CHAPTgR SIX
Working of th« Slnancial Syitwi in tlM Naratha Confiedaraey 1 8 5
chapter s i x
rh« Working of the Financial S y s f m in the Maratha
Confederacyt A Stxidy of Financial Relaticaras
The Maratha Sardars and the Peshwa had* as already noted, different items of income and evolved an intricate system of sharing the income* It is intended to stw3y the working of the sharing of the inccxne ainoncr the Peshwa and different
Maratha sarfars# and to find out whether or not f^arathas had evolved any system for it. In view of the ccxistant internal conflicts among the Marathas and the general disturbed condition of the countr^^one should expect cmly a working system with variations at different places*
To understand the operation of such a system the Dabhade and the Gaikwad in Gujrat and Holkar# Shinde and Pawar in what the Marathas called as the Hindustan have been selected.
(A) Gujrat
I . Financial Relaticais Between Dabhade and the Peshwa
It was Khanderao Dabhade, who in the first quarter of the eighteenth century had established the ccmtrol of the Marathas in Gujrat by incessant attacks* As a result of this# Gujrat, in additicMi to Baglan, was regarded as the separate s{:^ere of 1 8 6
senapatl Dabhade^* The Internal conflicts in the Mughal Eir-plre
and the entry of energetic ancJ ambitious Peshwa Bajirao,
however, complicated the situaticm* Saxbulandkhan* the
^ qovemor of Gujrat, in 1726, gave the grant of chauth to the
S Next year the Governor made an agreement with th«^
/^^^P^shwa that the tiiautdh and gardeshmukhi/ WBUlJ«fec granted to '
hlm,y provided he ousted Kanthaji Xadam Bande and Pilaji 3 Gaikwad from Gujrat. Udaji Pawar, a sardar of the Peshwa,
could not oust Kadam Bande and Gaikwad from the province*
The Chauth and isardeshmukhi# therefore# w r e granted to 4 them by the governor* £»hahu gave official sancticm to this
change by giving half the share of the income from Gujrat
held by Chiroaji ^ppa cm'behalf of the Peshwa to Senapati
Dabhade#^/Thus by the end of 1728, both the Mughal Subhedar / ’\ j and the Chhatrapati had given penrlssicxi to the Senapati ? and his two assistants — Kadam Bande and Gaikwad to
collect Chauth and &ardeshmukhi from Gujrat*
When the position of the Senapati had officially become
secure both from Delhi and Satara, Chimaji Appa invaded the
province in 1729 Decenber. He attacked Kadam Bande, the agent
of the Senapati, at Pawagad and acquired the fort*® Petlad
T and Dholka were plundered 22 March 1730* And on the t- / ' ^ ve#y-«e*fc--day the Mughal Subhedar concluded an agreement
with Chimaji.® I\ » • 1 8 7
• According to the agreement, the Peshwa gained (1) Sardesh*
mukhi or 1 0 per cent of the whole revenue# both of the land
and customs, (2) Chauth or cme*fourth of whole collections
of the land and the customs, and (3) five per cent of the
revenues of the city of Ahinedabad* The district of Surat was,
however, to be ex«npt from both Chauth and Sardesiwukhi*
Chimaji Appa returned to Poona on 8 July 1730 and then went to iftnbraj to inform the Qihatrapati of the agreemeit
with Sarbulandkhan* Grant Duff says that in order to pacify
the benapati the ntokajia of Gujrat and a part of ^rdeshmukhi 9 were assigned to the Senapati* The Peshwa, it appears,
opened negotiatiCMis directly with the Senapati to share their
conquests in Malwa and Gujrat* The senapati, however, on the basis of the order of the Chhatrapati declined for such an
arrangement, as Shahu had given Malwa to the Peshwa and
Gujrat to the Senapati as their respective spheres*^® Even
Shahu scrupulously maintained this division of the spheres
of activity as is evident from his reprimands of Dabhade on
2 1 Way 1728 for collecting mcviey from MalwaV^ This was the 12 consistent policy of both Khanderao and Trimbakrao Dabhade*
Thus the Senapati was following the authority of the
Chhatrapati* And, as is evident from the invasicwi of Chimaji
Appa, the Peshwa was relying upon the power of his military i s s
strength rather than the arrangements made by the head of the state. These activities of the Peshwa and his brother threw Dabhade in the arins of the Nlaan?.^^
There were merely rumours about Shahu seriously thinking of assigning the collection of the dues to the Peshwa.The
Chhatrapati, as a matter of fact, transferred one»half mokasa of Gujrat from Chimaji Appa to Senapatl Trimbakrao Dabhade and the remaining half was given to his brother Yashwantrao
Dabhade. The Peshwa was ordered not to Interfere in the province of Gujrat.
Chimaji Appa, In defiance to orders of Shahu, made again another pact with Abhay Singh* the new governor of Gujrat in February 1731» The Peshwa agreed to accept thirteen lacs in lieu of Chauth. Of these, Chimaji received six lacs In cash; the remainder were to be received after he left the province* Chimaji agreed to expel Pilajl and Kanthajl from
Gujrat.For the execution of the agreementigr< necessary orders 17 were issued by the Mughal officials*
The Peshwa and his brother# therefore, made agreements with the Mughal officials and did not respect the agreements made by their own Chhatrapati. Dabhade and Bajirao, theirefore, to protect their conflicting claims# took to arms by the end 0 of the year resulting ultimately in the battle of DabhAl, in 1 8 9
which Trlntoakrao Dabhade, on April 1, 1731, was defeated and
killed. After the battle, Chimajl Appa is reporte-3 to have
said that they killed Dabhade and the Maharaja (i*e* Shahu) IB could do no harm to them. Unabai Dabhade, the widow of
the slain general, by her leadership and vigour and the
assistance of the Gaikwads, regained ehauth and Sardeshmukhi
of Gujrat*
The relaticHiship betwcien the Chhatrapati, the Peshwa,
the Senapati and the other Maratha sardars and their conflict»
ing interests vividly describe the nature of the l-laratTia
State, in which the Chhatrapati was losing his pov;er and
position, due to the defiant attitude of Peshwa Bajirao and
Chimaji Appa*
II* Financial Relations Between Gaikwad and the Peshwa
With the Gaikwad8 coming into prominence in Gujrat we
can gain some information about the inccxne of Gujrat* The
Gaikwads collected a number of dues in Gujrat and these became
a source of conflict among the Maratha sardars and the Peshwa.
