c h a p t e r t w o

Saranjam System of th« Marathas 9 O

CH\t-TER TWO

Saranjaw Sy«t«n of th« Marathaa

Tha word aaranjam waa used by the Marathsis to mean

provisions or assignment o f land to a persc») for m ilitary

servicesi it is in the latter sense that the term is used

here* Vasudeo Shastri Khare^ has traced the origin of the

saranjaai system to qharpaqa and the financial difficulties

of the Pesh%«, without referreing to the practice of land-

assi(?nment for military services that existed in the pre- u period* The Marathas, however# knew the saranjam

system of the Mughals from within^; son« Marathas'liad served

as mansabdars under the Mughals* The Marathas adopted the

system in the eighteenth century and made, without much

thought and foresight, chancres in it. It would be necessary

to understand the saranjam system of the Sultans of and

the Mughals, so as to understand t^e changes brought therein

by the Marathas* It would be however useful to note the system

of land grants in ancient to find out whether the

practice of assigning land for military services exifted in

ancient India*

Land-grants in Ancient India

The grants of land in ancioit India, could be made only 26

by th m king and not by a diatrlct officerLand was glv«n In grant for religious and educational purposes to the Brahndns*^ rhough there are a few cases In ancient tines of land given In grant restxned by later klngs^# the general tendency was that such resumptions %fcre reqarded as sinful by the Bratunlns*^ And, therefore* while giving grants the kings excepted the grants already made to the Brahmins and temples*^

There was, however, a thought that land should not be granted to the government officials and If granted there should be scste restrictions* The gift of land, according to Kautllya/ may be made to higher o fficers but they could not sell or O mortgage It. The Shukranltlsar Is more emphatic* P.V* Kane sayst **The ^ukranltlsar emphasizes that salaries should be

In panas, that a king should not make a gift even of a flnger- br«tadth of land as emolument to any servant, but that If does give land. It should be held only for the llfe-tln« of the m9 officer*

There are some scholars who Indicate the practice of grants of land to the Brahmins from the first century onwards and Indicate that after lOOO A*D*, the kings grsmted lands to their vassals and officials*There seems, however, little evidence of the existence of the grant of land for military service In the ancient times, though land was granted for administrative purposes* Xt Is, however, statc^fl that "the secular vassals helped their lords by governing their fiefs and 27

supplying troops in times of war* .11

Jagir System undT the Muhamadans

The Muhammadans even before their invasion of India had developed the system of land assignments*^^ The Sultans of Delhi used it widely in bringing fresh territories under control; they distributed tracts of land amona their followers and officials*

These tracts of land were called as iqta and the man entrusted with the charge of an iqta was called a m\iqta»^^ Though the system of land'assignment continued throughout the Sultanate period« the sense of attachment to the land received on the I part of the dcnee is apparent fr<»n the beginning* Sultan Balban during h is campaign came to know that '*the old Shamsi military grantees of land were unfit for service and never 14 went out.** On further inquiry he came to tanow that many of the grantees of Shamsu-d-din in the Doab had either died or become infirm and that their sons had taken possession of the grants as an inheritance from their fathers*Sultan Balban ordered to pension off the old and the unfit i^ l e the villages under persons who could perform military services were not to be taken back* The Sultan^ however* took back the or^ier on the ccmpassionate ground*^®

Sultan Alau>d*>din K h ilji ordered that "w h e rw e r there was a village held by proprietary right (milk). in free gift 2B

r> (in *am), or as a religious endovnnnent (wakf) it should* by one ..17 stroke of pen be brought back under the exchequer*'

Alau»d»din« thus» put a check on the practice of granting these three types of land-grants# though he could not have possibly confiscated all such grants* *?he very fact that he employed a powerful intelligence*syatem to gain information X8 about the activities of the nobility and forbade unauthorised 19 meetings amcmg it s metribers , indicates that nobility and especially military nobility did continue under Alau-d»din Khilji.

One of the main reas<%is for the continuation of land. assignment for military services was that the territories were only partially conquered by the Sultans and sometines the nobles conquered the territories on their own, which v m r e then 20 granted as iqtas by the Sultans. The necessity of the military nobility felt by the Sultans was perceived and, therefore, exploited by the nobility, %rtiich tried, despite strcmg Sultans, to look upon iqta as hereditary property. £ven Farid, the future

Sher Shah, had to argue with the Afghan nobles that the assign^ ment from t h e Sultan, unlike family property, could not be 21 divided among his brothers* Sikandar Lodi, while granting land to an Afghan noble, had to remind him that the iqta was granted to him in his personal capacity and not because he was a 22 relative of the deceased ncdole*

These practices, whereby iqta came to be regarded as hereditary was in contravention of the Muslim law; a grant making 29

Iqta hereditary would autanatically become null and void.^^

One of the important reasons for the incapacity of the Sultans to control the nobility in its overriding ambitions, as sugaest- ed by S.B.P* Nigairi, was that the monarchs theirselves were nobles and ccmld be accepted w l y as the first among the equals O A by the nobility* The sultans tried to assert their authority given by the religion*

What policy should be adopted by the sultan towards the ncjbility ? Was he to keep before him the model of Ala-ud*din

Khilji, who refrained from giving nany assignments for fear 25 of rebellicm 7 O r was he to follow^the footsteps of Firuz

Shah Tughltiq# who was very liberal with land assignments ? In any case complete removal of nobility was impossible and never tried by any Delhi Sultan*

The Mughals inherited the system and no Mughal £mperor, however strong, destroyed it* Strong rulers like Sher Shah an:;^ tried to keep it within limits* During the absence of Akbar on his Kabul campaign#^ the jagir system came to be

firmly established* Akbar, in 1561-82, issued orders by which the regulations followed in the Khalsa lands, the lands reserved to produce cash income for the central cfovemment, were also to be followed In the jagir lands*

