The present thesis " Maratha-Rajput relations from 1720 to 1795 A.D." begins with the career of Peshwa Bajirao I and ends with the death of Peshwa Madhaorao in 1795 A.D. The work ‘Rajput’ refers to the Rajput States of Rajasthan in the 18th century and particularly to the former States of Jaypur, Jodhpur and Udaypur as of the 15 States the leading Houses were three-the Sisodias of Mewad, the Rathods of Marwad and the Kachawahas of Ambar, History of other smaller States like Bundi, Kotal Alwar, Kishangadh or Bikaner, comes into picture wherever it touches the main theme. (1)
Again, there is no intention to give internal history of any individual State, that has no bearing on the main topic. Even then, it will be seen that the continuity is maintained, so far as it was possible.
Taking the ‘Sanads’ of ‘Chauth’ and ‘Sardeshmukhi’ as a base for expansion, the Maratha-Imperialism spread towards all directions from their base in Maharashtra. Their main object was ’territorial conquest for the regeneration of religion and the Gods’ (2), in the words of Chimaji Appa. Their movements in Rajasthan were not isolated raids for mere plunderbut were a part of their general policy of expansion towards the North (3) . Maratha hold on Malwa was complete even in 1732 A.D. and Hastinapur (Delhi) was their target as early as 1736 A.D. Rajasthan came naturally under the sphere of the Maratha expansion. The treatment of of some of the eminent scholars to Maratha Invasions, creates an impression that the Marathas had no other business than to wake one fine morning and move on to raid the peace-loving territories of Rajasthan (4).
There is no use in saying “Whatever might have been the objects of the Maratha expansion there is no doubt that their penetration into Rajasthan and their domination of Mewad was a great calamity. As their power grew and states after states lay prostrate before them, plunder, rapine and ravages became the order of the days. (5) "
Activities of any political power, in the past (or even in the present) have been hardly without objects. Hence treating the political activities excluding the objects of the party involved will scarcely be a complete picture in itself. A scholar who has deliberately selected a particular topic for study is obliged to take all the aspects of the topic into consideration. Hence while dealing with the Maratha-Rajput relations of 18th century, one has to take the Maratha aims and objects into account along-with their faults, otherwise the whole campaign carried on by the Marathas incessantly, year after year, ceases to have any meaning other than the raids of the plunderers.
The present work, I hope, presents a through picture of the changing relationship of the Marathas and the Rajputs, in the 18th century, from mutual friendship to bitter enmity.
The long period of seventy five years is divided into three phases as they appear to me. The first phase (1720 to 1743 A.D.) ends with the death of Sawai Jaysing, the second phase (1743 to 1766 A.D.) ends with the death of Malharrao Holkar and the third, and the last one, ends with the accidental death of the young and promising Peshwa Sawai madhaorao. These three phases constitute the main body of the thesis. At the end I have given my reflections over the Maratha-Rajput relations during 1720 to 1795 A.D.
The first chapter in every phase explains the significance of the particular phase, summarizes the activities during the phase and in short serves as an introduction to the phase.
Before actually starting with the topic, a survey of the past history of the Marathas and the Rajputs has been taken into the introductory first chapter. As I started with origin of the Marathas, I had to give the same treatment in the case of the Rajputs too and hence, I could not avoid the questions of the origin of the Rajput. This introductory chapter, in two parts, serves as a background of the meeting of the Marathas and the Rajputs in first quarter of the 18 century.
The third factor of the Nizam’ in the Malwa affair (first phase) so distinctly put up, is a new thing in the Indian History, Dadorao Bhimsen’s letter (S.P.D. 13-10) wrongly interpreted by eminent scholar like Dr. Raghuvir, has been given here due treatment for the first time. It has been adequately supplemented by other sources. It was the Nizam, who was aimed at, in calling the Maratha-help in Malwa in 1728 A.D. This work will also clear the objects of Sawai Jaysing in forming friendship with the Marathas. The treatment of Bajirao’s Northern expansions gets here a new light in comparison to the works of others who have handled the same topic before me.
