Chapter 5 - Architectural and Urban Patronage

CHAPTER 5 - ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN PATRONAGE

In 1779 CE Ahilyābāī Hoḷkar sent a letter to Gopikābāī Peśvā, grandmother of the then Peśvā, Savāī Mādhavrāv and the wife of Nānāsāheb Peśvā. Some years before, Gopikābāī, who was staying at Nāśik, had constructed a kuṅda and ghāṭ on the Godāvarī River known respectively as Rāmkuṅda and Rāmghāṭ. Ahilyābāī wrote to Gopikābāī requesting for permission to repair and rebuild the same in a more artistic manner. Gopikābāī flatly refused any such permission saying that the kuṅda and ghāṭ were meant to preserve her memories which she did not want to be destroyed (Sathe, 2013, p. 143). Ahilyābāī retaliated by not sending the sarees that Gopikābāī had requested from Maheshwar. It was an act of what Bourdieu has termed as ‘symbolic violence’, a strategy employed by those having legitimacy in the social field to maintain their positions from any competition. Clearly, Gopikābāī saw Ahilyābāī’s intervention as a threat to her authority. This apparently simple event shows the acute awareness that patrons had, of the power of architecture in consolidating their social positions. They used architecture consciously to further their social and political aims.

What purposes did the construction projects serve beyond the mere function? How were buildings used by the agents to assert authority and consolidate social positions? Can we trace any thematic continuity between the patronage of preceding centuries and the eighteenth century? This chapter attempts to answer such questions by focusing on patronage and matronage in the study area.

Patronage and its relationship with architecture has been an important concern for a number of years in Historical studies. The basic concept of patron – client relationship comes from Roman history (Westbrook, 2005, p. 210). Three elements of such a relationship have been defined (Saller, 1982, p. 1). They are -

a. A reciprocal (mutual interchange) exchange of goods and services b. A personal relationship of some duration and c. An asymmetrical relationship where the two parties are of unequal status

The studies of patronage have focused on the elites (Gilbert, 2005; Nicols, 2013). The patronage by women or ‘matronage’ as it has been called, has also attracted attention in the recent years (Wescoat, 2015). The dominant themes in patronage research have been as follows (Wescoat, 2015, p. 177)

a. Royal patronage b. Role of influential women c. The social dynamics of giving and taking as an aspect of self - fashioning and cultural identity d. Tensions between communal benefits and personal ambition e. Applicability of patronage models to democratic communities

Various theories such as of Magnificence (Jenkins, 1970, p. 162), Taste (Bourdieu, 1984), Benevolence (Rizvi, 2001, p. 123), and Piety (Goffen, 1990) have been explored in relation to patronage. The early scholarship which was focused on Greek, Roman and Renaissance eras has gradually shifted to the Islamic world. Along with studies of elite (Royal and Merchant) patronage, the patronage of religious elites has also been studied in Islamic context (Fernandes, 1997, p. 107).

While some of the ideas especially those of ‘Magnificence’ and ‘Benevolence’ could be applicable to the context of the study; a better understanding of patronage can come from an Indian perspective. Having a culture-specific understanding of patronage was stressed by Westbrook (2005). Westbrook applies the concept of patronage to the ancient Near East. The research concludes that the Near East had ‘more subtle modes of distribution’ available to them than the Roman concept of patronage. The work of Romila Thapar that I examine later is of particular relevance in this regard as it explores the concept of patronage in the context of the Indian subcontinent.

The study of patronage in the Indian subcontinent has chiefly been the concern of Historians and sociologists. A comprehensive collection of such studies was edited by Barbara Stoler Miller under the title ‘The Powers of Art – Patronage in Indian Culture’ (Miller, 1992). This volume focuses more on patronage in relation with the arts. A couple of articles by George Michell (2001) and Catherine Asher (Miller, 1992; 2001) consider the question of architectural patronage.

Matronage in the Islamic world has been the subject of a collection of essays edited by Fairchild Ruggles (2001). Of particular interest is the essay by Ellison Banks Findly (2001, p. 91) which discusses matronage as a continuous phenomenon in the Indian subcontinent as witnessed through Buddhist, Jain and Mughal sites. The analysis offered is important for highlighting the role of matronage in Buddhist and Jain sites.