The jagirdars and the zamindars in the opinion of Satish

Chan^ra^® formed the dominant class in the medieval society* 30

v/hile the^zamindara w«re the hereditary landlords, called by

€Mirly writers as Rais and Thakurs, jagirdars were the assignees

of revenue called iqtadars or muqta and later jagirdara* "The 27 iqtadar, Satish Chandra says, “was expected to collect the

state dues, and to defray the sanctioned expmses Including

his personal expenses out of the income"* The jagirdar was to

maintain a fixed contingent for t-^ie service of the Emperor

"and^his own expenses* The jagir was, however, essentially the

assignment of revenue, and did not primarily involve any 28 administrative charge* The Jagir was ncxi>hereditary, meant for

service and was liable for transfers* The jagirdar had no

rights in land; he could collect his dues either directly from

the peasants or through the zamindars*

Mansabdari System

Though the mansabdari system started by Akbar can be

trac

the mansabdari system was different from it* The main character- 29 istics of the system under Akbar were two* Firstly, the

mansabdars, t^ether high or low, were directly subordinate

to the Emperor; the subor^i^inate officers of a mansabdar were

not mansabdars* Secondly, the system had a dual nature; it was

represented by two numbers* The first number designated zat

(persOTal) and the second sawar (cavalry); while the first

indicated the salary and the positIto of the mansabdar, the

seccxid denoted the strength of the cavalry that he was expected 3i

to maintain* The mansabdari systesn was not exclusively for

military services; it was used for civil services also*

In the mansabdari system changes were introduced by the

successors of Akbar. The first important change was the

introduction of ^ aspa sih aspa ranks, intended to increase

the sawar rank in practice thouoh not in writing* The practice

was ctxitinued with greater frequency by Shah Jahan and also

by Aurangzib, who qave, in writing also, sawar rank hiaher

than the zat rank* The second chanoe was the introduction of

the month ratios by Shah Jahan.

Both the changes were necessitated for economy and to

favour able and experienced officers, which were scarce during

the later half of 's reign*

How Marathas came to adopt saranlam svstewi Changing attitude towards saranlam system

The assignment of land for service, whether civil and/or

military, was a firmly established system and a legacy of the

Muslim rule, when became the ruler of the Swarajya* He

was, it appears, fully aware of its merits and demerits* In

the mountainous monsocai region of the Swarajya, with very

difficult means of communications, there could be no altejma-

tive to the system of land assignment* Yet, he was also aware

that giving free scope to the assignees, like the watandars. 32

was dangerous for hi,s Infant klncpdom. Shlvaji# as the eon of a Jaglrdar# knew that watan' was an Imoortant cause of feuds and litigation.

32 On the one hand« Sh ivaji regarded himself as a watandar ,

continued the privileges of the watandars^^f he created new 34 watans and continued even the watans which were discontinued by the previous government.On the other hand, he punished ir«ny watandars by confiscating their watans^^ and it is also mention* 37 ed that he confiscated kul watans^ meaning all the watans*

The meaning of kul must be taken to be many and not all, because by destroying all the watans Shivaji could not have

functioned as a ruler* The intention behind the confiscation

of watans in newly acquired regions by Shivaji was to bring the

Iwatandars uinder his control*

The policy which Shivaji adopted towards the wtandars

can be xinderstood by studying the Sabhasad bakhar and

especially the Ajnapatra* Sabhasad, while describing ^iv a ji's

policy towards watandars and mi rasdars^-^says that Shivaji destroyed their fortresses, appointed royal guards on important forts, confiscated the rights of the inirasdars and 38 started payment in cash*

Ajnapatra, which is a work

bhu i»e« land, he would not oily lose revenue but would cease 39 to be a bhupati, the lord or the ruler of the land* In the chapter c« \^tandars, the author of Ajnapatra does not advocate either the destiruction of or complete freedom to the ^tandars*

He suggests policy according to the nature of the watandar*

If there Is an honest _watandy > which would be a rarity like gold having good flavotir# he may be encouraged* The others should be kept under firm royal authority; they should not be

permitted to build forts* An uncontrollable watandar should be

sent on a difficult expedition; if he performs it or expires while performing it, both are good for the state.

Shivaji did not adopt the system of land»assignment for military service* Sainbhaji, the s o n and successor of Shivaji,

thouah hard-pressed by Aurangzeb, did not adopt the saranjam system; was* there is reason to believe, against the 41 policy of granting watan* i'he Mughal invasicm of resulting in the assassination and mutilaticsi of Sambhaji, impriscmment of his wife and son and the flight of his brother

Rajaram to Jinji forced the hands of Rajaram and his advisers

Ln adopting the saranjam system.

Rajaram, who succeeded Sambhaji in 1689, waa beseiged at JinJi for eight years* He, because of the force of circumstances and his mild nature, was very liberal in giving 42 land-assignments* In this respect he had not clearly ■ 34

understood Shlvajl's policy regarding land assigninents# as

elaborated in the Ajnapatra*

Rajarain in his abhaypatra^^ from Jinji dated 22 Inarch 1690

ordered Baji Jedhe to collect people in Maharashtra and after

carefully studying the political s^t^tion work in the interest

of the Swami« In return Eaji Jedhe was to be given j^ranjam

worth hons one thousand^ half of which was to be sof Baji and

the remaining half for Netaji Jedhe* Rajarain moreover gave

four villages in IsMafati. meaning villages held in permanent *1 -^4 fanr\by an inamdar , and two more in vetan i*e* salary*

~ t . It was Rajaram who adopted the saranjam system to seduce /y\M "TAi ■ I ■ ^ personsjlike Hanmantrao Ghorpade and Magoji Mane to the side of ^ 45 the Marathas* In his letter to Hanmant Ghorpade# Vajaratroab

dated 4 June 1691, Rajaram promised him saranjam worth hons six

lacs* The premise was qiven by Rajaram because Hanmantrao

Ghorpade had requerted through Nagoji Mane to join the kingdom

of Rajaram, provided he gained something in return* This Nagoji

Fiane too was serving the Mughals* Rajaram had in April 1791

paid the price of his service by granting the sardeshmukhi 46 watan of the twelve mahals* The saranjam was to be given to