The second phase (1743 to 1766 A.D.) opens with the reasons behind the changed attitude of the Rajputs towards the Marathas. It is altogether a new attempt to state the underlying meaning of the political activities concerning Rajasthan after the death of Sawai Jaysing. The second phase covers everything relating to the topic. Particularly I have to draw the attention to the explanation of Malharro’s individuality in handling the Northern politics in general and Rajput politics in particular.
During the third phase (1766 to 1795 A.D.) the Maratha Rajput relations reached the highest pitch of rivalry. This phase relates the initial errors of Mahadaji (with reasons) towards the Rajputs in general and Jaypur in particular, the entrapment of Mahadaji, the Lalsot campaign, the miraculous recovery of Mahadji, the comparatively late coming of Tukoji to the scene and the final triumph of Mahadaji over all his rivals. The whole episode resembles the third battle of Panipat (1761 A.D.). I have not given long descriptions of the battles (that are available in Poona residential Correspondence Vol. I) but given as much as was necessary. Sir Jadunath’s descriptions of the battle of Patan” (6) and Medta would give one an impression that these battles wre won by De Bolgne alone and that the famous Maratha cavalry, as if, was doing nothing but standing aloof. He nearly omits the part played by the forces (though smaller in number) of Holkar and Ali Bahadur. I have taken all the available accounts of these battles into consideration and described the battles in brief. In fact the descriptions are hardly mine. They are base mainly on the news-reporters, the sources of which have been stated in footnotes.
A historian ought not to be too loose in his language? (7) While criticizing the personalities of the past, because it has come fortunately to his lot to pass judgments on their actions. No body can boast of knowing all the aspects of a particular case. By the end of the third phase we see Tukoji-Patra were exchanged) (8) acting against Mahadaji. Tukoji’s actions but I do hope that my exertions will be of use in forming a balanced view in viewing the actions of these two Maratha Sardar. Namely Tukoji and Mahadaji with reference to the Maratha Rajput relations. I do claim that I have been impartial, as far as possible, in dealing with all these intricate polities. One should never forget that Ahillyabai and Tukoji had their own case like Mahadaji. It is for the impartial historian to pass the final remarks.
As for Ali Bahadur, he was simply unfortunate. He had no hand in the Gosawi episode. Once he took the charge of the latter, he defended him against the might of Mahadaji. History does not prove any treachery committed by either Tukoji or Ali Bahadur against Mahadaji at the time of the battles of Patan and Medta in 1790 A.D., even though, the latter is emphatic in placing such a charge against the two. In fact Mahadaji was too shrewd to build his case against Tukoji and Ali Bahadur from the first. Lakheri depicts the tragic end of the House of Holkars brought at the hands of Mahadaji.
The present work goes a long way to prove that the Maratha-Rajput relations is not the story of “plunder, rapine and ravages” but the story of continuous political relationship between the two political powers namely the Rajputs of the North, collectively, and the Marathas of the South. It is neither the history of any ‘dark age’ nor the history of the factual accounts of the raids and the doubtful accounts of the money exacted. It is in short the political history of the period. I do submit most humbly that the present work tries to approach the problem with a balanced view. It rejects the tradition of the followers of Tod of looking to the Marathas as some-thing free-booters coming from the foreign lands.
Of the dates of letters that I have corrected, I would draw attention to the latter No. 27 of S.P.D. 10. Sardesai gives it to be of 1724 A.D. whereas Dr. Raghuvir states it to be of 1737 A.D. In fact it belongs to 1730 A.D. I have givent the reasons in detail (Appendix to first phase). But the only fact besides others that goes against the date being 1737 A.D. is the mention of Kanhoji Bhosle in the particular letter. Kanhoji was taken a prisoner to Satara by Raghuji Bhosle in 1730 A.D. and he remained in prison after that at Satara till his death (9) How could, under the circumstances, he come in 1737 A.D. to the Nizam as has been Stated in the letter ? I have corrected the dates of other letters too, and stated the reasons for the same in the foot-notes.
