03 CH2 DURING SHIVAJI’S TIME

While Shahaji, Shivaji’s father, was in the service of the Nizamshahi, his relations with the Portuguese were friendly. In a letter from Bijapur reproduced in the daily journal of the Portuguese Viceroy, Conde de Linhares, it is recorded that the annual income of Shahaji was 20,75,000 hons1and that his private army consisted of 3,000 horsemen.2In the same letter it is also mentioned that the son of Nizam Shah Murtuza was staying at Shahagad (Xihagadda), i.e. Shahaji’s own residence.

Within four days of 26 September 1636,3 Shahaji addressed a letter to the Portuguese Captain in charge of the Chaul fort. In this letter, Shahaji informed the captain that the eleven year-old Nizamshah was in his custody and that he was stationed at Balaghat in the fort of Trimalvadi and that he was carrying on the governance of the Nizamshahi kingdom in the name of that boy-prince. Shahaji’s request was that the Portuguese should permit his family to stay in the Chaul fort in view of the fact that he had always maintained friendly relations with them and wanted to ensure the safety of his family which was always in jeopardy because of the enmity between him on the one hand and the Delhi Moghuls and Adilshahi kingdom of Bijapur on the other.

Shahaji had also added in this letter that, if the necessity arose, even he would seek shelter in Chaul fort and, in return, even cede some territory from the Nizamshahi kingdom to the Portuguese if they wanted it, since it was all in his power. The Portuguese did not comply with Shahaji’s request, as they feared this might arouse the hostility of Delhi and Bijapur. However, they informed Shahaji that if he wanted to remove his family to Danda-Rajpuri or some such place, they would secretly help him to do so.

Even after Shahaji entered the service of the Adilshahi, the Portuguese maintained friendly relations with him as is clear from a letter of the Portuguese Viceroy, Conde de Alvora, which mentioned the traditional friendship between Shahaji and the King of Portugal.4

In 1654, Padre Gonsalo Martez was posted at Bijapur as Portuguese envoy. In the instrument of instructions given to him by the then Portuguese Governor, Don Braz de Castro, it was noted that Fateh Khan, Shahaji and Malik Yakut would side with the Portuguese in the Adilshahi court.5

Rajwade writes in his preface to the Radhamadhava-vilasachampu by Jayaram Pandey that Shahaji had invaded Goa in shaka 1576, Vaishakha Jyeshtha (page 93). Portuguese documents in the Goa Archives, however, show that this Adilshahi invasion of Salçette and Bardez was made on 12 August, 1654 under the command of Abdul Hakim. A number of Hindus and Catholics of prestige joined Abdul Hakim in this campaign. Among them was Kalu Shenvi Korgaonkar. Some gavkars of Hanjun, known as Porobs, also joined in this intrigue. The well-known Catholic Bishop of Bicholim, Don Molias de Castro, a Goan, was also one of the conspirators. But nowhere is Shahaji’s name mentioned in connection with this invasion.6

In 1657, Shahaji demanded of Ali Adilshah the Mahals of Bhatagram and Pernem in the vicinity of Bardez, then under Adilshahi domination, for his maintenance.7

The earliest Portuguese document in the Goa Archives which makes mention of Shivaji is dated 28 November, 1657. It is stated in it that Shahaji’s son had taken possession of Upper Chaul. The Portuguese Viceroy, in his letter to the king of Portugal dated 15 May, 1658 also mentions Shivaji as Shahaji’s son.8

In 1659, Shivaji laid the foundation of the Mahratta navy. The following reference occurs to the event in the Goa Archives : “A son of Shahaji, the rebel [militant] nobleman of the Adilshahi court has captured the territory around Chaul and Bassein and has become quite powerful. He has built some men-of-war in Bhimdi, Kalyan and Panvel, ports in Bassein Taluka. We are forced, therefore, to be cautious. To ensure that these men-of-war do not set sail, we have ordered the Portuguese Captain not to let them come out of these ports.”9

The Portuguese used to build their ships, armed and others, in several ports of Bassein Taluka. The frigate Santo Antonio de Thana equipped with 50 guns was one of those built in 1681 at Thana.10 At the time there lived at Bassein some skilled Portuguese carpenters and other artisans. Shivaji built his first twenty armed ships (sanguiceis) with the help of two of these artisans, Roe Leitao Viegas and his brother Fernao Leitao Viegas. Shivaji had

declared that these ships were built to meet the menace of the Siddi of Janjira. About 340 workmen, Portuguese and others, worked under the supervision of Roe Viegas. Including their families, they were about 400 people. There is a letter from Joao de Salazar de Vascocelos in the Arquivo Historico Ultramarino in which it is said that the number of people employed by Shivaji on ship-building were 300.11 It is also obvious from the complaint that Raja Jaisingh made to the Portuguese that there were some Portuguese men in Shivaji’s army.12 Not only this, but there is evidence that the Portuguese Viceroy had by a proclamation made on 19 May, 1668, ordered all Portuguese nationals in the service of the Delhi, Bijapur and Shivaji armies to return to Portugal.13 Antonio de Melo de Castro made a

frantic effort to withdraw all the Portuguese from Shivaji’s service even before his warships had been completed, because they would have been a source of trouble not only to the Siddi but to the Portuguese also. As a result of this, one day, all Portuguese in Shivaji’s service quit their jobs and fled to Bombay and Bassein.14

No information is available on what happened to these twenty men-of-war, in the Portuguese Archives. They were, in all probability, completed. No Portuguese document speaks of their having been destroyed. In April or May 1662, the Governor of Goa says in a letter that Ragho Ballal, Subedar of Dabhol, had requested him to allow five warships (sanguiceis) and one pataxo interned in the Karanja creek to go out to the sea. The Governor suggested to his Officers that they find some courageous person who would secretly set these ships on fire.15 But there is no evidence of any such thing having happened.