Romila Thapar (2000, pp. 521, 589) has written a couple of papers which examine the concept of patronage in the Indian context. In these papers, Thapar has researched the idea of

patronage in Early India. The first paper titled ‘Patronage and the Community’ examines the idea of patronage as manifest in three distinct ways, one - as embedded in a society, second – as a deliberate act of choice and third – Patronage as service. An important concept that the paper highlights is that of Yajmān as an ‘embedded patron’ that is part of the cultural system. The second paper titled ‘Dāna and Dakśiṇā as Forms of Exchange’ discusses dāna as a two- sided act where the giver expects to receive the same in a larger quantity, whether it is loyalty or a credit of puṇya. The importance of these papers lies in their cultural analysis of patronage. The papers on patronage along with Dāna and Dakśiṇā give a conceptual frame of reference within which we can examine eighteenth-century Peśvā region. As I will explain later, this region in the eighteenth century was dominated by Brāmhaṇ leadership who belonged to a caste that prided itself on the knowledge of and adherence to the religious texts. Their patronage or, ‘Yajmānī’ was conditioned by what these religious texts said was appropriate or not appropriate.

Specific studies on architectural patronage in India are hard to come by. Talbot (1991, p. 308) has looked at patronage in the thirteenth century south India, however, the paper focuses more on the gifts given to the temples rather than on architectural patronage. Besides the studies on Buddhist and Jain patronage, some scholars have worked on the architectural patronage of the period since the coming of Islam in thirteenth century CE. Anthony Welch (1993, p. 314) has worked on Tughluq patronage stressing on the import of Islamic forms into India and the gradual influence of Indian traditions on the same. Prominent among the scholars is Catherine Asher who has worked extensively on Patronage and architecture during the Mughal rule stressing on the relationship between the centre and periphery. Asher’s work on the patronage of Mansing (C. B. Asher, 2001, pp. 370-397) is an example of such a study. George Michell (2001, pp. 398 - 412) has worked on patronage and the architectural style of Vijayanagara court.

In the first part of the chapter, I examine the traditions of patronage in Maharashtra before the eighteenth century. The purpose of this examination is twofold. Firstly it sets the ‘stage’ for the understanding of eighteenth-century patronage and secondly, it establishes a number of themes which help in structuring the study of the eighteenth century.

5.1 Traditions of patronage in Maharashtra before the eighteenth century

The first records of patronage that we know of from this region are related to the various Buddhist sites of western Maharashtra. Buddhist sites carry inscriptions which indicate the patterns of patronage of these sites. The records reveal patronage by Royalty, Merchant Families, Communities, and Women. These ‘patterns of giving’ have been analysed

by Findly (2001, p. 91). Although we do not seem to have any examples of community patronage and matronage or patronage by women in the centuries between the Buddhist sites and the eighteenth century Maharashtra, the eighteenth century tells of a number of women who commissioned building projects. It may be hypothesised that the idea of community patronage may have been a continuing tradition well into the eighteenth century being conditioned by the social structure and being modest in nature. As against community patronage, the patronage and matronage by individuals would require political stability and access to resources which only the seventeenth century, to some extent and eighteenth century, to a large extent could provide.

Religious leadership offering patronage to various places was a trend which was prevalent in Maharashtra at least since Chakradhar (thirteenth-century founder of the Mahānubhāv paṃtha). The Leelā Charitra , a chronicle of the events of Chakradhar’s life, offers evidence of the construction of ote (platforms) and guṃphā (small rooms) at various locations during his travels (Belwalkar, 2009, p. 82). In one of the leelā, Chakradhar narrates the qualities of good construction lime to masons (Leelacharitra - Ekanka, 1972, p. 30). This incidence further reinforces his active engagement with the construction process. Sixteenth- century saint Rāmadās was another prolific builder who patronised the construction of temples and maṭh (residence for sanyāsi similar to a Buddhist Vihara) as part of his attempts to spread and establish a religious order dedicated to the worship of lord Rām and Mārutī. In later years his followers came to be known as ‘rāmadāsī’ or servants of Rām. Besides the construction projects, there also exists a small composition by Rāmadās which describes various construction activities (1989, p. 431). His book Dāsabodh gives a clear list of types of constructions desirable to be built by a patron as a pious deed.

‘Vāpi kūpa sarovare, nānā devālaye śikhare Rājāṅgane manohare, vruṅdāvane bhuyari’

Dāsabodh (04/05/22)

(A person should construct) stepped wells, wells, lakes, temples with spires, beautiful open spaces in front of temples with wide platforms and cellars for meditation

This list of desirable constructions is very similar to the one quoted by the Dharmaśāstra as ‘pūrta dharma’ (which incidentally was an accepted activity for women and the untouchable castes alike!) (Kane, 1941, p. 889). The religious norms of behaviour which privileged the higher castes became what Bourdieu terms as the ‘doxa’ of eighteenth-century Peśvā lands.