The Peshwa received from the Gaik^^ad naaar for the title r o T ^ n a Wiaskhel and galabadi which was a fixed amount to be
paid to the Peshwa. These payments to the Peshwa had to be
made by the Gaikwad only with the loans from the bankers* All
these aspects are intended to be stiKlied here* 1 9 0
1. Income From Gujrat
«
The income of Damaji Gaikwad from Gujrat during the period of throe years i«e* 1751-*52 to 1753-*54 can be known 19 from a document called hlsheb sud band i.e* a docunent inquiring into the accounts* tVhlle the Income from the year
1751*^52 is shown as rupees 18,48,165 those for the next two years were rupees 40,25,126 and rupees 51,26,197.
The income from Gujrat can also be ^ofi^erstood from two lamabandls which qive the revenue/ from India* In tlie first llst^® of the year 1789, the income from Gujrat is shown as 21 rupees 89,62,803; in the other belonging to the year
1803-04, the income is indicated as rupees 1,45,24,850* The
difference between the t%#o figures perhaps indicates that the first figure indicates the total revenue from
Gujrat while the second denotes the inccane of the Peshwa 22 from the province. According to another vadi , the Income from the m ^a^s in Gujrat was explained to the Pesh%« by
Damaji Gaikwad in 1758-59; the income for six years — from
1753-54 to 1758-59 — was shown as rupees 2,58,00,000* The annual income from the yMt» by calculation, becomes rupees
4 3 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 , which is approximately half of the figure given in the jamabandl of the year 1789. 1 9 1
2* Collecticm of Quest A Source of Conflict Ainong th» Marathaa
The Marathas In the region under tlwir occupatl<»i
collected a number of dues* The dues were collected by
officials of different Haratha authorities and the officials
also made unauthorised collecticais* The irregularities of
collection affected the relaticaiship ainong the Karatha sardars
and the Peshwa* How the collection of dues in Gujrat operated
in the eighteenth century will throw light cm this aspect*
The Oaikwads, as noted earlier* collected ghasdana
and nmlukhgiri* They also collected sukadiiv
CQllestlpn, of
The Gaikwads used to collect JSiikadi from the
^akatdars in Gujrat* Sukadi, meaning sweetmeat* was an amot^nt
of m kamavisdars in a paragana* The amount differed from a paragana to paragana. Sayajirao Gaikwad* on 27 Decanber, 1769, wrote eighteen letters^^ to the officials in the different paraganas in prant Gujrat« The largest amount «i this account was collected from Barodai while Vitthal Pandurang Jakatdar was ordered to send rupees 9, OCX), Narbheram Desai was asked to supply rupees 30,000. Trimbak Mukund from the city of Ahmedabad and Jiwaji Shamraj of paragana Sor were each asked to send rupees 15,000. Sayajirao Gaikwad asked rupees 5,000 1 9 2 and rupees 2,000 from the paraganas of Petlad and Dhavalke* Still smaller amounts were ordered from the officials of other paraganas* When Raghunathrao in his caiflict with the Barbhai \ entered Gujrat, he sent his raxits)to different mahals for the 24 collection of the Sukadi and harassed the kantavisdars* Fat^hsingrao Gaikwad felt that Raghunathrao in financial difficulty must have sent his swars for the collection of Sukadiy he, therefore, ordered his officials in the paragana to pay the horsemen of Raghunathrao in proportiai to the 25 income of the mahals* Collection of Mulukhglri The Gaikwads and the Peshwa used to collect amounts on account of imlukhglri from S^rashtra or Katrti^f^d, and lawad* The regions from v^ere the Peshwa and the Gaikvmds used to collect mulukhgijri were distinct^ Fattehsingrao Gaikwad, in 1783, ordered Murarrao Gaikwad to proceed to uv Kath^wad for mulukhgiri; but he was not to disturb the talukas , ; / of the Peshwa in Kat^^kwad and j^lawad*^® rhe Palanpur state I, for example, was the tributory of the Peshwa* When the forces of Gaikwad entered Kathj^d in 1792, Peshwa Madhavrao Narayan asked fUnajirao Gaikwad not to disturb the 1 9 3 Palanpur State especially when Sherkhan, its chief, had 27 di«d without a male issue* The OaiJcwads, it apE>ears# in due course farmed out the mulukhql ri in Kathewad* rhe zamindars in Kati^wad are referred to have got turbulent and were not t>aying money to Bhanajl Mehta, who was the farw-holder, due to the cessaticsi of roulukhgiri operations for four years prior to 1803.^® V" Collection of gha^ana The Gaikwads* as noted earlier, used to collect ghasdana in Gujrat* The collection of oha^ana, however, some tiroes became « source of conflict* Sevaram, a servant of Sayajirao Gaikwad, in 1790, collected ghasdana in the D^garpur 29 Tukoji Holkar, therefore, protested against the 'W 30 invasion of D^garpur by Sevaram in his letter to Kanajirao Gaikwad, on the ground that it was against the usual practice* He further requested Manajirao to return the bonds and cash taken by bevarani from the l^igarpur chieftain* The officials of Poona, likewise, collected ghasdana without authority from paragana Dabh|^.^^ Collection of Chauth There were the karoavlsdara of both the Peshwa and the Gaikwad at Surat, who collected Chauth* Conflicts, therefore. 1 9 1 used to occur between the two* » A Anandrao Vltthal, the kamavisdar of the Peshwa at Surat ^ ^ ^ ^ c r ^ t e d cOTfllct and plundere^the thana. the outpost^^of r Gaikwad^ articles and state papers In 1801* The officials of the East India Company, therefore# exploiting the situation stopped payment of the Chauth to the Oalkwads.