The Captain of Chaul wrote to the Governor of Goa in August 1664 that Shivaji was building 50 ships in Upper Chaul and that seven of them were ready to set out to sea. The Portuguese adopted the policy of not obstructing their passage in view of Shivaji’s ever growing power.16 In this way, Shivaji’s navy went on gaining strength to such an extent and at such speed that Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente was constrained, at the end of 1667, to write to the King of Portugal : “I am afraid of Shivaji’s naval ships. We did not take sufficient preventive steps and so he has built many a fort on the Konkan Coast. Today he has several ships and they are large ones.”17

Shivaji’s fleet consisted mostly of galvetas18 They were small but speedy—which gave them an advantage over the slow, large-sized Portuguese ships. Shivaji’s ships captured or looted tending ships from Malabar and other parts of Indin. A Portuguese biographer of Shivaji writes that his ships did not molest European warships.19

Even in the days of Shivaji, the Portuguese considered themselves as supreme in the Indian Ocean. As has been said earlier, trading ships from the territories of Bijapur, Delhi and Shivaji were required to secure permits for plying from the Portuguese. For securing these permits (cartazes) a fee had to be paid and certain conditions had to be complied with. The Portuguese often found Shivaji’s ships without such permits and these ships were seized by them. Similarly, there were cases of Shivaji’s ships seizing trading vessels from Portuguese territory.20 But there were scarcely any armed engagements between the Portuguese and Mahratta fleets.

On one occasion, Shivaji’s fleet seized 121 trading ships from the Karnatak ports of Honavar, Manglore, Barcelor and Gangoli (Cambolim). Cosme de Guarda, Portuguese biographer of Shivaji recounts that the Portuguese Viceroy, Antonio de Melo de Castro, on

hearing of this ordered his son, the Commodore of the Portuguese fleet in the Buy of Goa at this time, to secure the release of these ships.21 Shivaji had twenty-five ships, while de Castro had eight. Of the 25 Mahratta warships, 13 were in the vanguard of the convoy followed by the captured vessels and twelve warships covered the rear of the convoy. The two fleets met near Mormugoa. Castro attacked the ships in the Mahratta vanguard and captured them. Those in the rear fled. Castro returned with the 13 captured warships and the trading ships to Goa. Shivaji sent an envoy to the Portuguese Viceroy to offer an apology for what had happened and asked for the return of his warships. The Portuguese granted his request.

There are some documents in the Goa Archives about this incident.22 There are some letters about it in the Arquivo Historico Ultramarino, Lisboa, also. In a letter dated 16 April, 1665 from Antonio de Melo de Castra to Krishnaji Bhasker, Subedar of Shivaji, the Viceroy mentions that the captured ships were released but does not mention their number.23 In a letter dated 4 June 1665 preserved in the Goa archives, the same Viceroy wrote to his brother, Francisco de Melo and Diago de Melo who was in the service of the Moghul Emperor, to say that the number of ships captured by the Portuguese from the Mahrattas, was eleven.24

Dr. Surendranath Sen says that this battle between eight Portuguese ships and Shivaji’s fleet must have been fought after Shivaji’s invasion of Barcelor.25 The Viceroy’s letter to Krishnaji Bhaskar also bears this out. That Shivaji’s fleet came to Mormugoa and prevented the Portuguese warships from taking trading vessles loaded with rice to Goa is what the Viceroy says in his letter of 4 June 1665 to his brother.26 By November 1664, the news had spread that Shivaji’s fleet would attack Basnur and other ports on the Karnatak Coast and the people there had become panicky. Shivappa Nayak of Iquery had taken from the Portuguese, during 1653-54, the ports of Gangoli, Barcelor, Honavar and Manglore. Narayan Mahalo was working as an intermediary between Shivappa Nayak and the Portuguese, negotiating for the return of these forts to the Portuguese and for this purpose an armed ships, the S. Jacinto, had been despatched under the command of Don Manoel Lobo de Silveira to take possession of them.

This de Silveira wrote to the Viceroy in a letter dated 30 November 1664 from Gangoli that the people there were frightened because of the reported and impending invasion of Shivaji. If he did actually come, the people would run away and he would capture the whole coast. People from Mirjan, Ankola, Shiveshwar and Karwar were in panic and if Shivaji took these forts he would proceed to take the fort of Honavar also.27 When Shivaji looted Basroor, the S. Jacinto was probably not there.

In a letter written to Raoji Somnath Subedar by Vice-Rei Conde de Melo Castro on 26 March 1665, there is a reference to a battleship of the Portuguese (navio) having been taken captive by Shivaji’s fleet.28 One more Portuguese warship (pataxo) was taken captive by Shivaji’s fleet in November 1670 while it was sailing for Surat from Daman. In retaliation, the Portuguese captured eleven unarmed Mahratta cargo ships (barcos de carga) and took them to Bassein. Not only were the ships unarmed, but they were also empty and unimportant according to the Governor of Goa who wrote to this effect to the Captain of Bassein in a letter dated 13 December 1670.29

A letter from the Portuguese factory at Surat dated 17 December 1670 stated that the Portuguese had captured twelve Mahratta ships30 and this erroneous statement has been relied upon by Shivaji’s biographers.31 There is a letter in the Goa Archives of a Don, Aleico de Almeida who states therein that he had taken part twice in naval battles with Shivaji’s fleet.32

Once a battle was fought in the gulf of Kelshi (enseada de Quellocy) when three ships from Shivaji’s fleet were captured and on a second occasion, at the same place, a battle was fought involving eighteen Mahratta ships, three of which were captured and on a second occasion, at the same place, a battle was fought involving eighteen Mahratta ships, three of which were captured by the Portuguese. Which of these two battles the said de Almeida refers to is difficult to say. But it is a reliable statement based on certificates (certidoes) of appropriate officers.

When Shivaji began to build up his fleet, it was, as has been stated before, for use against the Siddi of Danda-Rajpuri.33 In the Siddi-Shivaji conflicts, the Portuguese helped the Siddi. When Shivaji set some of his horsemen and infantry on the Siddi in July 1659, the Portuguese Captains at Chaul and Bassein supplied foodgrains to the Siddi and helped him in other ways also. Shivaji complained about this to the Vice-Rei. Because of this, the Portuguese decided from then on, to help the Siddi stealthily and not openly.34

The Portuguese were well-disposed towards the Siddi and to persuade them openly to ally with him, the Siddi accepted Portuguese overlordship in 1667.35 In May 1669, Shivaji besieged Danda-Rajpuri. The Portuguese supplied ammunitions and foodgrains to the Siddi and met his other requirements surreptitiously and instructed the Captain of Chaul that, if the Siddi was prepared to hand over the Dada-Rajpuri fortress to the Portuguese, he should take possession of it.36

On 10, February 1670, Shivaji entered into a pact of friendship with the Portuguese.37 One of the terms of the pact was that, since the Siddi had accepted the overlordship of the Portuguese, they were under an obligation to protect him; but since this ran counter to the new friendship between the Portuguese and the Mahrattas, the Portuguese would use all their

CONTENTSinfluence to mediate between the Siddi and Shivaji with a view to concluding a treaty between them to their mutual satisfaction. Vithalpant went to Goa as Shivaji’s envoy to finalise these arrangements.