The first recorded instance of elite patronage of the architectural project would be that of Māloji Bhosale (b 1552 CE), the grandfather of Śivājī. He constructed a lake at Śiṅgṇāpūr which was the Kuladevatā of Bhosale family and also restored the temple of Ghṛśṇeśvar at Verūḷ. The seventeenth century is witness to the patronage of Ṡivajī. During his brief life (1627 – 1680 CE), Śivājī comes across as a patron commissioning various small projects and finally the construction of the capital at Raigad Fort before his coronation in 1674 CE. His projects range from repair and construction of forts (Rajgad. 1649 CE, Sinhagad, Sindhudurga, Vijaydurga, 1671-72 CE), construction of temples (Bhavani Temple at Pratapgad, 1661 CE) and also a couple of urban projects such as Jijāpūr at Pāśāṇ, 1657 CE and Śivāpūr near Pune, from 1636 CE (Bhave, 1935b, pp. 163, 272).

The very first project associated with Śivājī is that of resettlement of Pune which had been destroyed in an earlier attack. The process involved ploughing of the land with a golden plough (important as an example of the ritualistic placemaking, this is discussed in detail in chapter nine on symbolic management) assuring protection to the dwellers and providing incentives for resettling the city and its hinterland. The aspect I want to focus on is the role of Śivājī, at that time (the event took place at around 1640 CE when Śivājī was 12-13 years old) in this ritual. While we may use the word ‘patron’ for this activity, I propose the use of word ‘yajamān’. The word patron as understood in its Roman context means a supporter, protector or champion of someone or something. The word yajamān on the other hand though very similar in its meaning also implies a ritualistic connection (Thapar, 2000, p. 592). The ritual which was just a physical indicator of the resettlement process was used to set off implementation of policies of resettlement executed by Dadoji Konddeo on behalf of Śivājī. Such a connection between physical construction and religion is an important aspect of patronage which continued in the eighteenth century.

Under Śivājī’s rule, we also observe a patron-client relationship with an intermediary who seems to have acted on behalf of the patron to get a certain work executed. The epigraph on the temple of Jagadīśvar at Rāygad mentions that ‘this palace of Jagadīśvar was created by Hirojī as per the orders of Śivachatrapatī’ (Deshpande, 1981, p. 31). This instance can be explained as a case of the yajmānī system. In such a system the person desirous of performing an act, the person overseeing its execution on his behalf and the actual execution become different actors in the interplay of power and obligation.

Śivājī undertook a number of temple projects. One of the early temple projects was a reconstruction of the Gaṇpatī temple in Pune. Among his other temple projects were the repairs to the Tuḷjābhavānī temple in Tuḷjāpūr and the construction of the temple of Jagadīśvar at Rāygad. These three projects show an engagement with the Gramadevatā,

Kuladevatā and the Iśtadevatā. From the ‘thirty-three crore’ deities, for every Hindu, three gods become the most important (Yajnavalkya Smriti, 1917, p. 28). First and foremost was the Kuladevatā or the clan deity, secondly, Grāmadevatā or the village deity and lastly the Iśtadevatā or the ‘chosen deity’ of the person. A person’s duty towards the three especially the Kuladevatā remained an important reason behind patronage of religious places.

To summarise, the following are the strands that form the basis our understanding of patronage in the eighteenth century.

a. The idea of yajamān who acted as a patron and of pūrta dharma as a religious duty of a person. b. The notion of Kuladevatā and Iśhtadevatā which guide the patronization of religious places. c. Religious leadership patronising construction projects. and d. Patronage by women or matronage and community patronage as practices in Buddhist architecture of the region.

The preceding study also highlights categories of patrons that need to be discussed for the study area. Rather than a simplistic division of Men and Women, I propose a set of categories based on social positions occupied since these govern patronage patterns to a large extent.

a. Patronage by the rulers and the elite b. Patronage of the religious leaders c. Matronage d. Community Patronage

I will examine patronage in eighteenth century Peśvā region under these categories and with reference to the understanding of pre-eighteenth century patronage.

5.2 Patronage by the rulers and the elite class

The eighteenth century was witness to diminishing importance of the traditional noble families such as Ghorpade, Yīdav, Māne, Thorat etc. (Gordon, 1998, p. 106) The reason behind this was the fact that they chose to be on the side of Tārābāī (wife of Śivājī’s second son Rājārām) against Śāhū (Son of Saṃbhājī) who finally managed to become the accepted leader of Maratha polity. Simultaneous to this was the rise to power of families which had gathered around the dynamic Bājīrāv. The new elite that formed around the leadership of the