^^ The Baroda qovemment, therefore, sent letters to the Governor of Bofrbay and the officials at Surat asking then not to obi truct the levying of Chauth by the officers of c^alkwads* It also requested the former official of the Ccwipany at Surat to use his good offices for the collectlcm* The Internal differences and disputes among the Peshwa and the Galkwad ^ were fully exploited by the British# who had become so strong by 1801 that the Oalkwads had to themselves by sending letters requesting the officials of the East India CcNnpany, for the receipt of the Chauth* 3» Nazar paid by Galkwad to Peshwa Oamajl Galkwad was to pay rupees 23,25,001 to the Peshwa for not sending troops the pardcm of the former offences^^; Damajl In 1759-60 had to pay rupees 25,000 as nazar to Sadashlvrao Bhau*^^ On 24 December 1769, It was laid down by the Peshwa that Sayajlrao should pay na»ar of rupees 8,25,000 on account of 1 9 5 the collection fr«n the Riahals for three years and for the pardon of the loan of the Peshwa (called here sarkar) and Panlpat*^^ Sayajlrao was also to pay rupees 2 1 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 as '.'V nazar for the continuatlcm of the ddulat after the death of 36 3*7 Datnajl Gaikwad* By still another agreement it was laid down by the Peshwa that after the death of Damaji Gaikwad in the year 1768-69 the saranj«u» etc. as previously enjoyed, and the title of-^ega Khasl^sl were given by the sarkar to Govindrao in return for nazar for cwie year (nazar eksali) amounting to rupees twentycwie lac out of which rupees 50,000 was darbar kharch and the refraining amount was ain nazar* ^>exJFon/^/ The agreement made with Sayajirao belwge^'to the year 1769 and that made with Govindrao is of the year 1768-1770; t it indicates the policy of divide and rule which the Peshwa was playing in the family of the Oaikwads, and making almost simultaneous agreements with two brothers* In 1770-71 it was laid down that Govindrao Gaikwad should pay rupees 8,72,000 as nazar for the title of ^ n a 38 Khaskhel ; he was also to pay rupees 3,50,000 as jglj; sali nazar i*e> nazar for OTe year, v^ich had to be paid every year.” ^ After the demise of Fat'^hsingrao, saranjam and title ■-4^ were ccmtinued to Mansingrao for which the latter had to pay 1 9 6 nazar amounting to rupees 33,13,001.^® ;ianaJirao« however# could not pay nazar and the salabadiVamountinQ to rupees seventy lacs*^^ , The titles of ^n ak h ask h ^ and Samsherfoahadar and the saranjaR! were offered to Govindrao* By an agre«nent Govindrao was asked to pay rupees one crore for the cmtinuatlcm of titles and saranjam out of which the naaar was to be rupees 56,38,001.^2 Govindrao, however, d<^anded exeinpti of the nazar in 1797-98^^• The Gaikwads were expected to pay rupees two crores and seventysix lacs to the Peshwa out of v ^ c h they paid rupees 1,76,55,214 and the arrears of 44 rupees 99,82,789 reittained* The Gaikwads thus paid cme crore seventysix lacs to the Peshwa and approximately one crore remained as arrears* Out of this arrear a sum of rupees sixty lacs was exempted by the Peshwa* The reason of the ex«nptlon, as expressed in the agreement, was that the Peshwa received exhorbitant nazar from ^nsingrao Oaikwad resulting in qreat distress in the d^la t of Gaikwad* The r«ralnlnq arrears of about forty lacs was to be paid in two equal instalments in two years 4. Annual Amount feld bv Gaikwad to the Peshwa It was laid dov.n in 1759-60, that I^amaji Gaikwad should 1 9 7 pay rupees 7,54,000 as aalabadi aiwal to the Peshwa^^i this Is the cHirliest reference of the annual tribute which Gaikwad had to pay to the teshwa. The mode of payaient of the ealabadi 47 is also explained in an agreernent* The amount was# it appears paid at rupees 5,00,000■ The Peshwa, (Xi 24 December 1769, laid down that the amount on accoimt of salabadi would be rupees 7,75,000 to be paid in two equal instalinsHrits of rupees 3,87,500 to be paid by the end of months Jyeshtha 48 and Kartik. In another aqre«m«it of the year 1769-70 the salabadi amount for both the years 1769-70 and 1770*71 was 49 nipees 7,79,000* The salabadi amo\mt for Mansingrao GaiHwad 50 was fixed at rupees 7,79,000 and the same amount was agreed upcxi tc be collected from Govindrao.^^ The amount of salabadi was collected in addition to nazar which was also collected every year* 5« Debts of Gaikwad Pilaji Gaikwad was the military comntander working under Triirdsakrao Dabhade, who was killed and defeated at the battle of Dabh^ cm 1st April, 1731* The battle was fought between the Peshwa and the Senapati to gain the rights of Chauth and Satfdgjgl^jnukhi in the l^rant of Gujrat* The Mughal Governor had repeatedly transferred the right fr ( 1 7 5 2 ) Polonpur O 1 9 S An understanding, it seems, followed the battle of o Dabh^i by which the Peshwa and his agents were forbidden from entering the prant of Gujrat. Omabai Dabhade had authorised Gaikwad to collect the dues of the Peshwa in Gujrat* The amount collected by Dajnaji Gaikwad was handed over to the Peshwa, in December 1736, on the banks of the Godavari rhus, though the Peshwa was forbidden to enter Gujrat, his share in the collection of Gujrat was recognized and given to him* M- In 1751, Peshwa Balaji Bajirao using force ai^ treachery fv imprisoned