In March 1671, news was received in Goa that Shivaji had laid siege to Danda-Rajpuri by land and sea and that there was a strong probability of the fort going over to Shivaji. If that happened, it would be a menace to Chaul. Though it would have been proper for the Portuguese to remain neutral in this conflict in view of the new treaty of friendship, the Portuguese Viceroy estimated the situation as dangerous for the Portuguese and decided to supply the Siddi with ammunition.38

In May the same year (1671), the Captain of Chaul informed the Portuguese Viceroy that, since Shivaji had besieged Danda-Rajpuri, the position of the Siddi had much worsened and that he was helping the Siddi in keeping with the Viceroy’s orders.39 The Captain also wrote that the Siddi had no money to pay his soliders and that therefore he had returned to the Siddi the ransom he had paid which was credited to the Chaul treasury. In reply, the Portuguese Vicerory not only approved of this action, but also ordered the Captain of Chaul to pay the Siddi Rs. 2,000 in addition. He also instructed that ammunition should be secretly given to the Siddi and that if the Siddi was ready to hand over the fortress, it should be taken over. It was held by the Viceroy that if Shivaji captured Danda-Rajpuri, not only would Revdanda and Korlai (Morro) be endangered, but the whole western coast. The importance of this fort had been recognised by Portuguese statesmen right from the days of Afonso de Albuquerque.40 In a letter written from Chaul on 25 March 1677, the Portuguese Captain stated that Moropant Pingle, Shivaji’s Peshwa, was waiting in Upper Chaul with cavalry and infantry for Annajipant to join him with more troops. He administered the Konkan as far as Goa. Shivaji’s fleet was stationed at Nagao—there were ten warships (galvetas) and thirteen other ships.41

Joao Fuzeiro de Sande wrote in a letter from Chaul dated 2 May 1677, that the Peshwa was in the vicinity of Danda with Durat khan’s (Daulat khan’s) fleet, that he had 9,000 troops, that he would lead an assault on Danda-Rajpuri and, further, that there was a rumour that the Siddi had gone over to him. If this was correct, the Siddi would hand over the fortress to the Peshwa.42 It is not known how the Portuguese in Goa reached to this but early in September 1679, the Viceroy received a letter from the Captain of Chaul in which he said that Shivaji was preparing to build a fort on Kennery (Khanderi-Underi) islands,43 and in pursuit of this project, 2,000 of his men had already gone over to Upper Chaul and 3,000 more would soon join them. He added that Shivaji had ordered that if the Portuguese obstructed his plans, they were to be resisted. In order to counter this move, the Siddi was

preparing to build twelve galvetas.

The Governor called his Council together to consider this letter and decided to prevent Shivaji from building the Khanderi-Uderi fort. But when he learnt that the English from Bombay were going to oppose Shivaji’s project, he decided to remain neutral. The English asked the Portuguese to join hands with them but they put forward the excuse of their having entered into a treaty of friendship with Shivaji and rejected the proposal. Still, the Portuguese assured help in the form of foodgrains etc.

Just as the Portuguese were inclined towards the Siddi as against Shivaji, they also helped the Adilshani of Bijapur as against Shivaji and, in any event, at least remained neutral between them. But they never sided with Shivaji. They were obliged to adopt this attitude to maintain balance of power. Besides, before Shivaji conquered the Konkan, Adilshah was the neighbour or the Portuguese.

In the Shivaji-Moghul conflict, the Portuguese secretly helped Shivaji, because they considered Delhi to be a greater menace. Since the days of Humayun, the Portuguese policy was that all powers in South India should resist Moghul aggression from the north.44

At the end of May 1663, Shivaji went to Vengurla via Kudal. Adilshah’s havildars in Bhatagram (Bicholim) and Sanquelim (Satari) fled. Antonio de Melo de Castro, Vice-Rei of Goa, said that Shivaji would not attack Goa because he could not simultaneously fight Delhi, Bijapur and Goa, but if he did, he was prepared for it.45 When he learnt that Shivaji had gone to Vengurla, he sent Shivaji a letter dated 2, June 1663 congratulating him on his victory over

Bijapur.46 He sent it with Ramoji Shenvi Kothari. But Ramoji Kothari learnt on his way that Shivaji had gone back and so he also returned to Goa. Ramoji had previously lived at Bicholim and was well disposed towards Shivaji.47 Shivaji appointed Raoji Somnath Pandit as Subedar at Kudal.

Shivaji had intended to conquer the Konkan territory as far as Mirajan48 but be did not do so. At this time, Kudal, Pernem, Satari, Maneri and Bhatagram, which constituted Adilshahi territory, passed under him. The Mirjan river was generally regarded as the southern limit of the Konkan in Shivaji’s times.49 It is on record that Shivaji had told the Dutch officers at Vengurla that the Sultan of Bijapur had made a present of Kudal territory to him.50 In a letter of the Governor of Goa dated 7 January 1669, it is stated that, by a treaty of friendship, Adilshah had given the whole of Southern Konkan to Shivaji.51 Shivaji was laying claim to Salçette and Bardez then in the possession of the Portuguese on the ground that they were originally Adilshahi territory.52 Ibrahim Adilshah had given Salçette and Bardez to the Portuguese on certain conditions in 1543, thanks to Mealkhan. The Portuguese did not fully observe these conditions but did not give up possession of both territories. On this account, several battles were fought between the Portuguese and the Adilshahi.53 The last of these battles were

fought in 1654 and 1659.54 Shivaji must have been posted with some information in this matter.

The letter of the Dutch factory at Vengurla, referred to earlier, states that Shivaji’s statement that Adilshah had made over the Kudal territory to him was untrue. On the contrary, Adilshah had ordered his Subedar at Ponda, Trimbak Kalu (Trumbeg Calo) to expel Shivaji from Kudal with the help of the four Desais, Lakham Savant, Keshav Naik, Khalu Shenvi and Chanda Rana. If Trimbak Kalu did not succeed, Bijapur was to send a large army

to attack Shivaji.55 Of these Desais, Lakham Savant was of Kudal, Keshav Naik of Pernem, Khalu Shenvi of Bhatagram (Bicholim) and Chanda Rana was of Sanquelim (Satari).