Peśvā formed two distinct groups. First were the sardars who started as teenage soldiers with Bājīrāv and went on to establish their own quasi kingdoms in various parts of the country such as Ujjain (Śinde), Indore (Hoḷkar), Nagpur (Bhosale), Baroda (Gāyakvād) and Devas (Pavār) (Gordon, 1998, p. 118). The second group was of the Brahmins, especially the citpāvan from Kokaṇ. The citpāvan belonged to the same caste as the Peśvā which gave them a unique social advantage. They entered the Administrative and banking system and later on provided military leadership as well. They were administrators (Phadṇis, Tuḷśibāgvāle, Khasgivāle), Military Leaders (Rāste, Patvardhan, Gokhale, Puraṅdare, Bokil, Pānse), and Bankers (Bārāmatikar Naik, Chāskar Jośī, Angaḷ, Bhide) (Gordon, 1998, p. 166)

Banking or the business class was a new class to arise in eighteenth century Maharashtra. Under Śāhū and his Peśvā Bāḷājī Viśvanath, the Maratha lands were expanding rapidly. To maintain them and to acquire new lands a large army was need of the day. Along with these needs came the requirement of monetary credit from a stable system. The outcome of this situation was the rise of business class in eighteenth-century Maharashtra. This business class was dominated by the Brahmin caste. Unlike Banias (Gujarat) or Chettis (Tamilnadu) they did not form a subcaste nor did they get organised into a social and economic system (Divekar, 1982, p. 427). Their activities remained linked to the political requirements. Some of them married into the Peśvā family (Bhide, Rāste, Phadke) and some went on to become military leaders as well in order to protect their investments. The Peśvā managed to establish this citpāvan hegemony soon after the death of Śāhū. They used the strategies of intermarriage and making social mobility accessible to their own caste for consolidating their social and political position. In the long run, however, this strategy resulted into further nucleation of Maratha state.

Cracks began to appear in this close knit group of the elites in the years following the death of Bājīrāv. Maratha state since Śāhū had always been fissiparous in nature (Guha, 2014, p. 111). The tendency to separate into smaller quasi-independent parts became especially dominant under the rule of Nānāsāheb Peśvā. In a famous letter written from Bundelkhand, Nānāsāheb talks about rivers of money flowing from north and south to Pune but which somehow dried up before reaching Pune! He blamed the Peśvā nobles in North and south for faulting in remittance of the collected tax to Pune (Puranik, 2007, pp. 94-95).

5.2.1 Choice of Architectural Language. The construction of Śanivārvādā is perhaps the most important construction project that signalled the shift of the centre of power to Pune from Satara and the entrenchment of the Bhaṭ family (the original surname of the Peśvā Family) as de-facto rulers of Maratha polity. Śāhū himself seems to have sensed the importance of this act. Having given permission to the Peśvā for the construction of

Śanivārvādā he became uneasy after hearing about the Peśvā plan to fortify the residence. In a letter from 1720’s Puraṅdare writes to Peśvā regarding Śāhū’s objection to construction of a fortified residence (Saindane, 2014, p. 473). After its construction, Śanivārvādā became a standard of residential architecture for the elite and we have numerous instances where residences ‘like Śanivārvādā’ were commissioned by various families. The references are sometimes explicit as when Bhikājī Rāste commissioned his residence at Vāī, he wanted it to appear like Śanivārvādā in order to make his son in law, Nānāsāheb Peśvā, feel at home! (Sathe, 2013, p. 133) or when Nagarkar built his residence from the material left over from the construction of Śanivārvādā (Shivde, 2013, p. 156). The architectural evidence on the site does indicate that these residences though not exact replicas shared common planning and architectural features with Śanivārvādā (Figure 5.1). Such sharing of architectural language is seen in the construction of temples as well. The temple of Kusumeśvar at Kotavade built by the Patvardhan family and the temple in Bāvdhan near Vāī owe their architecture to the temple of Gaṇpatī in Vāī built by Gaṇpatrao Bhikājī Rāste in 1762 CE (Figure 5.2). Even the temple of Omkāreśvar at Pune may owe its nine square organisation to a couple of temples at Sāsvad built by the Puraṅdare family in the early years of the eighteenth century. This shared architectural language became a device to show allegiance to the ruling family or the family to whom the patron owed his social position.

On the other hand, we also see examples of extreme individuality in the choice of architecture. All the Puraṅdare temples at Sāsvad were designed in the so-called ‘revivalist Yadava’ style (A. Sohoni, 1998). The choice of the term may be arguable3 but the use of a specific language by the family for their temple construction activity which spans the first half of the eighteenth century is an expression of identity which the family was defining (Figure 5.3). Rāste’s choice of the term ‘purī’ (a term that means a neighbourhood or a small town) for the residential neighborhoods the family settled, or their experiments with scale and form (Gaṇapatī temple - Vāī, Motībāg - Vāī) also contributed to their individual identity besides the one of being relatives of the Peśvā family. Architectural language in such cases became a tool to forge an identity as distinct from the rest.