Damaji and his two brothers and also Yeshwantrao Dabhade, the senapati, his wife Andsikabai and mother Umabai Dabhade* They were released only after Dabhade and Gaikwad were constrained to give one half of the territory in control of Damaji to the Peshwa. Though amounts of money were given by tAmabai Dabhade to Peshwa Bajirao, an amount of rupees twentyfive lacs was imposed on Damaji Gaikwad*^^ Balaji Bajirao imposed on Damaji the amount of money, which the Peshwa felt, had not been given by Dabhade* Damaji, therefore, collected mcmey from the bankers at Poona* A sum of rupees eight lacs and forty thousand was collected from Gopal Keshav Karve, Bhukanji Haridatta and 55 Shivram Govind Bhide in No^rember 1754. Damaji for the security of the loan gave the bankers paraganas Petlad, 1 9 9 Bhadoch, Koral# Vasarai, Balesar# Vekadl, Chlkhall, Kavarej and Mohe amoimting to rupee* eight lacs and twnty*eight thousand* Oanajl was to pay interest to the bankers at the )y rate of rupees eighteen per cent per year* He was, moreover, to pay the rr;anoti°|^ interest at the rate of rupees forty-ei^t per cent per year.^® Peshwa Balaji Bajirao gave guarantee for the recovery of the loan to the Brahmin bankers that he would attach the rnahals in case Damaji failed to pay tt» debt. As the Peshwa, thus, stood guarantee for the recovery of the loan, the roanoti interest was to be collected by him from Damaji Gaikwad. It was laid down, in the year 1759*60, that Damaji Gaikwad should pay a total sum of rupees eleven lacs eiqhtyfive thousand on account of annual tribute, and for the mahals like Bisanpur, Teladi^andjnazar« Dantaji took loan on 18 August 1760 from the Brahmin bankers - Keshavbhat Karve, Ramji Naik Datar and Ganesh Mahadeo Bivalkar • worth rupees sixteen lacs fifty thousand to pay the salabadi of the year and the debt of the last year*^^ It should be noted that the Peshwa remained guarantee to the loan* The guarantee given by the Peshwa to the bankers on 20 December 1760, pointed out that for the loan the mahals were given in mortga^ and that Damaji would repay the l ^ n * If any changes were made by the 200 Peshwa in the jmahals^ the amount would be paid by the aarkar* The guarantee further stated that i f no changes were made by the earkar and yet the loan remained unpaid, the amount would be given by the earkar to the bankers by ccmfiscating 58 the mahals* The debt which Oamaji c On 27 September 1777, the debt of Balaji Kaik and Gopal Naik is mentioned and Fat|ehsinqrao was asked to pay their debt first and the debt taken from other bankers in due course*®^ l*hese debts were again mentiaied in an aqreement^^ made between the Peshwa and Govlndrao Gaikvrad, after the death of Fatiihsingrao. Govlndrao was asked to pay the debt of the bankers at Pune for which the Peshwa had remained guarantee 201 and he was asked to pay rupees cxie lac to Balaji Naik Bhlde every year from whom Gaikwad had taken a loan.®^ The same articles were repeated In an agreentent of the year 1797-1798, when OovlmSrao was given rupees one lac for expenses as a loan from the bankers/ he was asked to pay the interest of the amount.®* Govindrao was, in 1797-98, asked to pay rupees eighteen lacs and a half to the bankers like Ramehandra Naik Vanavale# Haribhakhti and Dayaram J<^ori«®*^ The debts v^ich Gaikwad ccmtacted from the Brahmin bankers at Pune in the year 1759-60 thus, continued and must have increased manifold because of interest, upto 1797-98* The debt could not be repaid by Gaikwad, as he had to pay large amounts of mcxiey to the Pesh%#a every year* The financial difficulty of the Oaikwads has been mentitxied by Fat^ ;ehsingrao in the y a ^ of 1 April 1780; Fat^ehsingrao says in the ySi£l4 . that the d^ulat in every way came in difficulty and further pointed out the burden of a crore of rupees on his head*®® 6 * Peshwa— Gaikwad» A Review of Financial Relations in a Decade There is a published paper®® of the year 1782-83 which gives an idea of the financial relationship between the Peshwa and Gaikwad for a decade from 1773-74 to 1702-83• In 2 0 2 this period* the Gaikwad were expected to credit rupees 1/62,69,000 to the Peshwa. Out of this total an amount of rupees 1,30,82,000 was debited to the Peshwa* rhe total debit to the Peshwa Is further explained* About rupees flftynlne lacs arc shown debited on account of the disturbances of Govindrao Gaikwad and the presence of his army for four years l«e* 1773-74 to 1776-77. An amount of rupees twentyfive lacs was spent towards the expenses incurred during the British and Raghunathrao*s disturbances in Gujrat in 1774-*75. The revenue of Bhadoch was lost by the Oalkwad in ten years, i .e . 