Hanmantrao Ghorpade and Krishnaji Ghorpade in the pjroportion of

5il in five instalments* Eoth of them were to jointly gain four

equal instalments of saranjam worth h«is 75,000. These four

saranjams were to be given after their conquest and acq\iisition 33

of Raigad prant,BiJapur, Bhaganagar I.e. Hyderabad and

Aurangabad. The £l£th instalment of hons 3,00,000 was to be given to them after their having acquired Delhi. Rajaram says that the saranJam would be given in proporticaj to the cavalry collected.

Both of them were to give one half of the loot collected from the en«ry. This is the earliest reference about the grant of the saranjam by the ruler of the Marathas. The letter, thus, reflects upon the attitude of some Maratha who wanted to gain saranjam for themselves in return o / the expansicxi of A the power of the Maratha king in North and bputh India. It also reflects upc»i the policy adopted by the ruler of the Mara to fight the Mughals with the help of saranjami sardars.

Two years later i.e. on 9 March 1693 Rajaram gave an order^^ to Ramchandra Pant Amatya that in view of the services of Nagoji Mane for the kingdom of the Swami^ he was given the charge of prant and sarkar Nanded and Varhad. It was Nagoji Mane who was to conquer these territories and to collect ^andani from it. Rajaram ordered Ramchandra pant

Amatya to help him in his mamla^ according to the sanads given to him. In the letter there is rrention of swatantra mamla^ 48 meaning separate or independent saranjam. In another order sent a few days afterwards reiterating the previous order regarding Nagoji Mane the term swatantra karyabhag, meaning a separate field of activity, for Nagoji Mane has been mentioned.

Thus Rajaram, who had prcMinised the saranjam of Aurangabad to 36

Hanmantrao Ghorpade In 1691 transferred It to Nagojl K^ne.

Rajaram# most probably unknowingly# adopted the policy of the Sultans of Delhi of assigning unconquered territory to the nobility with instructicms to bring it xmder ccxitrol*

Rajaram, in October 1796, gave the mahal of Faltan in inain to

Mudhoji, son of Ba jaji Naik Ninibalkar^ for the annual service 49 of the government with 100 swars. The Nimbalkars of Faltan thus became the saranjaindars of Rajaram as they held Faltan for military services*

Rajaram# therefore, who regarded Shahu, the son of

^iribhaji, as the real successor and felt that he was only working for him, was fre«ly distributing land to the Maratha nobility out of proportion to the extent of the Swarajya. He was^moreover^giving free scope to the Maratha sardars when he was personally in confinement and not in a position to check their selfish interests* The policy of supporting the turncoats like Nagoji Mane and Hanmant Ghorpade created discontentment among loyal and brave supporters of the

Swarajya* Nagoji Mane who was seduced from the Mughals for a grant of saranjam went back to the Mughals after murdering an outstanding general like Santaji Ghorpade*

Shahu, as the , continued the policy vHiich Rajaram had adopted* He had neither knowledge nor experience to weigh the pros and cons in adopting suitable policy in the matter* Yet he, as the Chhatrapati and the grandscxi of tIL'

um 3 7 1

Shlvajl the Great, gave a definite turn to the Maratha

Ccmfederacy in his lifetime* It was in the reign of Shahu

that the saranjani system came to be firmly established* Due

to the personal and the circiinstantial factors that the

saranJaiTi systont came to be accepted by the Marathas* The

characteristics of the saranjam system of the Marathas and

the points of its deviation from the saranjam system of the

Sultans and the Mughals deserve careful study*

^Vasudiylshastri Khare on Saranjam System of the Harathas^^ K

Vasudecj^astri Khare discusses the origin and the nature

of the saranjam system of the Marathas in his introduction

to the Patwardhan papers in the first volume of M t i hasik

Lekh Sangr4)l* Utider the there were two types of cavalries; one was sarkarpaga and the other was gharpaga* The

sarkarpaga« ccmsisting of bargirs# belcxiged to the government

and was usually given under the control of the sardars* The

sardars received the amount of salary of the bargirs annually from the sarkar# though they had to pay monthly wages of

the bargirs*

The gharpaga, on the other hand, was usually raised by

a %«ealthy and/or enterprising person* This cavalry was then

invited by the sarkar to join an e)^pedition* The owner of the qharpaga received rupees 300 per swar as tanakha> he tried to

¥ manage in such a manner that the expenses towards the salary 3 ‘^

o£ the awar and the maintenance of the house would be covered by loot or plunder, while he could pocket the entire tanakha» ♦ With the growth of the cavalry, the owier of ghargaga usually received a meadow on the banks of a river and a few villages as lnam»

Just as the activities of the Marathas became widespread, more cavalry was utilised* The government v^ich was in perennial financial difficulties, started assigning territories

Instead of cash* V*V* Khare, thus, feels that the qharpaga and the financial difficulties of the Peshwa led to the adoption of the saranjam system*

Though the term sarkarpaga does occur in extant Marathi docxanente, the term gharpaqa does not. The terms sarkarpaga and gharpaga, on the basis of their description given by

Vasudeo||hastri mean nothing else than bargir and shiledar* The practice o f employing ahlledars or ^[harpaga in the Maratha cavalry might have furthered the selfishness of the Maratha sardars, but the practice by itself could not have led to the origin and development of their saranjam system* The

Marathas knew the saranjam systran of the Mughals; a few

Marathas had served in the Mughal army and, therefore, knew the systmt from within* Thus the Marathas adopted the saranjam system from the Muhamnadans and yet made changes therein* It would be Interesting to study the salient features of the 3 9

sarai^^ systein of the Marathas, as It was closely connected to the origin and development of th« Maratha Confederacy.