3 The use of styles to classify architecture is not exactly a preferred way of understanding architecture (Leach, 2010, p. 48). Style essentially means a collection of visual attributes. As a tool for understanding architecture it has limited application.

Śanivārvādā, Pune (Map Data: Google, DigitalGlobe, 2016)

Hoḷkar vādā, Vāfgāv – Pune (Map Data: Google, DigitalGlobe, 2016)

Kadam vādā, Sāp – Sātārā (Map Data: Google, DigitalGlobe, 2016)

Figure 5.1. The archetype of Śanivārvādā as observed in other residences

Dholyā Gaṇpatī Temple, Vāī

Temple at Bāvdhan, Vāī

Kusumeśvar Temple at Kotavade, Ratnāgirī (The sabhāmaṅdap has been reconstructed)

Figure 5.2. Similarity of architectural language used by Patrons (Rāste and Patvardhan)

Saṅgameśvar Temple, Sāsvad.

Chaṅgvateśvar Temple, Sāsvad.

Figure 5.3. The temples commissioned by Puraṅdare with visual character resembling the Yadava temples

5.2.2 Patronage as a strategy of power play. I have noted Śāhū’s unease with fortification of Śanivārvādā which he seems to have seen as a very assertive gesture by the Peśvā. The construction of a fortified residence along with a small settlement was undertaken by Mahādjī Śiṅde in the reign of Savāī Mādhavrāv Peśvā. This settlement and the residence were planned at Jāmgāv near Ahmednagar. Mahādjī asked for the plans to be drawn up by artisans from Jaipur. The city survives today with its main residence and fortification along with the gates (Figure 5.4). Its location close to Pune was meant to facilitate a closer monitoring of activities in Pune.

Two more instances of using architecture to assert authority come from the matronage of Peśvā women. In 1740’s Kāśībāī, wife of Bājīrav Peśvā spent a lot of money on construction of ghāṭ and temple at her hometown Chās. The relationship of Jośī (Kāśībāī’s father and Brother) and Peśvā Family was always a strained one. On this background, Kāśībāī spending money in Chās is definitely an indication of the assertion of power. The other case is of Gopikābaī refusing Ahilyābāī the permission to construct a ghāṭ in Nāśik that I mentioned in the introduction. Ahilyābāī’s offer to construct must have been seen by her as a threat to her status as Peśvā’s mother.

In a rare case of defiance, the money lender Angaḷ refused to transfer the ownership of the ghāṭ he had constructed at Māhulī to Dusarā Bājīrav Peśvā. Dusarā Bājīrav then attempted to better the Angaḷ ghāṭ but was unable to do so (Kule, 2007). Like in other parts of the world, architecture in eighteenth-century Maharashtra became a tool for negotiating power and asserting authority.

5.2.3 Kuladaivata and Iśṭadaivata. The eighteenth century was a time of social mobility. The new elite had migrated from various parts of Maharashtra, Śiṅde from Kaṇher near Sātārā, Hoḷkar from Vāfgāv near Pune, the Citpāvan from various villages of Kokaṇ. After rising to prominence these families built their residences in Pune and Sātārā. Subsequently, they were allotted saraṅjām lands4 where they held tax collection rights. The result of all this was that the families ended up having a connection with three places, their hometowns, the new capitals and their saraṅjām lands. After getting the means these families constructed their residences and renovated or constructed temples for their family deities in the hometowns. While the patronage in capital cities of Pune and Sātārā was generally limited

4 Saraṅjām lands were granted as gifts to persons from whom the maintaining of forts or troops for public service is required or upon whom a horse or a pālkhī or other honorable yet expense involving gift has been conferred. (Molesworth, 1857, p. 829)

(Map Data: Google, DigitalGlobe, 2016) DigitalGlobe, Google, Data: (Map

ṅ

built by by built

J Satellite view of the town of town of the view Satellite

Figure 5.4. 5.4. Figure

to the construction of a residence, the saraṅjām lands received much more attention in terms of architectural and urban projects. Regardless of the variety and number of projects, these families almost always sponsored religious projects. These projects were governed by the concerns of whether the deity was Kuladaivata or the Iśṭadaivata (Figure 5.5,5.6). I list below some of these names along with the temples they constructed.