1773-'74 to 1782-'83, as the place vras taken by the Englism ^the amount debited cm this accotjnt was rupees thirtyflve lacs* l rupees 11,66,000 was paid to the Peshwa in cash, cloth and for the provislcm of troops at Ahmedabad. The statement, thus, reflects upon the amount of nc»i«y the Oalkwa'is v»re expected to pay* They were, by calculatlwi, expected to pay to the Peshwa rupees 16,26,900 every year. The Gaikwads debited amounts in the name of the Peshwa on account of the presence of the armies of Govindrao Gaikwad, British and Raghunathrao as they lost the revenue on that account and for which they l*e. the Gaikwads were not respcxislble* 2 0 3 The dispute between the Peshwa and the Gaikwad about the payment of money did not end here* The Peshwa aoaln In 1807 wrote to Gaikwad about the payin^t of nic»ney» In the reply,drafted by Major Walker* the Gaikwad charged the Peshwa that after exempting the arrears, the Poona government was again forwarding the arrears* The reply elaborates the loss of money by the Gaikwads on account of the loss of Bhadoch, the failure of the Poona government to protect the interests of the Gaikwads, the partiticxi and management of Gujrat by the Peshwa and the services rendered to the Peshwa in his flight to Bassein from Poona* Sukadi, l^ulukhgiri, Ghaadana and Chauth were the items of inccHne for the Gaikwads in Gujrat* They had to spend amounts of money for military and administrative purposes* In additi expenditure, the Gaikwads* as accepted in the agre«nents with the Peshwa, had to pay amounts of money by way of annual nazar and annual tribute (salabadi) to the Poona government* Due to the imbal2uice between income and expenditure, the Gaikwads had to take loans from the Brahmin bankers at Pune* The Peshwa used to stand guarantee for the loans* The Gaikwads, therefore, had to pay interest to the bankers for the cash and manoti interest to the Peshwa for the guarantee* 2 0 4 In additlai to these items of expendltur«, the Peshwa, in 1797-1798 demanded from the Gaikwads ornaments worth rupees one lac**^^ The net result of these ever increasing demands was that the doulat of the Gaikwads# as described by Fattehsingrao, cane in great difficulty*^^ The people in the doulat of the Gaikwads had to shoulder the military and administrative set»up of the Gaikwads and also the amounts to be paid by the Peshwa* The WGaiey, though collected by the Maratha kamavisdars« had to be ultimately shouldered by the peasants of Gujrat, whose financial plight can well be imagined* (E) “Hindustan** or North Xndia The Holkar, the Shinde and the lawar were the prominent Maratha ^^dars operating in 'Hindustan' which included Malwa# Eundelkhan-i and «>ly a part of Rajputana. The financial relations between Maratha sardars and the Peshwa in the region are worth careful study. A. beginning in the direction is made here. Revenue of walwa 73 Dr. Raghutoir Sinh has given the revenue of Malwa for the years 1700, 1707 and 1720; the respective _ figures are rupees 1,02,08,667, 1,00,97,^ 54^or Rs. 1,00,99,516 accord* ing to Jag Jiwan Das) and 90,04,593, pointing out the decline - ^ ] * l 1 2 0 5 of revenue of under the influence of the Marathas* The revenue of Malva frOT) the jamabandl is as follows* In the year 1789# the revenue from Malwa was rupees 84,72,299^^, and for the year 1803-1804, the income was rupees 1,92,26,750.^^ The figures of rupees 1,00,97,97,52 of the year 1707 in the book by Dr* Raghubir Sin n is a misprint and actually it should be rupees 1,00^^7^54 The amount given by Jag Jiwan Das app^rs to be authentic. The income from Malwa in 1803-1804 indicates not a decline but actually an increase over the average figures of the first two decades of the eighteenth century* 2* The Divisicai of the Income Frtyn Malwa Among Maratha In the subhaj of Malwa, the financial interests of the Maratha sardars like Holkar, Shinde and Pawar, along with those of the Peshwa were involved* There was no uniformity about sharing the income; the practice differed from paragana to paragana* The example of the samsthan Kota can be taken; the income from the paraganas Khairabad Bakani, Bhilwadi and Kote in the samsthan Kota were differently shared* This would become clear from a chart given in a document 76 itself* 2 0 6 TABLE Name of Total Share of Share of Share of Share of the income Malharji Ranoji Yashwant- Tukoji paragana Holkar Shinde rao Pawar Pawar Paragana Khairabad Bakani 10,500 5,250 3,652 1,598 paragana Bhilwadi 2,400 1 , 2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 - Paragana Kote 75,100 28,913 28, 913 12,016 5,257 Total 8 8 , 0 0 0 35,363 30.113 15,668 6,855 From the above-mentioned table# the varying practices of sharing income amcMig Holkar* Shinde and Pawar would become evident* While the income from paragana Khairabad Bakani was shared by Holkar and the Pawars, the income from paragana Bhilwadi was shared by Holkar and shinde only* The income from paragana Kote was distributed among themselves by Holkar, Shinde and Pawars* The percentage of sharing also differed from paragana to paragana 2 0 7 Table showing the percentage of Income in the paraganas of samethan Kote Name of the Percent Percent Percent Percent paragana age of age of age of age of Malharjl Ranojl Yashwantrao Tukoji Holkar Shlnde Pawar Pawar Paragana Khalrabad Bakani 50 34 16 Paragana Bhllwadi 50 50 Paragana Kote 38 38 16 The aln khandani of samethan Kote was rupees 1,50,000^^ and It vras from this amount that the total incomes* as mentlcffied in the table, were derived* The total income from the paraganas of Khairabad Bakani* Bhilwadi and Kote were respectively 7%, 3*2% and 554 of the ain khandani* The Maratha sardars appointed their own officials in the paraganas* while Ranoji Shlnde had Balajl Yashwant as his kann^tisdar in Kota* Yashwantrao Pawar had appointed Rango 79 Hari as his tn^ledar* The amount was sent by the kamavisdar to the jw>rdai^» The Shindes* it seems* collected the share of the Peshwa. Jayaji Shinde writing to Balajl Yashwant* ordered him to specify while sending the amount the share