The Saranjam System of the Marathas

I. Grant of saranjam

The saranjam was qlven cm the basis of the talnat labta. which was the dociunent exhibiting the various stipends of tainati or roll of stipendaries*^^ The word tainat means either ^ ___ _ £• 0% a(military^ charge or salary and the word labta means either

or an authorizing document.The saranjam was given for a year durino the reign of Shahu and especially upto 1735^^.

The paragana Kanad in prant Doulatabad was given to Pilaji

Jadhav on 24 August 1716 and then every year takidbatras^ ^ 56 letters renewing the saranjam, were issued upto the year 1723.

When the above-mentitxied saranjai^was niven to Pilaji

Jadhav, it was given after deducting what are called as 57 futJT^ukase. Futmukase or Futgacai were v illages which were already given in grant to others and were# therefore, excepted

(like the grants to the Brahmins and temples in ancient India) from the sa^janjJW* sim ilarly, the inairi and the khasol

CO villages in the region were excluded frc»n the saranjam.

The forts in the territory given un^er saranjam were also not given. Even Durgoji Naik Mahadik, the brother .-in-law of Shahu, was not given the forts in the twelve sarkars from different 4U

* 59 prants*

While assigning jagirs to Sekhoji J^wantrao, Narharrao

Jlwaji and Mukundrao Sabajl, the Peshwa govemm&it plainly admitted its ignorance of whether or not the Bundelas and

Bagheias had territories east and south of Bilheri*®® They were given Jagirs not caily in provinces under the control of the Marathas* but they were asked to attack region north of the and ^rtiatever territory they would acquire was promised to be given to them in jagir«*^ territories like the paraganas of Hushangabad and Slwanl under the control of the Rohlllas was qiven in saranjam to Ramchandra Bhuskute* He r\ was ordered to conquer the paragana without any assistance from the Peshwa; he was« further, ordered to protect it by maintain, ing force through the income of the territory.

Transfer of Saranjam

The saranjam could be transferred from one person to another~^ the reign of Shahu. There are a number of examples of such transfers* The Kanad paragana in prant D^latabad was given to Damsing Thorat in 1710; the next year half of it was given to Sevaji Jadhavrau and the remaining half was kept khasagi. In 1713, the paragana was civen to Shahaji Shlnde and the next year it was transferrei to Ranoji Nimbalkar* In 1715 the paragana was 'iven to Damaji Thorat and in 1716 it was transferred to Pilajl Jadhav.®^ 4i

A paragana was soRietimes given to a person holding certain office and with the change of person the saranjam was also riven to the fresh incumbent* The paragana of Pangam in prant Parande was Qiven to Vanagoji Ninbalkar, %rt)o was working tinder the Sena pa ti# in 1710; in 1713 it was given to

Mansing More Senapati* The paragana was given to Frataprao

More Mamlakatniadar in 1714 and continued to him annually through takidoatras till 1717* Khanderao Dabhade* Fattesing

Bhosale* were in charge of the paragana in 1718 and 1719 respectively* Later on Amarsing Shirke under Senapati

Khanderao Dabhade, Trimbakrao Dabhade, Firangdji Nirnbalkar and in 1735 Yashwantrao Dabhade were in turn given the saranjam*^^ The paragana of Pusad in sarkar Vasim and subha Ganqathadi was held by Rustumrao Jadhav* Sarlashkar and 7 7 Kanhoji Bhonsale in the years 1710, 1^12 and 1^13 respect ively.®^

Ill* Confiscation of saranjam

After the demise of Shahu, Peshwa Balaji Bajirao exploited the necessity of continuaticm of saranlam to control

Maratha sardars and exact obedience fran than* The saran lam of Fattehising Bhonsale was intended to be reduced by the

Peshwa as he so expressed in the letter written by him; the Feshwa wished to take a large slice of it for himself*^^ In his letter written to Nana ^urandare, the ieshwa, m his own 42

adirlsBlon, uaed military force against the llinited army of

Dainaji Gaikwad and demanded territory# which %ras giv®n in saranjam to the Dabhade family. 67 Only wh«i the P«shwa got the territories on Gujrat partiti«»ed after having used force against Gaikwad and Dabhade« that the confiscation of the 61 saranjam of Dabhade was lifted by the Peshwa an 4 October# 1752.

Balaji Bajirao was# thus# interested in acquiring saran1am from the sardars by pressurizing them*

Unlike his father# Peshwa Madhavrao was guided by the principle of service in confiscating the saranjam* The saranjam was given for military service and, therefore, a lapse in the service was the just cause of ccmfiscaticxi of the saranjam* The saranjam belonging to Rayaji Pawar was ordered to be confiscated by Peshwa hiadhavrao# as he left in the middle an expedition without prior permission.

The orders of ccHifiscation# however# were not always respected by the MSSaCS* The saran iam of the Patwardhai^^s officially confiscated by Peshwa Madhavrao I. Yet the Patwar- dhans were not ready to surrender the fort of Miraj and the territory. On the other hand# Govind Hari and Gopalrao Patwardhan fought with the Peshwa*s army and defended the

fort of fUraj beseiged personally and earnestly by the Peshwa.