Just before June 1664, Captain Aziz Khan of Adilshah defeated Shivaji’s troops at Kudal.56 Keshav Naik, Desai of Pernem and Keshav Prabhu fled for fear of Adilshah and sought asylum with the Portuguese.57 According to a letter of the Viceroy dated 10 December 1669, Mir Mahamed Kasim was Adilshah’s havaldar at Bicholim (Bhatagram),58 and at

Sanquelim.59 From this letter, it would appear that between December 1663 and January 1664 Adilshah ruled over Bhatagram and Satari and not Shivaji.

In the middle of December 1664 Shivaji won a victory over Khavas Khan, Captain of Adilshah, near Kudal and forced him to flee up the ghat.60 On this occasion, Shivaji looted Bicholim and the border areas of Goa from Raibag to Sahapur.61 After this Shivaji’s writ ran again in the Konkan except in Ponda Panchmahal. Lakham Savant of Kudal, Keshav Naik and Keshav Prabhu of Pernem, Khalu Shenvi of Bicholim. All Desais of Konkan, who fought Shivaji under the command of Khavas Khan took shelter with the Portuguese in different places.62 Of these Desais, Lakham Savant fought Shivaji alongside Khavas Khan till the end and did not run away to Goa till 13 December 1664. Jedhe Shakavali notes that this victory was won by Shivaji over Khavas Khan in October-November 1664, i.e. Shake 1586, in the month of Kartik, the name of the year being Krodha.

This victory of Shivaji is mentioned also in a letter of the Viceroy of Goa dated 7 January, 1665.63 It is clear from this that Shivaji had pushed Khavas khan up the ghat before this date. The fight of the Desais and the Bijapur Havaldar at Vengurla is mentioned in the Viceroy’s letter to Khavas Khan of 13 December, 1664.64 The Viceroy took it for granted that Khavas Khan had been till then in the Konkan. It appears, therefore, that because the Desais fled to Goa a few days before 13 December, Shivaji’s victory over Khavas Khan was won about the same date. Till this date, the Viceroy of Goa had no news of this victory.65

The Viceroy was informed by Keshav Naik and Keshav Prabhu, Desais of Pernem, a day or two before 11 November 1664, that a skirmish had taken place between Shivaji and

Khavas Khan.66 The Viceroy wrote a letter of welcome to Shivaji when he reached the neighbourhood of Goa on 25 November 1664.67 On 29 November, the Viceroy said in a meeting of padres that Shivaji had advanced with a large army and that Adilshah’s large force was also coming down the ghat.68 On 13 December, the Viceroy wrote a congratulatory letter to the envoy of Bijapur on the occasion of Khavas Khan’s victory over Shivaji.69 But this victory was shortlived. Shivaji routed Khavas Khant soon after and sent him running up the ghat and established Mahratta authority over the Konkan.

Shivaji appointed Krishna Savant as Deshmukh of Kudal (11 November 1664).70 The Viceroy of Goa, Antonio de Melo de Castro informed the King of Portugal in his letter dated 7 January 1665 that Khavas Khan had approached Goa with 2000 horsemen and a large force of infantry, but Shivaji had put him to rout and pushed him up the ghat and liberated Konkan. Not only this, but Shivaji had pursued the enemy almost to the gates of the City of Bijapur.71

On 5 December, 1664 Shivaji laid the foundation-stone of his seafortress, Sindhudurga. In the Shivaji chronicle by Chitragupta, it is stated that “a hundred skilled workmen who knew about the construction of sea forts were called for from the Portuguese” for the purpose. But there is no mention of any of their skilled workmen having helped Shivaji in any Portuguese document. Gaspar Correa writes (Lenda Ⅲ, 639) that Adilkhan employed the services of Portuguese workmen for building the Belgaum Castle. Even the Firangi tower of Bijapur appears to have been built by the Portuguese as its name indicates but no contemporary document mentions that the Portuguese gave any help for the construction of Sindhurga at Malvan.72

It has already been said that, as between the Moghuls and Shivaji, the Portuguese preferred to side with Shivaji. According to the Viceroy of Goa who informed the King of Portugal to that effect, when Shivaji returned with the Surat loot, he departed by the Portuguese border, because he wanted to take shelter with them if the need arose. The Viceroy had even expressed satisfaction that Shivaji came out of the raid unscathed.73 Because the Portuguese were sympathetic to Shivaji in the Surat affair, the Moghul captain, Lodi Khan, led an attack on Bassein territory, captured a number of villages and destoryed some. Finally, with great difficulty, the Portuguese entered into a treaty of friendship with Lodi Khan.74 Even when Raja Jayasingh invaded the Deccan, the Portuguese policy in the beginning was one of secretly helping Shivaji.75 The Portuguese had told him that, if it became necessary, he should come down to Goa and not seek shelter in Chaul.76 Later, after the Treaty of Purandar was concluded, the Portuguese had to change their policy for fear of the Moghuls and, on 17 November 1666, they made a treaty of friendship with them.77 It was obvious that it was made mainly to ensure that the Portuguese should give no quarter to

Shivaji.78 The draft of this treaty was probably presented to the Viceroy of Goa by Kojya Allauddin, envoy of Raja Jayasingh, a few days before 17 November 1666.79

In March 1666, Shivaji besieged the Ponda fort. The Portuguese thought it would be dangerous if the fort fell to Shivaji and so they secretly supplied ammunition to the fort and also arranged secretly to escort all the Konkan Desais who were partisans of Bijapur to the fort via the Chapora river.80 It would have been difficult for Bijapur to hold out in the Ponda Fort even for a week, but thanks to Portuguese help, the protagonists of Bijapur held out till

Rustamjama came to their aid.81 Rustam came down the ghat and the siege was lifted. He also brought Kudal, Pernem, Ponda, Bhatagram (Bicholim) and Satari (Sanquelim) under Adilshahi control. Vice-Rei Antonio de Melo de Castro wrote to the Captain of Chaul on 8 March 1666 to say that Rustamjama had come down the ghat and that Shivaji would soon withdraw.82