of Shlnde 2 0 S 80 and the Shrlinant* Jayajl, in another letter, asked the karoylsdar to send his share and the conanon share of the 81 sarkar, meaning the leshwa« to UJJaln « which was the headquarters of the Shindes at the time. The mawlat of samsthan Kota was fanned out to Maharaja Maharao Shri lfe»ed Singhji for a period of three years b y , . — Mahadaji Shlnde through the mediation of Raj^jJZalam Singh The mamlat was fanned out for three years • from 1780*'81 ' to 1782**83 • for a total sum of rupees twelve lacs* Out of the sum, an amount of rupees 3,75,000 was to be deducted \ because of the paymalli) by the forces of Ambaji Ingale and the Pindharis and scarcity in the samsthan* The balance of rupees 8,25,000 was to be given to Holkar, Pawar and sarkar Shinde in the proportion of 38*5, 23 and 38*5 respectively*®^ The same proportion of the shares of Holkar, Pawar and Shinde was agreed upon by l^ed S in g h ^T in a n agreement made with Mahadji Shinde by sending vakils to UJjain.®^ The share of the Pawars was, it appears, originally twelve per cent; they used to get 12Si of the khandani frcxn territories acquired. They were given in addition 9«69 per cent of the share, by deducting the shares of the sarkar, meaning the Peshwa and Holkar to the tune of 7*38^ and 84 2*31% respectively* 2 0 9 Every Maratha sardar usually appointed hi a o«ai kamavlsdars in the paraganas where he had a share* Xn the paragana of Patan, for example* there were upto 1790 the kamavisdars of both Shinde and Holkar* Ihe vadis of the share of the two was connunicated by both the kainavladars* I f Tukoji Holkar opted for the vadi sent by the kajnavisdar of Shinde, he was to take his (one) share first and if he opted for the vadi sent by his own kawavisdar* it was Shi»3e who was to take his (two) shares first and the remaining was to be taken by Holkar*®^ 3 • The divisicai of the khandani frore north India amCTiq the Peshwa and his sardars» 1748-49«» 175S»56» In the early campaigns the system of dividing the khandani from north India was as follows* Out of the total income# the expenditure of the expediticm was deducted* From the balance# the Phauth# which was taken by the Peshwa# was deducted* rhe r«naining balance was divided between the Peshwa# Holkar# Shinde and the Pawars according to the strength of their annies*®^ Thus# the Peshwa got both the Chauth and the share of the army# the sardars received only the share of the army. This practice# called as divisicxi by damashai was followed for the two campaigns of 1748-49 and 1749*50. 2 1 0 In the campaign of the year 1751»52« Instead of the dair.ashai practice, the inccMne« after the deducticm of convnon expenditure of campaigns, was divided among the sarkar (i*e. the Peshva)« Holkar and Shinde in the percentage of 25# 37*5 87 and 37*5 respectively* There vrere two campaigns in the period 1753»1759* The first campaign extending for three years (1753*54, 1754-55, 1755«56) became effective in the year 1754-55* The second also covered a period of three years (1756-57, 1757-58 and 1758-59) and gained efficacy in the year 1757-58.®® Though the paperr. regarding the second campaign were lost in the disturbances at Sinhagad (1762-63), the record of the division of the khandani was maintained in the daftar* In the first campaign, the Pesh%a, the Holkar and the Shinde received 25%, 37*516 and 37*5% respectively of the total income* In the second campaign the sarkar (i*e« the Peshwa), the Holkar, the Shinde and sarkar Swari Dada (i.e« Raghunathrao) were to get in percentage 30 (25 Chauth + 5 nazar). 23*30, 23*30 and 23*40 respectively* Still at a later stage, the income was divided only between the sarkar, the Holkar and the Shinde* The share of both the sardars remained the same (i*e* 23*30% each)# while the share of the sarkar Jumped upto 54*40%* The Peshwa, thus. 2 1 i g o t the total of his and Raghxanathrao* s former shares (30 + 23.40 =» 53.40) • This proportlcaiate division was followed in dividing the income froRi samsthan Delhi* Jat territory and the wahals from prant Jaynagar, Kxmjapura, fiMmthans Bangala and Salko^ brought under control in the second oan>palon. ^ In the year 1751-52, samsthan Jaynagar^belonging to Raje Madho Singh agreed to pay khandanj. to the Marathas* The income, initially was taken by the sarkar and the sardars without any fixed division. Later on, Raghunathrao went cm expedition to north India in the year 1753^54 and 1755*56« The income was equally divided among the sarkar# the Holkar and the Shinde* ^he Holkar# however, received in addition to his ovn share/ the share of the sarkar and the i»hinde* This amoxant, rupees 2«23,385, was shown as arrears to be collected from the Holkar* The arrears, along wi«\ the debt, \rtiich the Holkar had to pay to the Peshwa wa#, however, exerpted in 1767-68.