By an agreement made in the year 1761-62# Maloji Ghorpade of Mudhol was expected to serve with 250 cavalry* He did not o :0

serve; neither did he irtaHe agreements, like the other s^ranjandars* Peshwa Madhavrao« therefore. In 1768>69,

perceiving that Malojl Intended neither to serve nor to pay

money In lieu of services, ordered Gopalrao Govlnd Patwardhan

to ccxifiscate his aaranjam and to credit the amount, which

was not paid by him, with the government*

IV. t^artiticxi of saranjam aunonq the male members of a family

Unlike the Iqta under the sultans of Delhi and mansab

under the Mughal, the saran1am given to Maratha sardars could

be partitioned among the male members of the family. The

•aranjam of Bhonsale was divided between Kanhoji on the one

hand and Ranoji and Raghuji on the other by Peshwa Balaji

Vishwanath and later by Shahu himeelf*^^ While divided it in the ratio of 66.6:33*3, Shahu divided

it in the ratio of 75»25* The saranjam, unlike the other

family property, was not, thus, equally divided. A large share

was ^iven to Kanhoji by Balaji Vishwanath and a still larger

share by Shahu, because the saranjam was Initially given to

Parasoji, the father of Kanhoji Bhcxisale* Kanhoji was,

moreover, given the leadership, though he was nephew of

Ranoji and according to the orders of Shahu, both Ranoji and

Raghuji were to behave according to the orders of Kanhoji*

There are a few examples of the partition of saranjam

jMTKMio different families* The twenty-two villages in samsthan 44

Indragad were partitioned between * Shinde and Pawar in

1769; while Holkar and Shinde received Qeight villages each,

Pawar gained six villages*

V. Inheritance of saranjam

After the demise of a saranjaindar the saranjam was bestowed on his son* Yashwantrao Pa%far« after the death of his father Anandrao Pawar, was given the rights of collecting

Tnokasa, babtl, aardeshmukhi and lakat fro» the ancestral 75 saranjam* Like his father# Yashwantrao Pawar wae also to work under the authority of Chironajl Ballal*^^ It should be noted that Yashwantrao was not asked to pay any amount by way of nazar for the continuation. The saranjam of Yashwantrao

Pawar was continued to his scm Khanderao after Yashwantrao was lost at Panipat* Khanderao, like his father, was to take sixteen per cent of the income from the corrjmon control in

Malwa*^^

The saranlair, which Krishnaji Pawar had In and

Maharashtra from the Peshwa and the saran lain of Vlshwasrai which Madhavrao Pawar had from the Chhatrapati was, according to a letter of Krishna Ji, to be added and then equailly divided 78 between the two* The cxie-fourth of the saran1am of Vlshwasrai in possessicxi of Jlwaji Pawar was to be divided equally between the two* The rauts i*e* cavalry for the saranjam of 4 a

Malwa and Vlshwasral wer« to be supplied by the two in 79 proportion of their shares* The saranlam of both the

Chhatrapati and the Peshwa was thus added together for division and was intended to be divided by Krishnaji and

Madhavrao Pawar, perhaps without referring the matter to the

Chhatrapati and the Peshwa*

80 , by an vadi sent on 5 Decwiber 1763, requested the Peshwa to continue the saran1am and inams as tinder Janakoji Shinde* Mahadaji also requested the ccmtinua. tic« of villages in kamavis in Swades)}. saran 1ams^ meadows, watans and inams in Malwa* Both the requests were accepted by the Pesht»; the Peshwa did not ask for a naaar for the 81 continuation of the saranjam*

The saranjam of Janakoji Shinde along with the sardari of the Shinde family was continued to Mahadaji Shinde on

15 December 1763; yet there are letters written in the name of Janakoji Shinde in the Gulgule daftar upto 23 March 1766* O') Mahadaji used the seal of Janakoji upto 16 April 1767* 84 Mahadaji, on 10 June 1767, seems to have used his own seal*

In a very encouraging letter Peshwa Madhavrao settled all accounts of Malharrao Holkar in and continued the saranjam of the , after the passing away of 85 Malharrao Holkar to Malerao Holkar, his grandson* rhe 46

i^eshwa did not ask for any arnoiint of money for continuing the saranjam*

After the death of Malerao on 27 March 1767, the question of the ccxitinuaticm of the saranjam in the family of Holkars, who could perform military service in return came forth for consideraticOT* <

Raohunathrao at this juncture asked Ahilyabai to surrender the saranjam, which was aiven to Malharrao Holkar Bfi for his services inwediately after the battle of Panipat.

She declined to surrender even a single village claiming that when she was prepared for service# the saranjam could not be 87 surrendered* She, though ready to pay a nazar amoisiting to rupees 25 lacs, was not prepared to surrender jagir and, therefore, sought the help of other sardars and made military 88 preparations* There was a proposal that Ahilyabai should surrender Jagir worth twenty lacs out of the saran1am gained in 1763 and pay nazar of rupees ten lacs in return of the 89 sardari^ being given to Tukoji Holkar* As this proposal was not acceptable to Ahilyabai, It was decided cm both sides that the Holkars should surrender some territory which they had received in saran1am and pay a nazar of rupees fifteen lacs in return of the recognition of Tukoji Holkar as the sairdar in 90 charge of the saraniam of the Holkars* Tukoji Holkar received 91 the robes of the saranjam on 3 May 1767 and the official 4V

92 sanad was glv«n to him on 4 Jxine 1767*

The attitude of Ahllyabal in declining to return the saraniain or to accept the confiscation of the saran 1am and to make military preparations remind us of the attitude of

Govlnd Harl and Gopalrao Patwardhan in 1763 of not accepting the confiscation of their saraniam.