After the evacuation of Ponda, Shivaji proceeded to Agra to meet Aurangzed and was imprisoned by the Emperor. On 29 August 1666, he escaped from detention and, according to the Shivapur Yadi, reached Raigad on 11 December 1666. In the opinion of Sir Janunath Sarkar, Shivaji reached Raigad within 25 days of his leaving Agra, i.e. on 23 September 1666.83 If that is so, neither Raja Jayasingh nor the Portuguese Viceroy knew about it till 17 November 1666.84 Had they heard the news, the Portuguese would certainly not have entered into a treaty with the Moghuls. As they did at the time.85 From Jayasingh’s letter dated 25 November 1666 it is clear that he had no idea that Shivaji had returned.86

Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente informed the King of Portugal about Shivaji’s escape from Agra in a letter dated 20 September 1667 in which he said that, “after escaping from Moghul detention, Shivaji travelled for 36 hours in fruit boxes which were closed. When he reached his native hilly country, he sent his troops to many places to collect loot. Adilshah sent an army of 40000 horsemen and a large number of infantry to intercept Shivaji. When this army descended from the ghat, Shivaji presented a large treasure to the general, as a result of which he resorted to arson in his own master’s territory and returned with plunder. This general had come as close as twelve miles from Goa and we therefore considered him a menace. Soon after the Bijapur army went back, Shivaji expeditiously came down to Konkan and gained even a larger treasure than he had parted with. Shivaji has subdued and brought

under his control a number of Desais and he is now our neighbour at Ponda. His alacrity, valour, alertness and military foresight are of the order of Ceaser and Alexander. He is omnipresent and has no definite place of residence.”87

In the Vice-Rei’s letter dated 10 November 1666 it was stated that a Bijapur general, one Haibatrao, had come down the ghat into the Konkan to fight Shivaji.88 On the same date,

the Vice-Rei wrote a letter to Prataprao who had been appointed Subedar of the Konkan by Adilshaha.89 From the Vice-Rei’s letter dated 26 November 1666 it would seem that Mian Abdul Mahomed, a Bijapur general, had come to the Konkan.90

After his escape from Agra, Shivaji regained all the territory of Konkan that Adilshah had taken from him except Ponda, Jambavli Panchmahal and Goa which were held by the Portuguese. He had probably captured some villages around the Ponda fort.91 Lakham Savant, Keshav Naik and Keshav Prabhu; all Konkan Desais and protagonists of Bijapur, often encroached upon Shivaji’s territory and terrorised the people. Often the Portuguese officers were in league with them.

These Desais received good treatment in Goa. On one occasion, Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente had even threatened to punish the Rector of Colvale for having compelled the Pernem Desais to listen to a sermon. The Vice-Rei was very particular that they should not be molested on account of their religion.92 This sermon incident occurred on or about 12 October 1667. But it is obvious from Vergel de Plantas e Flores da Provincia da Madre de Deos dos Copuchos Reformados by Fr. Jacinto de Deos, published in Lisbon in 1690, that he was resolutely trying to convert to Christianity those Hindus who were resident in Bardez. Permission was granted to publish this book in 1680. It records that “In 1667, through the

favour93 of Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente, 7,000 Hindus from Bardez were baptised; efforts to convert the remaining 3,000 to Christianity are being made and in all probability they will adopt the faith.”94 Similarly, Pais Dos Christaunce said in his statement made on 5 January 1678 that “But for Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente’s untimely death, most of the Hindus in Goa island and Bardez would have become Christians, like those in Salçette.95

This Viceroy had issued a notification on 21 September 1667 that all Hindus should quit the limits of Bardez within a period of two months. This notification is not to be found in the Goa Archives but the present author found it mentioned in manuscript No. 8538 in Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa, in 1954.96 Later, he also obtained a copy of it in Biblioteque Nationale de Paris. It was published by him first in Assentos de Conselho do Estado, Part Ⅳ (p. 560) in 1956. The reasons given by the Vice-Rei in this notification for the expulsion of Hindus were that their presence affected the loyalty of the Christians to their religion; that the Hindus had risen in revolt against the King of Portugal several times; and that, in 1654, when Abdul Hakim invaded Goa, many a Hindus turned traitor and joined the enemy against the Portuguese.

Religious persecution of Hindus in Goa was, more or less, a normal feature for many years before the birth of Shivaji. The Hindu subjects of Aurangzeb had also to undergo similar religious persecution.97 Even in the Bijapur kingdom, the Hindus were, often enough, similarly mal-treated.98 How Goa under Portuguese rule became Christian is sufficiently known today,99 and need not be elaborately discussed here. The Hindus in Goa were accustomed to

religious persecution by the Portuguese and were trying to wriggle out of their troubles somehow or other.

In the situation, the notification of expulsion issued in Bardez in 1667 was not a bolt from the blue for the Hindus. A similar notification had been issued by Vice-Rei Conde de Linhares against the Hindus of Salçette on 11 January 1633.100 The same had happened in the island of Goa in 1560.101 Cujos regio illus religio was an accepted principle in Goa policy and

laws were promulgated in keeping with it. It meant : Whatever the religion of the ruler is the religion of the subjects.102

While this was the state of things in Bardez, Narba Savant, a nephew of Lakham Savant, Desai of Kudal, one of those Desais who had come to Goa, having taken fright at Shivaji’s movements, went to Vengurla on 15 September 1667, caused a riot and molested the Dutch. He was accompanied by some Portuguese. The Dutch of Vengurla protested against this to the Portuguese and probably complained to Shivaji also.103 These Desais who were sheltered in Bardez often returned to their original seats of power (vatans) and terrorised people in the neighbouring territory controlled by Shivaji. In order to capture them and also punish the Portuguese who had harboured them. Shivaji despatched an army of 1,000 cavalry and 5,000 infantry to Bardez on 19/20 November 1667.104

For three days (20-22 November) Shivaji’s troops plundered a number of villages and arrested hundreds of people.105 Among them were many women and children. A contemporary Dutch report says that they killed three padres and a number of Christians.106 On this occasion, Shivaji distributed some leaflets addressed to the people and some people followed the instructions therein. Such was the allegation of the Vice-Rei who appointed Dr. Francisco de Silva Fosch on 4 May 1668 to inquire into this. Of this there is evidence.107

There is a report made by the Franciscan padres on this invasion of Bardez by Shivaji written in Goa in 1724 which is deposited in the Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa.108 The author believes that, though it was written many years afterwards, it was based on the records of the Franciscan Fathers. This report says :