®® 4 . The Maratha Sardars and the Peshwa in Bundelkhand The local rulers in Bundelkhand had their disputes regarding succession, territory and financial matters with their kinsmen. The help of the Marathas was, generally, sought by these chieftains; such a help if given with mutual 21' understanding* would have led to the expansicm of Maratha influence in north India* However, there were cases of one sardar helping one party while the other succoured another faction* In such cases the dispute among the local rulers and their other claimants became the cause of conflict among the Maratha sardars leading to divisicxis# ill feelings and discord among them* Sawai Raje Gxonan Singh and Khunian Singh in Bundellchand through their agents and through the good offices of Tr^^ak Rarr: had made an aareement with Haghunathrao to establish their control in fort Jaitpur* thana Toriya etc* v^ch« they claimec^r were forcibly acquired by Gaj Singh, s Singh > Gisnan Singh and Khuman Singh, in return, agreed to pay a nazar o£ rupees 6,25,000* The expedition of Raghimathrao returned without perfonn- ing the work* The Peshwa, therefore, ordered Tukoji HolJtar and Mahad^i Shinde to get done the work of Guman Singh and 90 Khuman Singh and collect rupees 6,25,000* Giman Singh and Khuman Singh were issued with that Holkar and Shinde would establish their rule* They were further ordered to deposit the amount of the nazar, rupees 91 6,25,000 with the through Trimbak Ram* The Peshwa thus gave contradictory orders to Maratha 2 1 3 sardars on the one hand and Guman Singh and Khuman Singh on the other regarding the payment of the nazar» Raje Hindupat in Bundelkhand had kept Raje Khet Singh ccmfined* Holkar and Shinde were ordered to effect his release and in return either to take one-third of Khet Singh's territory amounting to rupees nine lacs or to 92 collect a large nazar> Peshwa Madhavrao, thus« was ordering the Maratha sardars to be professicxial mercenaries and to collect mcmey in performing some political work in Bundelkhand* They were, moreover, asked to collect a total amount of rupees eight lacs from Raje Hindupat on the following 93 accounts( 2.40.000 The amount of diamcmd mine from the year 1761*62 to the year 1766-67 ® rupees 40,000 per year* 1.00.000 The amount given to Pathan through Ganesh San^haji* 3.60.000 The amount given to Janoji Bhonsale who had to be taken along with his army to succour the seige of Hata* 1.00.000 The amount taken at Chhatrapur and taken from the Karkuna of the sarkar* 8.00.000 2 1 4 The amount of rupees eight lacs to be collected from Raje Hlndupat and rupees 6,25«000 from Gunan Singh and Khuman Slngh« was to be divided between the sarkar c»i the CHie hand and Shinde Holkar on the other* The sarders were to get rupees S ,00*000 and the remaining amount was to be given to the sarlcar« Both the aardare together were# thus# to get 35% of the total and the Peshwa was to get remaining 65?6. This money, needless to say, could not have been collected without using military power on the part of the Marathaa sardarg* The expenditure on that account would further reduce the share of the Maratha «ardars> 5* The Practice of Divisic» of Income From Samathan In the year 1754-55, the ruler of uSipvtr agreed to Raghunathrao to pay khandani and nazar* Out of the sum of rupees 25,40,000/«>, the amount of rupees 40,000 was deducted as that of nazarV. The remaininq amovajt was divided among the Holkar, the Shinde and the Sarkar which by calculation, was in the proportion of 2096, 2 0 % and 80% respectively. In the year 1764»65, Malharrao Holkar made agreem«it regarding the khandani which was to be rupees twentyfive lacs. The amount was divided among Holkar, Shinde and the sarkar in the 94 respective proportion of 20%# 12% and 68%» 2 1 5 6 . A Review of the Financial Sy«t«n of the Marathas in North India The Peshwa and the Maratha sardars were primarily interested in The local rulera could not rule without payina the amount to the Maratha sardara* Jayaji Shin^e, in his letter to Balaji Yashwant dated 3 October, 1745, warned that if the ruler of Kota wanted to rule and was interested in peace and tranquility of the paragana, he should pay the nwaiey according to the agreeinent*®^ For the Feshwa, too, money becaire more important than an agreement* The Ch^udhari of Patani agreed to pay rupees 2,OCX3 to Peshwa Balaji t Bajirao if a village usurped by his half-brother were restored to him. The Peshwa, therefore, issued orders to Lakshman Shankar to depute 100/200 swars and hand over the village to the Ch^dharif the Peshwa, however, ordered to 96 extract from the Ch^udhari as much money as could be obtained 0. The local rulers, like ^;ahara^ of Kota, were usually 97 reluctant to pay the dues to the Maratha sardars* Without the presence of the Maratha army at their doors the money was not paid by the local chieftains. The Marathas, thus, had to expend money on the expedition so as to collect amounts, agreed to be paid by the chieftains. Scxnetiroes, Maratha sardars not authorised to collect dues, entered the paragana; the zamindars or the fanners of the revenue reduced 2 1 6 the amount on account of payroalll. The Marathaa, thus received amounts which were less than the stipulated sms* Bajirao, in his letter to Brahnendra Swami» pointed out his financial plight, that he had to bow before thehe & jShiledarg 98 due to his insolvency. The positicm of his followersow4r: was not different. Malharrao HoDcar, for example* had to take loan from his personal servants* Malharrao Holkar* 17 October 1730, appointed Ramaji Yadav as his ^ a s n i s . personal assistant, and took a loan of rupees 7,000 from him and for the recovery of the loan, another servant Govind Krishna, the sikkenavls, the keeper of the seal, was to be 99 gurantee. Similarly, the debts of the members of the Pawar family and its recovery became a serious problem worth intervention by Shahu, who, an 17 August 1732, ordered Anandrao Pawar and Udaji Pawar to repay the debts according I Ad to the loan-deeds« At the beginning of the Peshwaship of Madhavrao Z, the d^ lat of the Peshwa had deb^ amounting to lol rupees cxie crore and a half* rhe ornaments worth rupees ten to twenty lacs, according to the order* of the Peshwa, were melted to mint money*Despite the heavy debt, the expenditure on nonofficial accoxints did not diminish* Raghunathrao, the uncle of the Peshwa, had an annual expendi* (JA 103 ture tot perscxial reasons, of rupees eighty lacs* The debt A of the Peshwa, therefore, remained. 