V I . The Khasqj of the Holkara

An Interesting aspect of the saranjam system of the

Marathas was the creatim and continuation of the Khasqj of the Holkars* Only the Holkar fairily and moreover the female meROsers of the Holkar family enjoyed the Khasgi in the ^laratha confederacy. It was Ocjutamibal, wife of Malharrao Holkar« who received in 1734 from Peshwa Bajirao I territory %^ch came 93 to be called as the Khasoi of the Holkars* The territory was worth a total of rupees 2 , 9 9 , 0 0 0 and was from the talukas of

Choll , , Harsola, Depalpur, Mahldpur, Barlol, 94 Jagotl and Makdon* The territory comprising the Khasgi was transferred mainly from the territory In saranjam of

Malharrao Holkar*

95 Goutamlbal, i t appears from an unpublished letter , managed the administration of the Khasgi* She, in her letter dated 28 ^pteniber 1760, ordered Bhagwant Jalram that Banaji

Matkar was sent to settle the border dispute in village Plplla 4H

96 in prant Maheshwar, in ccnsultatlon with the zairtlndars*

The letter has only the roortab sud seal at the end. Even

Ahilyabal, it seems* used the seal of Malerao on letters relating to the Khasgi matters* It was only after May 10, 1785 97 that Ahllyabai issued the Khasgi letters in her name*

Hie details of the Khasgi of Ahllyabai giving income and 98 expendittire are given in vadi of the year 1799. The total of the income given is rupees 2#30,425/15 and the expenditure rupees 2,35,452/8 showing an excess expenditure of rupees

5,026/7 over the inccwne. The territory is shown from prants

Swadesh, Memad, Malwa, Dakshan and Hindustan. The prants shown here appear to be more than the prants mentioned in

1734 when the Khasgi was given to G^utamibai, as is clear from the m«itlon of prants Swadesh and Dakshan.

After the demise of Ahllyabai the Khasgi was continued to Holkar*^^ The d^ulat of the Holkar was the saranjam of the Holkar and it was distinct frcrni the Khasgi which belonged! to the female members of the Holkar family.

Peshwa Eajirao II coirmunlcated to D^ulatrao Shinde, in the year 1800, that the <^ulat and the Khasgi of the Holkars were distinct and that the debt on the d^ulat could have no bearing on the Khasgi.A year later both D^uiatrao Shinde^®^ and

Peshwa Bajirao 11^®^ warned? Kashirao Holkar that ttte d ^ l a t and the Khasgi of the Holkars were distinct* Bajirao II 49

cornnunicated to Kashlrao Holkar that the Dlwan, the Fadnls and the treasury of the Khasgi were separate and distinct from

those of the dj>ulat«^®^

V II. Saranjain System and the Relaticyis Between the Sapdarg

The relations between the Maratha sardars wex«, in consequence of the c(»iflicting interests# antagonistic to each other in general# but at certain occasions they showed

solidarity in safeguarding their interests*

Fatjbehsinqrao Gaikwad, in his letter to Haripant Fadke# 'f ■ expressed his feeling that Shinde and Holkar were intent m his destruction*^®^ Shinf^e and Holkar, he complained, imprisoned his men and bankers*Similarly Fat^hsingrao had to camp on the river Mahi to threaten Chandrarao Pawar, X06 * who had created distlrbances in Oujrat*

Shinde and Holkar called each other sobati meaning C partners'^especially upto the days of f^hadaji Shinde and

Ahilyabai Holkar/ 107 yet there was mutual Jealousy and conflil 108 leading to battles amc»ig them*

The Maratha sardars had conflicts within their family* 109 There was dispute between Ahilyabai and Tukoji ; in these conflicts Mahadji intervened to suqoest that Tukoji should

5 0

<*>ey the orders of Ahilyabal

«r In 1780# ubhayata * meaning both the «ardars, a

teriD used for Shlnde and Holkar, promised cm oath to

Fattehsingrao Oalkwad that they would remain on friendly terms

with him and would help him in every way in case he cane in

conflict with the English; they also promised him all the

, support# should any changes be made by the Peshwa.Pawagad#

a fort near Baroda# was xinder the authority of Shinde* The

' Gaikwads# upcm the request from agreed to help Shinde's

officials at Pawagad with men and miuiitions against the 112 Mewasis. Anandrao Gaikwad# in 1802# wrote a letter to

Doulatrao Shinde in affectionate and persuasive language, to

protect Anandrao Pawar of against the attack of

Yashwantrao Holkar^^^# who intended to attack ^Sandavgad under 114 the control of Anandrao Pawar • Anandrao Pawar# here# was

intended to be protected by Anandrao Gaikwad as the former was

the nephew (sister's son) of the latter* The family relations#

thus# rather than any ofticial and overall policy determined

the acticxis of the Waratha Sardars* After the death of Anandrao

Pawar in 1807# both Shinde and Holkar showed their selfishness

and lack of ccMnmon policy and chivalry in attacking Dhar under

the widow of Anandrao Pawar*

Mahadji Shinde# in 17$5# helped in

Khichiwada in prant Malwa. Ingale on behalf of Holkar had 51 •

jc ^ ir e d th« wahal of Ouq^r^^^ihhada in Khlchiwada which was formerly under the control of Ba^bhadraj^ng on the ground that arrears fran the mahal were not palld* Ballbhadr^slngh, theireme* regained the mahal by forcey,Mahadji Shinde, there­ fore, a«it a force of 10#000 strong and regained the mahals and besieged the fort of Raghoga

Mahadji Shinde, thus« helped Ahilyabai in her difficul­ ties* by sending his troops* He also asked Ahilyabai to send her troops for his work* Mahadji Shinde, in 1787, wrote to

Ahilyabai to send one thousand swars and ten thousand p^dharis* Ahilyabai was prepared to send 5/10 thousand swars in place of cme thousand swars asked for by Mahadji* She was, however* not prepared to send the P^ndharis* ''

The understanding and cooperatioi between Shinde and

:iolkar continued during the days of Ahilyabai Holkar* ruleoji

Golkar stayed at ^tine for a long time and consequfflitly came under the influence of Nana Fadnis. Both Tukoji and the Poona

Ministry adopted policy which was opposed to Mahadji Shinde*

There are letters to prove that the Poona Ministry was Jealous of Mahadji's power*Tukoji Holkar was also jealous of

Shinde*s power*Both Nana Fadnis^^° and Tukoji Holkar^^^ were hostile to Mahadji Shinde*