Table 5.1 – Patrons and the temples constructed

Name Kuladaivata Iśṭadaivata

Patvardhan Kusumeśvar Kotavade Gaṇpatī Tāsgāv

Nānā Phadṇīs Śaṃbhū Veḷās Viśṇū Pune

Hoḷkar Khaṅdobā Jejurī Śaṃbhū Maheśvar

Pratinidhī Yamāī Kinhaī Yamāī Aundh

Gāyakvād Khaṅdobā Dāvadi Nimgāv Khaṅdobā Vadodarā

5.2.4 Patron as Yajmān. While examining patterns of patronage we encounter a case where a person executes a building project as per the wish of another person, usually from the royalty. In early1740’s Śāhū ordered the construction of a temple in memory of his guru Bramhendra swami at Dhāvadśī (Sātārā District) who had died in 1738 CE. The temple which was completed in 1758 CE has an epigraph on its door. This epigraph mentions ‘Śāhū nrupal’ or king Śāhū, and ‘Śaṅkar Nāik’ the person who executed the construction work (Dattatraya Balwant Parasnis, 1900, p. 128). The work continued for nine years after Śāhū’s death. Jgannāth Chimṇājī who was the person in charge at Dhāvadśī and almost like a son to the svāmī completed the project in 1758 CE.

A letter from 1735 CE tells of Sadāśīv Nāik (SPD, G. S. Sardesai, 1934, pp. 1-3) who got a number of structures constructed in Benares. He mentions in the letter that he is doing all this for the ‘religious benefits’ of Peśvā. His only wish being to die in Benares which was a sure way to get ‘mokśa’ (As per Hindu thought ‘mokśa’ is the release from the cycles of birth and death). Even if we disregard the hyperbole of Nāik’s letter it still indicates the relationship between the Peśvā, Sadāśiv Nāik and the construction projects which seem to

Kusumeśvar Temple at Kotavade, Ratnāgirī

Gaṇpatī Temple at Tāsgāv (Sāṅgali), Source – www.tourismguideindia.com, 20 December 2016 Figure 5.5. The temple for Kuladaivat and Iśtadaivat built by Patvardhan at Kotavade

Temple at Velas, Source – mapio.net, Shekhar Damle, web, 20 December 2016

Belbag Temple, Pune

Figure 5.6. The temples for Kuladaivat and Iśtadaivat built by Nānā Phadnavis at Veḷās (Raigad) and Pune respectively

follow a pattern.

In 1766 CE we have Haripaṅt writing to Nānṅ Phadṇis (SPD, G. S. Sardesai, 1934, p. 67) about acquiring land for a temple and a small garden (vātikā). He also mentions acquiring idols of Viśnū and Gaṇpatī and performing a ritual (Akśatā lāvaṇe) whereby the ownership was transferred to Nānā. In 1783 CE a Brahmin, Dhoṅdopaṅt Kātke induced Dhuraṅdhar Bhosale of Nagpur to commission a Viṭṭal temple (Y. N. Kelkar, 2008a, p. 100).

I will call the transactions that we see here as the ‘yajmānī’ transactions. These acts of patronage that we see here are an example of ‘embedded patronage’ (Thapar, 2000, p. 589) such patronage is not mere service provided by the retainer or the recipient but both patron and the client are ‘built into the system’ that is to say both have defined social roles to perform. The patron making a wish and providing funds becomes the yajmān. The recipient of this patronage carries out the wishes of the yajmān towards enhancing the status and legitimation of the patron. The object or the building becomes the physical manifestation of these desires. The relation between the two is similar to that which a yajmān would have with the family purohit who would execute desires of the yajmān by providing religious services.

5.2.5 Patronage for social mobility. The eighteenth century was also a time of urban expansion. Settling new land was always welcomed by the government. It was not just welcomed but encouraged by giving various incentives such as tax holidays for a couple of years till the revenue collection stabilised and importantly award of kamāviśi or śetepaṇ (right to collect taxes) to the person taking the initiative. Śivājī’s policy had been of discouraging hereditary rights over land (the policy was further articulated by Ramchandrapanta in his ājňāpatre5). Unlike that the policy under Śāhū and Peśvā was of going back to the award of hereditary rights. A point to remember is that a lot of Śivājī’s time was spent in negotiating and warring with the Deśmukh and Kulkarṇi who held hereditary rights over land and revenue from the Deccan sultanates (Gordon, 1998). The turnaround in Śāhū’s regime encouraged the fissiparous tendencies already present but the policy also encouraged expansion of settlements by ‘Urban Entrepreneurs’. The incentive, as I said, was of getting hereditary rights and of social mobility. The settling of towns such as Murūd (Mandlik, 1872) or Guhāgar (Ghaisas, 2002) was done by such urban entrepreneurs who through individual effort managed to secure a source of income for their future generations.