In his preface to ‘Madhava Rao Sindhia’ p.s.H.G.Keena writes, “the omission to cite Tod’s Rajasthan may be thought to demand explanation. It is a noble book, full of priceless information and inspired by a fine enthusiasm. But this every inspiration renders the author an unsafe guide in regard to the relations and dealings of the Rajputs with other tribes”. I agree fully to this statement and hence have omitted Tod, excepting where he has cited the origined sources. I value the opinion of Rajwade, the famous historian of Maharashtra, that “one cannot believe in a mass of native or foreign Bakhars (10) (cronicles) as he can rely on a single scrap of original material”. Hence I have not relied on any of the Marathi or Rajasthani Bakhars. The text of the thesis is based only on original Marathi and Rajasthani sources, and on standard books based on original material.
Regarding the spelling of the proper nouns, I have to state that, as far as possible they are nearer to the original pronunciations. Hence I have written Medta (and not Merta), Shinde (and not Sidhia), Vijaysing and Jaysing (and not Bijesing and Jaising), Mewad (and not Mewar), Marwad (and not Marwar) and so on. I have done this mainly because I see no justfication in writing ‘Marwar’ when we call it ‘Marwad’. But while quoting the extracts from other writers, I have retained the original spellings given by them of these proper nouns.
I have utilized all the Marathi as well as Rajput sources for this work. I have visited for the purpose of study, different libraries and stayed at places like Poona, Jaypur and Bikaner. I have made full use of the University Library of the Nagpur University, Nagpur. The library of my college, - The Sitabi Arts College, Akola, was always at my disposal. I am obliged to all those who have been useful to me in my studies. I also express my sincere gratitude to the Education Officer, University Grants Commission, New Delhi - 1, for the sanction of grant, which made the publication of this book possible.
In the introduction to Marathi Riyasat (Vol. V, Punyashlok Shahu) G.S. Sardesai says, “I have been doing this work of the interpretation (of history) for the last so may years”. In the same way I put up this work, most humbly, as a sincere attempt to interprete the dealings of the two brave peoples of India namely the Marathas and the Rajputs with each other, spread over the span of seventy five years.
‘Vijayadashmi’
Akola
K.A.Acharya
11th October 1978.
Descrption of Foot Notes
(1) ‘Later Mughals’ Vol. I, p. 42, Mar, Riya. Vol. V (Punya Sholke Shahu) p, 128.
(2) ‘Hingne Daftar’ I-15.
(3) “The aim behind the activities of these people is simple this. To decrease the income of the Mujahids (Moslems), to inflict injuries on the strength of the Moslems through these off and on harassments, and to deprive the Moslems of the strength to wage jihad.” - From the letter of Nizam-ul-Muk (1737 A.D.), Eighteenth Century Deccan, pp, 146 and 147.
(4)“These Marathas, who did not like any other way but looting, were the greatest source of destruction for Mewad” - Veer Vinod, p. 1704. “In Samvat 1792, the Emperor granted the Subhadari of Malwa in the name of Bajirao Peshwa thus the robbers became the masters of the territory.” - ibid, p. 1151.
(5) “Mewar and the Maratha relations” K.S.Gupta, in preface, p. viii.
(6) Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. IV. pp. 23 to 25 and 31 to 36, respectively.
(7) See the way how Sir Jadunath Sarkar writes about Tukoji - “Like a vulture which which sees a dying cow from a far, Tukoji Holkar, who had been hovering close the Mathura border without coming to Mahadaji’s side, inspite of orders from Poona, now hastened to that city in order to stiffen Ali Bahadur’s deflunce of Shinde’s authority” . Fall IV p. 11.
(8) Jaypur Draft Kharitas 21 - 54.
(9) ‘Nagpur Prantacha Itihasa’ by Y. M. Kale, p. 64., Ahwal -I- Khawaquin in “Studies in mAratha History, Vol II , P. 101.
(10) ‘Aitnhasik Prastavanas’ by V. K. Rajwade p. 4.