This change of policy on the part of Nana Fadnis and n o

Holkar towards ^'lahadJi Shinde is clearly reflected in the developments occuring during the expeditlcm of Ali Bahadar*

^sahadji Shinde* according to the private intelligence of good authority of W. Palmer# was both ‘’disappointed and deceived by the minister# v^om he has reproached with duplicity in secret by ^couraging his rivals in Indostan to oppose him 122 whilst he gave him assurances to the ccmtrary*** The results of this myopic divisive policy Initiated frcsm Poona were immediately seen and were reported in a letter written by 123 reorao Kiahadeo*

After the return of Mahadaji from the north to PocMia there occurred great dispute between Nana and >^ahadaji*

Battles were fought between Shinde and Holkar during the period*

All these developments, in turn, were responsible for the loss of mcmey# life and prestige for the Marathas*

Mahadji and Nana patching up their differences sent

Deorao Mahadeo to Ahilyabai to settle the differences* She agreed to peace and decided to send Tukoji Holkar to Gujrat* rukoji# addicted to alcohol, was not in a position to leave# though Kashiba Holkar had ir*ade some preparations* Before these peace parleys could bear any fruit and within a maith of the 124 despatch of the letter by Deorao Mahadeo # Mahadji Shinde expired* rf •"*

There was dispute among the Pawars about the continua­

tion of saranjam to Tukojl Pawar adoptive son of Krlshnajl

Pawar.^^^ In this conflict both Ahllyabal Holkar and Mahadji

Shlnde played an important role* While Mahadji Shinde gave

strong warning to Anandrao Pawar to create no difficulties

for the continuation of saranjam in the name of rukoji 1 26 Pa%«ar, Ahllyabal Holkar wrote to Nana Fadnis and Haripant

Fadke to continue the sardarl of KrishnaJi Fawar who, in his 137 lifetime, had adopted T'likoji, a son of his brother*

The main features of the saranjam system of the Marathaa

indicate the incapacity of the Peshwa and the Fadnis* While

the Peshwa could not make any changes in the saranjam of the

sardare given by the Chhatrapati, he was also equally

helpless in officially confiscating the saranjam of his sardars*

It was easy to pass orders of confiscation; the executicxi depend*

ed upon the comparative military strength* The Maratha sardars

looked upon the saranjam as patrimony# as soroething to be

inherited and even partitioned*

The Maratha sardars# moreover# had love-and-hate

relati cm ship; they joined hands when the mutual interests

weire involved even against the wishes of the Peshwa; they

battled among themselves when their interests were in jeopardy*

The so called central qoverntnent# represented by the Peshwa or

'Jthe Fadnis# had very little role in regulating their relaticms* 5 4

NOTES

AI»S, I, pp» 123»124 f*n»

Athar All# The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb#

(Asia Publlshlnc House; 1968) p» 175•

Athar All has given among others# names of thirteen

Maratha mansabdars under Aurangzeb*

P.V* Kane, History of ^harmaeastra. Vol. Ill

(Poonai Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1946),p .139.

ibid.. Vol. II, Part II, pp. 355, 361, 369, 853, 979.

P- 863

Ibid*» pp. 861*863*

Ifeil., p. 863*

8 P.V. Kane, Op.cit., Vol. Ill, p. 152.

9 I$2id.

10 R.S. Sharma, "Early Indian Feudalism C* A.D. 400-1299",

t roblems of Historical Writing in India (New Delhi*

India International Centre; 1963), pp. 70-75*

11 Ibid., p. 74.

12 I.H. Cureshi. Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi

(Karachi; 1958), p. 122.

V 5 5

13 R.P* Trlpathl/ Some Aspects of Muslim Admlnistratl<»,

(* rhe Indian Press Ltd, 1936), p. 239.

14 Elliot and Dowson, III, p. 107*

rarikh-i-Firoz Shahi by 2iau-d-Din Baiml.

15

16 P* 108.

17 Elliot and Dowson, III, p. 179«

rarikh-i.Firoz Shahi by Ziau-d-din Barni*

18 PP« 179* 180.

19 Ib4

20 I.H . Qureshi, Op.cit«, p« 122*

See also Elliot and Dowscki, II, p. 259 for

rabakat-i-Nasiri by Minhaju-s-SiraJ.

21 I.H. Qureshi, Op.cit*, p. 122.

22

23 R.P* Tripathi, Some Aspects of Husliin Administration, p .239.

24 S.B.P. Niaam, Nobility under the Sultans of □slhl

(Delhi, 1968), p. 182.

25 I.H . Qureshi, Op.cit*, p. 122*

26 Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court (Aligarhs Aligarh Muslim University;1959), p. xvii. 5 6

27 Satlsh Chandra, r-artles and Politics at the l^qhal Court

(Aligarh I Aligarh Musliin University; 1959), p. xxi»

28 Ibid*

29 Athar All, Op.cit*, pp. 38-40.

30 Ibid*, pp* 40»43*

31 MIS, XVI, 2,3,4,191 MIS, XV, 279; PSS, I, 515;

PSS, III, 2448, 2593.

32 MIS,VIII, 21*

33 MIS, XX, 10, 23; MIS, XXI, 2,3; SCS, I, 39; SCS, II I, 584.

34 SCS, III, 426; MIS, VIII, 30; MIS, XV, 270.

35 MIS, XVII, 9,10,17; PSS, III, 2739.

36 StD, XXXI, 38.

37 MIS, XXI, 3 1 TKK, III, 10 and 89. -- ^ 1 I r^cu~U 11 e\r\^ m cT o?-1( M | -- -

fTZ. rZ \ =^TiT>ir1' --- —

38 V .S. Vakasdar (ed.), Sabhaaad Bakhar (Poona, 1962), pp.29-30.

39 Ajnapatra, piiblithed in Vividha-dnyanvistar Magazine, V, VI

by K.N. Sane (Bombay*. 1923)« Ch. VII, pp. 25-26.