5 The ‘ājňāpatre’ is a treatise on kingship that was composed in the early eighteenth century. It talks about the watandār or those who held hereditary land rights as ‘dayād’, someone who wanted to increase his own power at the cost of the state as a whole (Amatya, Early eighteenth century, p. 91).

5.2.6 Patronage creating an Institute. In most of the cases, the act of patronage did not stop at the creation of the building. Financial provisions for the upkeep of such religious places were made by assigning land or village revenues to the institute. The assignments were done to a person who was assigned the rights as well as had to perform the duties. The building of a temple or a rest house, therefore, resulted in creating an institution that had to be financed to ensure that the building served its purpose. The Rāste family for example assigned income from various lands or villages for the upkeep of the temples that they constructed (G. V. Apte, 1922, p. 5).

5.2.7 Patronage as Dakśiṇā. A couple of examples may be mentioned where patrons donated land or constructed houses for the deserving Brahmins as a religious duty. The first one is of Tārābāī who gave a village to the Brahmins for their settlement ("Aitihasik Samkirna Sahitya," 1946a, p. 7). The second example is that of Rāste Family. In 1779 CE Rāste constructed 48 houses in Dharmapurī, Vāī and donated them to Brahmin families to seek their blessings. It is likely that he was following the agrahār (land or village donated to Brahmins) tradition which was prevalent in Karnataka and other parts of south India6.

5.3 Patronage by the religious elites

In the eighteenth century, the most prolific religious patron was Bramhendrasvāmī Dhāvadśīkar. Being the guru of Śāhū himself, swami wielded a lot of power and resources which he employed for his numerous projects. But after the death of Bramhendrasvāmī, we do not have examples of religious elites undertaking extensive building programmes.

5.4 Matronage

A number of women from eighteenth-century ruling class were prolific builders. Śāhū’s wife Virubāī is perhaps the first of such matrons. She is credited with the construction of a stepwell at Limb near Satara in 1721 CE. She also seems to have been involved in a number of construction projects that Śāhū undertook (Vhatkar, 2010, p. 115). The epigraph on the well mentions her simply as ‘soubhāgyavati’ (married), rather than as ‘queen’ Virubāī (Tendulkar, 2015, p. 418), an indication that the status of having one's husband alive was always more important for a woman of the eighteenth century. It was not a public welfare

6 For example, a discussion of agrahār in Medieval Andhra can be found in Talbot’s ‘Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra’(Talbot, 2001, p. 161)

project; however, Virubāī seems to have set a precedent in matronage that was followed by a number of women from the Peśvā household.

Bājīrav’s sisters Anubāī and Bhiubāī both were matrons. Anubai was instrumental in suggesting the designer/builder of śanivārvādā, while Bhiubāī constructed Amruteśvar temple in Pune in the 1730’s (Sathe, 2013). The objectives behind undertaking such constructions were for benevolence as a part of the religious duties and importantly to assert their social position. For example, let us consider Kāśībāī’s construction of temple and ghāṭ at Chās (Figure 5.7). History tells us that the relationship between Peśvā family and Kāśībāī’ s māher (home of parents and brothers) was extremely strained. Due to her insistence, Bājīrav had given subhedārī to his brother in law. It was a responsibility that Mahādajī Krishṇa Joshī failed to fulfil. Kāśībāī’s choice of her hometown for constructing temple and ghāṭ could be interpreted as an assertive expression for her parental family that it was she that stood between Peśvā’s wrath and her brother. However, the most prolific Matron from the eighteenth century Maharashtra is easily Gopikābāī, Mother of Thorale Mādhavrav Peśvā. I will examine her matronage in some detail as it is illustrative of the trends that we see in eighteenth-century matronage

5.4.1 The matronage of Gopikābāī Peśvā (1724 – 1788 CE). Gopikābāī got married to Nānāsāheb Peśvā in 1730 CE. Nānāsāheb died in 1761 CE after his death Gopikābāī did not go along well with her son and shifted to Nāśik in 1764 CE. She spent the last twenty-odd years of her life in Nāśik. It was here that she commissioned a number of construction projects. Her son, Thorale Mādhavrao Peśvā had given her the income of two villages, Gaṅgāpūr and Belbāg, for her daily expenses. Besides, he also appointed an annual sum of rupees twelve thousand for her. Her construction projects were mainly financed from this money and also funded directly by the Peśvā. Mādhavrao also built a residence for her, ghāṭ on the river and rest houses for the pilgrims at Gaṅgāpūr. Gopikābāī’s construction projects are as follows -

a. Godāvari Temple, 1775 CE, Nāśik. b. Paṅcāyatan Temple, Nāśik c. Kṛiśṅa maṅdir, 1783 CE Nāśik d. Tas (narrow gully) in Godavari, Nāśik e. Asthīvilaya Tīrtha (built 1696 CE by Chitrarāv Khatav), Repaired 1782 CE, Nāśik f. Ramkuṅda, Ramghāṭ, and Sitākuṅd, Nāśik