2 1 7 While the Maratha sartSars groaned xintier their ovm debts# they had to shoulr^er the responsibility of repaying the debt of the Peshwa. The debt of the Peshwa amounting to rupees fifty lacs came to be equally shared by Tukoji Holkar and Mahadji Shinde on 1 1 December 1767; the debt was to be paid by them in three years* Nana Fadnis levied laganpatti, meaning marriage-tax9 on the saranjami sardars on account of the first marriage of Peshwa Madhavrao Narayan in 1783, when he was nine years old.^°® A Slim of rupees two lacs was imposed c« the Holkars on this account* The Jasud* i»e» the messencer, sent by Nana Fadnis used harsh language for the delay in sending the — laganpatti* T h i s could not have been without the instructions of the master of the messenger. Ahilyabai, there> fore« called Vithal ShamraJ and warned him that such language on the part of a jasud would not be toleratcsd.^®^ Later on the agent of the vakil of Nana Fadnis made repeated inquiries 108 about the lagan pa tti« The amount on account of lagan patti was paid by Ahilyabal Holkar through three yarats in July 1783.^°® The Maratha sardars had to take a loan to repay a debt, but getting a loan was not easy* The Maratha sardars had to pay manoti interest/ manoti was the interest which the I'O guarantee to a debt received. ' Fakirji Raje Qhorpade was sent 2 1 .8 to Kota in 1802-1003 to maintain a force there by the sarlcar who failed to supply mcney* Fakirjl« therefore# took a loan of rupees forty thousand from the bankers on behalf of rfXy Lalajl Gulgule* Faklrjl agreed to pay wa^otl interest according to the practice in addition to the amount to be tl) 6fi— paid to the bankers* The sardars# therefore* had to pay the debt of the Peshwa and the dues like nazar and laganpatti, in addition to their debts* The burden of the debt and the -c- 2 1 9 1 James Grant Ouff, History of the Maharattas (1912 ed*) I, p. 373. ^ 2 PD, I, 105. 3 SPD, XV, 8 6 , pp. 84-85. 4 SPD, XII, 28-30; STD, XV, 8 6 . S ID, I, 159. « 6 SPD, XXX, pp. 295-297- 7 Gense and Banall. Galkwads of Bajroda, I. d . 1 0 . 8 SPD, XV, p. 82. 9 James Grant Duff# Op.cit*, I, p* 412* 10 SFD, XII, 33. 11 Gense and Banaji, Op.cit*, I, p* 4* 12 PD, I, 159. 13 SPD, X, 59-73* 14 SPD, X, 6 6 , pp. 56-57> Sl'D, X II, 39 dated 12 Nov*, 1730* 15 SPD, X: 16 SPD, XV, 8 6 . 17 18 SPD, XVII, 30. 19 HSBSR, I, 61 dt. 4*6.1754. 220 2 0 D.B. Parasnls, Bharatvaraha. I, pp. 54-55. 21 KSPY (1889 Ed.), 497. 22 TAS, pp. 187-190. 23 HCTSR, II, 7 dated 27.12.1769. 24 HSBSR, II, 48 dated 11.4.1775. 25 Ibid. 26 HSBSR, II, 142 dated 9.11.1783. 27 HSBSR, III, 84 dt. 17.7.1792. 28 HSBSR, IV, 70 dt. 1.2.1803. 29 HSBSR, III, 1 , year 1790. 30 35. 31 -Ibid.. 79 dt. 23.5.1792. 32 HSBSR, IV, 8 dt. 30.3.1801. 33 TAS, pp. 167-169. 34 TAS, pp. 187-190. 35 TAS, pp. 169-171. 37 TAS, pp. 190-192. 38 I]2M* 39 Ibid. 2 2 i 40 IAS, pp. 194.195. 41 Ibii?. 42 43 TAS, pp. 184.187. 44 45 46 TAS, pp. 187-190. 47 TAS, pp. 169-171. 48 Ibid. 49 TAS, pp. 190-192. 50 TAC, pp. 194-195. 51 TAS, pp. 179-184. 52 SPD, XII, 82, 95. 53 HSBSR, I, p. 38. 54 HSB5R, I, 64 dt. 19.11.1754 55 Ibid. 56 57 TAS, pp* 187-190. 58 59 TAS, pp. 167-169. o o n 60 TAS, pp. 169-171. 61 IfeM* 62 TAS, pp. 190-192. 63 PAS, pp. 172-174. 64 TAS, pp. 179-184. 65 I ^ . 66 i’AS, pp. 184-187* 67 68 TAS, pp. 175-176. 69 HSB3R, II, 130 year 1782-83. 70 n S h S R , IV, 108 dt. Jxjne 1807. 71 TAS, pp. 184-187. 72 TAS, pp. 175-176. 73 Raghublr Slnh, Malwa In rransition, p. 329. T h e flgur* of rupeeiB 1,00,97, 54) in the book« as cormunlcated by ____ - ' " I Dr. Raghubir Slnh to the author, is a printer's mistake. The correct figure should be 1,00#97,754^ . 74 i5.b. Paramis, Bharatvarsha, I» pp» 54- 75 KSPY (1889 Ed.), 497. 76 RL, OD, I, 20 dated 24.5.1744. 77 RL, GD, I, 21 dated 24.5.1744. 78 IlsM* 223 7 9 RL, GD, I, 27 dated 12.4.1745. 80 RL, GD, I, 36 dated 20.7.1745. 81 RL, I, 41 dated 3.10.1745. 82 RL, GD, V, No. nil dated 7.7.1783. 83 RL, GD, VI, No. nil dated 3.3.1791. 84 PGIS, 221 dated 22.9.1789. 85 RL, GD, VI, No. nil dated 19.11.1789. 86 PDSM, p. 203. o 87 PDSM, pp. 204-205. 88 FDSW, p. 205. 89 PDSM, pp. 204-205. 90 PDSM, pp. 211-212 d t . 2 3 .3 .1 7 6 6 . 91 Ifeil. 92 PDSM, pp. 211-212 d t . 2 3 .3 *1 7 6 8 . 93 IfeM . ^ 94 PDSM, pp. 2 ( ^ - 2 ^ . 95 RL, GD, I, 41 dated 3.10.1745. 96 PD, III, 36 dated 6.11*1748. 97 RL, GD, I, 19, 31, 32 and 33. 98 D .B * Parasnis, Brahmendra Swainlche Charitra, p. 39. 2 2- 1 99 RL, AC, MD, 100 dt. 17.10.1730. 100 RL, AC, MD, 29 dt. 17.8.1732. 101 ALS, I. 6 5 . 102 1* 103 ALS, 55. I, \) 104 i-DSM, pp. / \ — - . ^ ^ I ^ 105 NHM,/ I I I , p. 240. \ 106 M5B, I, 93. 97. \ 107 MDB, I, 97 dt. 20.5.1783. 108 MDP, II. 34 dt. 21.5.1783. 109 KDB, II. 40 dt. 29.7.1783. 110 Wilson's Glossary. 111 RL, GD, XX, 47 dt. 13.11.1802. -X'