40 Ibid.. Ch. VI, pp. 23-25.

41 SCS, III, 438.

42 TKK, I, Nos. 30,31,32,41,43 to 50. 52,53,64,65,76,77 and 80; MIS, XV, 349; MIS, XVI, 28, SPD, XXXI, 55-64. 5 7

43 Al, 1, pp. 1.2 dated 22.3.1690.

44 Molesworth, p* 80; Aitlhaslk Shabdakosh, 1 , p> 106*

45 SCS, V, 767.

46 Sanadapatre/ pp* 166*167, dt. 11*4«1791*

47 SCS, V, 845.

48 SCS, V, 846.

49 SPD, XXXI, 67A dated 1.10.1696.

50 MIS, XV, 286 dated 25 August 1697.

51 AXiS, I, pp. 123.124, £*n.

52 Molesworth, p. 387*

53 Hail.

54 PDNK, II, Yadl No. 20, pp. 72-73; 763-64.

55 PD, I, No. 157; RL, AC, Dhar Daftar, No. 22 dated 15.9*1729.

56 tune Archives, Shahu Daftar, No. A 45394.

57 Molesworth, p. 557.

58 D.B. Parasnis, Prachin Marath« Sardar, p. 11.

59 Ifeid*

60 PD, III, 10 dated 16.11.1743.

61 IfeM.

62 PD, III, 45 dated 16.10.1756. 5 H

63 Fune Archives, Shahu Daftar, A 45387*

64 Archives, Shahu Daftar, A 46797*

65 Ibid.. A 44847.

66 BISMQ XXVII (ASS, V Il), No. 12 dated 27 July 1750.

67 BISMQ XXVII (ASS, V II), No. 16 dated 10 December 1750.

68 PD, III, 61 dated 4 Oct., 1752*

69 PDNK, I, Yadi No. 12, p. 61 undated.

70 ALS, I, pp. 158-160, 211-216.

71 PDNK, II, Yadi No. 8, p. 60 dated 4 March 1768.

72 PDSM, pp. 185-186.

73 Ibid.

74 PGIS, 147.

75 RL,«=, Dhar Daftar, No. 33 dated 6.8.1736.

76 IfeM-

77 RL, AC, Dhar Daftar dated 30.10.1761;

DPIS, 70, dated 7.2.1761. The date given in the earlier

source is correct, as the letter bears the seal of

Peshwa Madhavrao I, which was made after the death of

Peshwa Balaji Bajirao in July 1761. 5 9

78 SPD, XXXI, 149 Jaraav Rumal No. 1770;

PGIS, 136 letter from Krishnajl to Madhavrao dated

9 January 1763 •

79 IfeM.

80 PDSM, pp. 196-197.

81 IbM *

82 RL« GO« 1 , No* 253. Letter in the naine of Janakoji Shende

to Lalaji Ballal dated 25 March 1766.

83 RL, GD, II, p. 85 dated 16 April 1767. The seal of

Janakojit

84 RL, GD, II, p. 89 dt. 10.6.1767. The seal of Mahadajl.

85 PDSM, P. 209 dated 12*8.1766.

86 iD, VII, No. 157, 158, 162; HIS, I, No* 181.

87 SPD, XXIX, 176.

88 Ibid. , 57.

89 Ibid.# 180; SPD, New Series, 105.

90 SPD, XIX, 47; SPD, XXIX, 180; SPD, XXXIX, 84;

PD, V II, 175, 176 and PDSM, p. 210*

91 SPD, XXIX, 180. 6 0

92 rD, VII, 175.

93 A.N. Bhagwat (ed.), Holkarshahlchya Itlhasachl Sadhanc,

Patravyavahar iurvardha. Vol. 1 (Indorei Dandekar Brothers;

1924), pp. 19-20.

94

95 Included in an article, Malharrao HolkarVa Relationa with

Ralputs by Dr. S.K. Bhatt, read In the Maratha History

Seminar at In May 1970*

96 Ib id .

97 Shlvnarayan "Holkar Rajya Ke Kuchha Aprakashlt

Dharmlk latra”, Ahllya Sitarlka, 1972, pp. 14*22.

98 A.N. Bhagwat (ed.), Op.clt. , pp. 110-120.

99 Ibid.. p. 121, dated 18 July, 1800.

100 IfeM*

101 Ibid.. p. 122 dated 11.3.1801.

102 Ibid., p. 123 dated 22.12.1801.

103. Ibid.

104 V*S. Bendre (ed.), Maharashtretihasachi Sadhane,

Vol. Ill, No. 723.

105 IJaM*

106 V .S . Bendre (ed.), Op.clt., 726. 6X

107 CD. II, 13.

108 PRC, I, 108, 114, 201, 246.251.

109 V .S. Bendre (ed.), O g .c ^ ., 724, 725.

110 Ibid.

111 MIS, X, 256, HSBSR, II, 122.

112 HSBSR, VI, 5 dt. about March 1794.

113 HSBSR, IV, 27 dt. 9.1.1802.

114 HSBSR, IV, 35 dt. 16.3.1802.

115 ASN, I, pp. 18-24.

116 MDB, II, 94 dated 13.6.1785*

117 MDB, II, 148 dt. 18.8.1787.

118 PRC, I, 249, 252, 255 and 256.

119 PRC, I, 246-251.

120 PRC, I, 279-281.

121 PRC, I, 108, 114, 201, 279 and 280.

122 PRC, I, 279 dt. 29.9.1792.

Letter from w. Palmer at to Governor General

Earl Cornwallis.

123 ASS, III, 267 dt. 13.12.1793.

124 ASS, III, 267 dt. 13.12.1793. 125 PGIS, 216 dt. 30.7.1789. 126 PGIS, 212 dt. 28 May 1789. 127 PGIS, 214, 215.