Figure 5.7. The temple at Chās (Pune) built by Thorale Bājīrāv’s wife Kāśībāī

The most ambitious project that Gopikabai commissioned was the Kāḷārām maṅdir in Nāśik (Figure 5.8). It was under construction for eight years from 1782-1790 CE. The temple was built at a whopping cost of 2.3 million rupees and was funded by Peśvā Sardār Raṅgarāv Odhekar. It stands today as the most monumental building project undertaken by a member of the Peśvā Family. Perhaps it would be natural to expect women from the Peśvā household to undertake construction projects however we also have examples of women from relatively less prominent families who patronised construction.

5.4.2 Women other than the royalty. There are at least ten to twelve examples of women commissioning projects that range from a single deepamāḷā (light tower) to a well or even a temple (Tendulkar, 2015). What is unique about all these structures that they are exclusive examples of matronage. The epigraphs on these structures generally identify the woman as the wife of a person. Such an identity was of prime importance for a woman throughout her life. A unique example is that of a ‘naikiṇ’ or a courtesan building ghāṭ on the Godāvari River in Nāśik (Figure 5.9). These ghāṭ are known as Chimāchā ghāṭ after her name Chimā7.

5.5 Community Patronage - Patronage on the Margins

There are a few examples of community patronage generally observed in castes which were lower in social status as compared to the Brahmin or Maratha castes. The temple of Tāḷkute Mahādev in Nāśik was built by a person from shiṃpi caste (A caste that was considered as low in the prevalent social hierarchy) in 1783 CE. A couple of Mahākālī temples in Peṇ and Pune were built by Tvaśṭā Kāṅsār community (Figure 5.10). The impact of social / group patronage was obviously limited to the community. Such projects were not supported by the rulers. The sites available for such projects were either within the community neighbourhood itself or were located away from the prime locations. For example, the site for Nāśik temple is close to the crematorium. As would be expected the buildings were humble in terms of their architectural character. They utilised traditional construction language and do not show any design innovation.

7 The steps constructed by Chimā are now covered in concrete thanks to the ‘efforts’ of Nasik Municipal Corporation.

Kalaram Temple, Nashik

Figure 5.8. Matronage of Gopikābāī

Figure 5.9. Ghats constructed by Chimā naīkiṇ at Nāśik

Mahākālī Temple, Peṇ - Rāygad

Mahākālī Temple (Renovated in nineteenth century), Pune

Figure 5.10. The community temples patronised by the Tvaśṭā Kāṅsār

Summary

The rulers and the elite class used the power of architecture to negotiate their relation with the Peśvā as well as to assert their authority in their vatan. On one hand, we have a tendency to break away from the centre as seen in the careers of Śinde, Hoḷkar Gāykvād and Pavār families while on the other we see a constant negotiation of identities by various families who stayed within the Peshwa fold. The families that continued to be dominated by the Peśvā made constant attempts to assert their limited sense of autonomy. The other important aspect of patronage was that of puṇyakarma, the performance of pious deeds for the afterlife. The construction of temples, wells, lakes and ghāṭ had this idea embedded within. As remarked by Peśvā in a letter ("Aitihasik Samkirna Sahitya," 1946b, p. 14) ordering plants to be grown along the roadside, pretna thodā upakār fār - efforts little but gains (in the afterlife) considerable.

Women built mainly as a Punyakarma, a holy deed. In the projects of elite women, we also see a tendency to assert their authority through buildings. There are also a number of examples where Men (mostly sons) built for women (mostly mothers). Most famous example of this would be the construction of a vādā for Jijābaī at the foothills of Rāygad by her son Śivājī. The fact that in a rigidly structured paternal society, these many numbers of women from different social and economic classes managed to be yajmān of construction projects is important but not surprising considering the fact that the religious texts sanctioned construction work as part of the pūrtadharma even for a widow. Such religious sanction made matronage socially acceptable in the eighteenth-century society.

The examples of community patronage show the importance of religious construction as perceived by the society as a whole. Such projects are very few in number. The trend never could become an important characteristic of eighteenth-century architecture. The dominant agents continued to be from the social elites. Entry to the elite group was controlled by norms of caste which discouraged social mobility of members of lower castes even through patronising of construction projects.