“As the Portuguese had harboured Keshav Naik, a Desai, in the village of Colvale in Bardez, Shivaji invaded Bardez with a large army and went straight to Colvale in search of Keshav Naik. He cut to pieces many a Christian he came across on his way as revenge against the Portuguese who had given asylum to Keshav Naik. He killed Fr. Manoel de San Bernanden, Rector of Colvale, in order to frighten the Franciscan fathers and shut them in their residences. This padre was a Goa-born Portuguese. He came out of the church door to investigate on hearing hoarse shouts and, as soon as he was out of doors, he was put to

death by a Cutelo. Fr. Joao das Nevice, a Portuguese padre, was his guest in the church. He had just then been appointed Commisario Geral. He was not aware what was going on outside and probably thought that some enemy was near by and so be too came out. He too was murdered, suffering 18 wounds. The padre knelt on the ground, threw his hands up and stared heavenwards while receiving the strokes of the sword. The enemy then departed. His efforts were futile, because the Desai who was being traced was not found. For more than four days the dead bodies of the two padres and others were not removed as most of the Bardez people had field and sought shelter in Reis Magos and Aguada forts.”

As the Portuguese Viceroy had received news of the impending invasion of Bardez by Shivaji through his spies four days earlier, he had enough time to make arrangements for the protection of the Portuguese and Keshav Naik, Lakham Savant and other Desais who were then in Goa.

Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente wrote to his secretary on 15 November 1667 that more of Shivaji’s troops and ships were marching towards Goa, according to tidings received by him, and so the fortresskeepers of Thivim and Caisuv (Chapora) should be instructed to be ready. Similar instructions should be given, he said, to the Ranes of Revade and Nanode, so that they too might be on the alert. They were to be instructed to prohibit entry of outsiders in their areas. The refugee Desais, he instructed, should also be asked to be prepared with their troops and Fernav Vaz de Sequeira was alerted and asked to keep his warships in readiness to meet Shivaji’s fleet if the need arose.109 The Ranes of Rewade, Nanode and Peirna, villages under Portuguese control on the outskirts of Bardez, were used by the Portuguese as bases against the Mahrattas.110 Some of these Ranes had embraced Christianity. Don Lucas de Lisboa Ranne and Don Lourenço de Lisboa Ranne are famous.

The Viceroy himself proceeded to meet the army of Shivaji and they came face to face on 22 November. In a letter addressed to the Goa city municipality on 29 December, 1667, the Viceroy said : there were several reasons for not leaving the city of Goa when I went to Bardez. When I fought the enemy I had only 84 Portuguese, including Fidaldos and Soldados. God willed that we should win a great victory, that our enemy should ignominiously retire from the battlefield and crave for a peace as we wanted it.” In a letter written to fortress-keeper of Raitur on 29 November, the Viceroy says, “Shivaji is begging for peace and he is going to return all that he has carried away from Bardez.111

Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente placed on recoed that the Dutch officers in India were ordered from Holland that they should ally with Adilshah and, since he had informed Shivaji about this, Shivaji did not raise any objection to entering into a treaty of friendship with the Portuguese Besides, the Viceroy complained, Shivaji had allowed the Portuguese to open

a factory at Dabhol.112 The Negotiations for a treaty between Shivaji and the Portuguese began after. 20 November, 1667. On 23 November, the Viceroy informed Shivaji that he too was anxious to make peace. On 24 November, the Viceroy wrote a reply to another letter from Shivaji and said that maintenance of peace between him and the Portuguese was in his (Shivaji’s) hands. On a request from Shivaji, on 24 November, the Viceroy sent Ramoji Shenvi Kothari to Shivaji as his envoy to carry on peace talks. He did so and returned immediately. He carried a letter from Shivaji to the Viceroy, who sent a reply on 27 November. Shivaji was then at Bicholim near Goa,113 and hence such speedy negotiations were possible.

Sakopant went to Goa as Shivaji’s envoy. It was with this envoy that the Viceroy concluded a treaty of friendship on 5 December 1667. When the envoy returned to Raigad, the Viceroy sent a Jesuit Padre, Gonsalo Martence with him. The treaty was endorsed by the Mahratta. Government on 12 December (25 Jamadilakhar). The text of the treaty is both in Marathi and Portuguese. In the Portuguese version it is said that the treaty was endorsed on 5 December 1667. In the Marathi version, the date is mentioned as 6 December. The date in the Marathi version is wrong. The Marathi version says that there is both the emblem and the signature of Shivaji but in both the versions only the emblem of Shivaji is to be seen and not his singature. There is no positive proof of Shivaji being literate in the source materials, whether in Goa, Portugal or Paris. The author has not came across a single letter signed by him in the Goa Archives. Dr. Balkrishna has said that the Portuguese have recorded that

Shivaji could read and write.114 But the two items of evidence given by him to establish Shivaji’s literacy are not conclusive or convincing.115 Signed (assinado) does not mean that the person concerned necessarily wrote in his own hand. Even if only the emblem was impressed, assinado was the word used for that function. Sir Janunath Sarkar says that the Marathi text of the treaty was written by Moro Pingale himself.116 But the many Portuguese words used in it, like Vice-Rei, Novembro, Padre and Dezembro, show that it was Ramoji Shenvi Kothari Who probably wrote it out.

There is no mention whatever about the religious persecution of Hindus in the correspondence between the Mahrattas and the Portuguese concerning shivaji’s invasion of Bardez. The Vice-Rei had given GonsaIo Martence for his guidance a note of instructions (Instruçoes) when he went to Raigad as the Portuguese envoy with the text of the treaty. The note prescribed what matters he should touch on in his conversation with Shivaji. There is no mention in it of the problem of the Bardez Hindus. If Shivaji had any grievance or complaint in this behalf, its echoes should surely have been heard in this note of instructions.

There is only one point which has been continuously emphasised in the correspondence between the Viceroy and Shivaji since the beginning, i.e. from 23 November, viz. Shivaji’s complaint against the Desais of Kudal, Pernem and Bicholim who were living in

Goa. Even in the treaty of 1667, the same subject has been handled. If there is no relation of cause and effect between the notification issued by Conde de San Vicente against the Bardez Hindus and Shivaji’s invasion of Bardez in 1667, why were the two padres and several Christians put to death? This question naturally arises but it is not difficult to answer it satisfactorily. Why the Mahrattas killed the padres is explained in the report of the Franciscan padres themselves which has been mentioned earlier.

