advice given by Peshwa's confidant and accepted by Peshwa himself reflect upon the prevalent contemporary opinion about the supreane position of the Chhatrapati* The policy and attitiide of Balaji Bajirao towards Chhatrapati and his family can be understood from the ccaifidentlal letters written in his own hand, to Nana Purandare* The Peshwa %^nted that there should be little control of the Chhatrapati, while Tarabai should gain some prominence and the Peshwa all the advantage. He was even favourably inclined to accept the advice of Nana Purandare to put the Chhatrapati in confineaent and had it not been for the pressure of the Nizair and the universal internal opposition to him, he would 26i have, as he himself wrote, accepted It* The constitutional question about the fountain of sovereignty in the Maratha state has been put forth in the memorial submitted by queen Sagunabai, the widow of Appa SahdD, to queen Victoria in the year 1874. The thesis of the memorial is that Chhatrapati was the sovereign in the "Marhatta Empire"* This has been argued on the basis of the writings of General Briggs, Elphinstone and Marquis of Hastings*^ It is also pointed out in the Meitiorial that the acceptance of titles, succession* battles and wars were 2 reported to the Chhatrapati* After the murder of Narayanrao, and the rerroval of Raghunathrao from Peshwaship, the Chhatrapati in his letter to thirtyeight prominent perscxis in the Maratha State informed about the appointment of Bhawanrao Pratinidhi, Trimbakrao Vishwanath, Sabaji fihonsale and Vamanrao Govin>i as the four commissimers*^ The Chhatrapati, the Memorial argues, had the prerogative of transferring persons from Peshwaship.^ The memorial, however, admits that the Chhatrapati was ) ■ constrained to give Peshwaship to Raghunathrao and it no ^ -- / where mentions why the Chhatrapati appointed an infant as the Peshwa* It also fails to mention the robes of Peshwaship 263 given to Chlinnaji and Bajirao II at an Intarval of a few months emd the reas<^s of these changes* The argument of the memorial that the Chhatrapatl exercised power over the Peshwa In practice cannot be accepted, though In theory the formal position of the Chhatrapatl as their master was accepted by the Peshwa* The mrmorial, however, rightly asserts that the regal independ­ ence of the Chhatrapatl was not questioned by any power, including the Mughal anperor, in India and that they enjoyed the right of adopticm without any permission from any perscm or any power in India^, in the eighteenth century, within the Maratha Confederacy itself, the Chhatrapatl enjoyed the shadow and not the stdastance of power; h is power was syirbolic and formal. Ju3t as there was no official basis for the shift of power from the Chhatrapatl to the Peshwa, there was ncaie for the sh ift of power from the Peshwa to the Karbhari. The audacious attitude of Baburao Fadnis (the uncle of Nana Fadnls) and his disinclination either to explain the accounts or to pay roney according to the agreement clearly indicate the unofficial and selfish nature of Baburao wh«> the Maratha nation faced a grave crisis* Baburao Fadnis, despite his past record of negligence. 266 arrogance and corrupt practices and Sakharaoibapu vrere mad« the Rarbhari^ of young Peshwa Madhavrao. The Peshwa himself wrote to his mother that Baburao wanted that the entire administration should be coiducted according to his (Bhaurao's) wishes* i^ile the positicai of the Karbhari was on the rise, dualism developed in the Peshwa*s office* Raghunathrao, uncle of Peshwa Madhavrao, received the right of writing 'give* on official documentSf in which ho was also referred to as Sarkar Swari Dada having a fixed share in the income» Peshwa Madhavrao and his anocher Gopikabai called Raghunabhrao as dhani in^^aning master* Ti'^e declining position of the Peshwa reached its nadir on 30 August 1773, v/hen Peshwa Narayanrao was murdered* I>ue to his past experience it was no wonder that Raghunathrao should try for Peshwaship* The Karbharis were interested in an infant Peshwa. '^lis resulted in the civil war; the internal conflict in the days of Madhavrao was ccmtinued and furthered* Out of the chaos* the rule of Nana Fadnis, also having no official basis, emerged* The saranjam of the Peshwa (■ became famous as the Brahmani dytulat^ in which the Brahmins enjoyed certain privileges* Despite all these shifts the Peshwas in their hcsarts of heart understood that their positi(»i depended upon the Chhatrapati and that was the reason why Bajirao II kept with _ Z B 7 hlMself Prat*d^inh In his last run for existence- J - In another respect the authority of th« Chhatrapatl was recognised In India under the control of the Marathas* The banner of the Chhatrapatl had official and prestigious value* It was respected and honoured by the Peshwa and the ^^aratha sardars* The B ritish In their battles against Peshwa Bajlrao II professed that they would set free the Chhatrapatl from the conflneinent of the Peshwa and that th«y would continue the land grants and charities as before.^ As a result of these two statements In the British declaration the support to the power of the Peshwa from above and below was removed* rhe dcnor of the saranjam has been referred to as the central government In the thesis* The relations between the donor and the donee are the relations between the Chhatrapatl and the Peshwa on the m e hand and the Maratha sardars on the other* The saranjam system* to which the Marathas were acquainted, was Initiated In the Maratha polity by Rajaram due to circtanstantial factors and most probably under the guidance of his advisers* The system was continued in f u l l , fledged n>anner by Shahu# who gave saranjams to the Peshwa and Maratha sardars in Malwa, Gujrat and other regions* In due course the Peshwa either distributed his share 2 6 S of the saranjam among his followers or gained Kughalai rights from the Emperor and divided i t among h is retainers* Bajirao, for example, gave the jaqira mokasa of Mogalai of four paraganas in prant Khandesh to S&yaji Gujar and other eight persons*^ These nine takahitR-^arB* meaning aha re* holders# Q rs,J partners « were to serve iinder Chimaji* In this manner* Peshwa Bajirao created his own sardars# who oould be personally loyal to hint* Such practices grew in the later period* A territory vrtiich was not under the control of the donor was given in saranjam# as was done by the Sultans of Delhi.