There were hundreds of padres ih Bardez at that time. Two of them were done to death because they were found out of doors.117 This action was not premeditated. There is no mention anywhere of Shivaji having ever attacked monasteries or the residences of Catholic priests. Padres often participated in battles as armed soldiers and therefore met with

resistence from the enemy. That they were not non-violent preachers must not be lost sight of.118

The Portuguese have greatly admired R. Joao de Deos for having attacked the Mahrattas as a skilled marksman on the occasion of Sambhaji’s invasion of Goa.119 The Portuguese have also recorded that the Mahrattas considered Portuguese priests excellent soldiers.120 Besides, these padres were the leaders of the local Christians and their guidance was helpful in formulating the political policies of the Portuguese rulers. Not only that, but in those days the Christians believed that Portuguese rule was Christian rule. The Christians were the rulers and Hindus did not have this authority.121 In 1668, when a Hindu was appointed to a Government post in the city of Goa, the Vice-Rei himself came out strongly against this.122 Because he was not a Christian, the Hindu was relieved of the post. It was considered irreligious, that is against the Christian religion, that a Hindu should hold a Government office under the administration of the King of Portugal.123 The Portuguese rulers faithfully stood by the principle that a non-Christian should have no superiority whatsoever over a Christian.124

In 1667, there remained only 3,000 Hindus in Bardez.125 This figure must have been reduced still further after the notification of Hindu expulsion issued by the Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente. In a Portuguese document of 1722 it was said that a Hindu was then scarcely seen in Bardez.126 In this way the total Christianisation of Bardez had been almost accomplished in the times of Shivaji. In the chronicle of Sabhasad, Goa has been appropriately described as Firangana.127 It is no exaggeration to say that in those days Goa had become a prototype of Portugal. The Goan Catholics had not only adopted the religion of the rulers but also their language, customs and manners, mode of dress, names etc. Shivaji’s troops were in Bardez for three days. On 22 November, they left. Shivaji himself must have been there at that time. The Mahrattas captured many prisoners. Rich and highly placed people had already taken refuge in the Reis Magos or Aguada forts or the island of Goa.

CONTENTSThose who were taken were mostly Christians. The Dutch of Vengurla recorded that among the captured were women and children.128 A reference to the capture of women and children is also found in the treaty of friendship concluded after this invasion.129

After establishing that the invasion of Bardez had nothing to do with the expulsion notification issued by Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente, it is proper to examine the basis on which the contrary view has gained ground.130 The basis of the belief is a letter from an Englishman in Goa dated 30 November, 1667.131

It would appear that this letter is based on mere street gossip. Its contents are not supported either by any document in the Goa Archives nor any contemporary document. The Dutch officer in charge at Vengurla, Lenartz, wrote in a letter dated 28 November, 1667 that the object of Shivaji’s invasion of Bardez was exactly as the Franciscan padres have recorded.132 Even the English Factor of Surat, in a letter dated 22 January 1667, stated that Shivaji invaded Bardez on account of the Desais living in Goa.133 It must be taken into account that the view of the Dutch of Vengurla is very significant because they were in league with Shivaji in this affair.134

The Vice-Rei had protested to the Dutch of Vengurla in this matter in a letter dated 1 December 1667. Conde de San Vincente wrote that Shivaji had expressed regret to him for having accepted ammunition from the Dutch and yielding to their pressure and invading Bardez,135 (e desculpar-se o dito Sivagi comigo de que para isso fora induizido por V. S.). Although the Dutch contradicted the charge made in a letter of protest regarding the invasion of Bardez, the charge was, neverthless, not baseless.136 The French traveller, Carre, was in Goa in 1668 and 1672 who said that Shivaji invaded Bardez because he was badly treated by the Portuguese.137 It is noteworthy that Carre has not mentioned religious persecution of the Hindus as the cause of Shivaji’s invasion of Bardez.

The present author does not consider it credible that Shivaji put four padres to death in Bardez for having refused to be converted to Hinduism as stated in the Englishman’s letter dated 30 November 1667. For there is no record to prove that in those days any European Christian was converted to Hinduism. There are several examples in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of some converted Christians having been accepted back into Hinduism by a process of penance and purification, but they were originally Hindus.138 The case of Europeans is entirely different. So it seems that the account in this letter was the product of the imagination of someone unacquainted with the traditions, customs and

manners of the Hindus.

It is clear from the contemporary writings of Diagode Couto,139 Fr. Paulo de Trinidade,140 Padre Francisco de Souza141 and others that a European Christian was on the same footing as a Hindu untouchable in the Hindu society of Shivaji’s times. It was impossible to convert a European Christian to Hinduism in the seventeenth century. In a Portuguese epistle of 1690 it is stated that the lowest among the low caste Hindus would not be prepared to eat what the Vice-Rei ate sitting with him.142 It is well-known that when a Hindu was to be converted to Christianity, the first step in that direction was to compel him to eat beef.143

The Franciscan padres have placed on record that the Mahrattas inflicted 18 wounds on one of the two padres killed at Colvale. Was not even one stroke of a sword enough to send him to the other world? But since he received so many wounds the natural inference is that there must have been a scuffle between the Mahratta soldiers and this padre and somebody might have sarcastically suggested to the Padre that he should become a Hindu. However, the most important point is that if the Padre had died for his religion, the Fanciscan

fathers would surely have noted him as a great martyr. Beyond all this, shivaji’s policy of toleration of all religions is so well known.144

The women who were captured during the invasion of Bardez were restored to the Vice-Rei of Goa after the treaty of friendship was concluded. As a matter of fact, women and children from enemy territory always received protection in times of war from Shivaji’s soldiers.145 Shivaji’s strict instruction to his army was, as stated by Sabhasad in his chronicle,146 that ‘in foreign territory no woman or child should be molested’.147 The Portuguese biographer of Shivaji, Cosme da Guarda, also testifies to this.148 There is no mention in the Portuguese records of the women captured during the Bardez invasion having been hurt or molested. On the contrary, the Portuguese Vice-Rei, Conde de San Vincente, informed the King of Portugal that Shivaji duly returned all the plunder and women and children that his trops had seized.149

The Mahrattas carried the Christian women with them as captives because of the peculiar situation in Firangana. It may be that they were held as hostages for extorting money from their relatives. The Dutch records mention quite a different reason for this action,150 but it is not supported by Portuguese records. Thevenot, a French traveller, has recorded that

Shivaji’s behaviour was similar in respect of the daughter of Shaista Khan. Even if Thevenot’s information was inaccurate, it shows that Shivaji was held in esteem for his noble behaviour.151

The present author brought to light for the first time in 1927 the treaty concluded between Shivaji and the Portuguese in 1667.152 A fascimile was also published by him.153 In this treaty, consideration is first given to the Desais—Lakham Savant and Narba Savant of

Kudal, Keshav Naik of Pernem and Mal Shenvi of Bicholim. Shivaji having complained against Lakham Savant and Keshav Naik, the Vice-Rei expelled them from Goa in June 1668. Shivaji showed them mercy.154 Lenartz, the Dutch Factor of Vengurla, wrote in his letter dated 28 November, 1667 that, after attacking Bardez, Shivaji went to Bicholim and negotiated a treaty with the Portuguese.155 In the original Portuguese text of the treaty, it is clearly stated that Shivaji personally took part in the invasion of Bardez.156 Even in the Marathi text it is said that Shivaji went to Bardez with his troops because the Desais were there.157 The Portuguese Vice-Rei says that Shivaji himself told the Vice-Rei that the Dutch Factor at Vengurla instigated him to invade Bardez.158 Padre Gonsalo Martence went to Raigad with the text of the treaty on behalf of the Portuguese when Shivaji gave them permission to open a factory at Dabhol.159 In accordance with the treaty, the Vice-Rei informed Shivaji that a fettor had been

appointed at the Dabhol factory of the Portuguese in July, 1668.160

The Vice-Rei received news that a day or two before 20 March 1668 Shivaji was mobilising his troops with a view to leading an invasion on Goa.161 Accordingly the Portuguese made defensive preparations but this invasion did not come off. On 6 November, 1668, Conde de San Vincente died. A few days after his death, Shivaji had planned to invade

Salçette and Bardez but, according to the acting Governor of Goa in his letter dated 7 January, 1669, as the Portuguese preparations were formidable, Shivaji did not pick a quarrel with them.162 Gifford and Chamberlain said in a letter from Karwar dated 26 December, 1668 that Shivaji had surreptitiously sent 400 to 500 of his people, on one pretext or another, in small batches into Goa territory. Gradually this number was to be doubled and one night they would have taken possession of a pass to enter Goa island and capture it before giving any opportunity to the Portuguese troops to deploy. But Shivaji found on coming to Vengurla that his plan had been divulged, his men had been arrested, and the Portuguese were ready to meet him. He therefore changed his plans.163 In a letter dated 12 November, 1668, the English gave the news that Conde de San Vincente got information about Shivaji’s plans a few days

before his death and therefore made inquiries with Shivaji’s envoy to Goa, and that, in fact the Vice-Rei slapped the envoy in the face two or three times and turned him and his people who had come to the city with him away.164 The Portuguese records nowhere say anything of this kind. Far from it, and on the contrary, the acting Portuguese Governor says in his letter dated 7 January, 1669 that Shivaji had informed him that he had intended in November 1668 to invade Salçette and Bardez after the 1667 invasion, but it was no longer his objective. This he did by sending an envoy to the Portuguese.165

Shivaji carried out repairs on the temple of Saptakotishwara at Narve in Bhatagram in November 1668. An inscription in stone to that effect still stands at the entrance of the temple. This temple was originally in Diwadi island. Minguel Vaz, a Portuguese priest, demolished it in 1540 along with other temples.166 It was erected again beyond Diwadi before 1558.167 The

Sanskrit pothi called Shri Shivarajyabhisheka Kalpataru by Nischalapuri mentions the rebuilding of the temple of Saptakotishwara by Shivaji.168 Some information about this is available in the Nischayapatra given to an astrologer of Narve by Suryarao Desai of Bhatagram. It is commonly said that when Shivaji went to Narve to pay his respects to Saptakotishwara, he got the inspiration for putting the temple into proper condition. The city of Goa can be seen from Narve. What thoughts might have surged up in his mind when he saw this city of the Portuguese?

Shivaji’s coronation in 1674 was considered a great event all over Maharashtra.169 The English envoy, Oxendon, the interpreter of the English, Narayan Shenvi, and the Dutch merchant of Vengurla, Abrahamle Feher, have left descriptions of this event. But what is very surprising is that there is no Portuguese record, not even a few lines, of this event. Very

probably documents regarding this must have disappeared or must have been destroyed. For this reason, no correspondence between Shivaji and the Portuguese between 1669 to November 1677 is traceable in the Goa Archives Livros dos reis vizinhos, Nos. 2 and 3.

The year after the coronation, i.e. 1675, on 18 April, Shivaji laid siege to the fort of Ponda. The fort commander was one Mohamed Khan. When this fort was besieged in 1666, the Portuguese had helped its inmates to hold out. To ensure that this would not be repeated, Shivaji had taken a pledge from the Portuguese to remain neutral. Even the Portuguese envoy at the fortress was maintained secretly and, for that purpose, some men and grain supplies were clandestinely sent to Ponda. But the Mahrattas waylaid and arrested them.170 About 2,000 horsemen and 7,000 infantry of Shivaji were engaged in this siege.171

While this siege was in progress, Shivaji’s men attacked the village of Chandar on 29 April, 1675 and plundered two or three houses and killed a servant of the Catholic Church (meirinho da igreja). These people happened to be there in pursuit of some Desais. On the same day, about two hundred of Shivaji’s horsemen led an assault on Cuncolim in Salçette and plundered many of the people in flight. They got away with Church ornaments also.

These horsemen were led by a Bijapur Sardar, Ranamast Khan.172 When the Vice-Rei learnt about this aggression by the Mahrattas he ordered that Shivaji’s envoy be placed under arrest.173

About 16 May, the fortress of Ponda fell to Shivaji.174 As a consequence of this, Antruj, Ashtaghar, Hemadbarse, Bali, Chandravadi and Kakode, corresponding to present-day Ponda, Sanguem, Quepem and Canacona, came under his administration. In the same month, Shivaji captured Shiveshwar and Ankola forts and Karwar.175 Shivaji’s writ now ran in all of the Bijapur Konkan. Cosme de Guarda writes, “In this way Shivaji captured all the Bijapur territory below the ghat till the Mirjan river.” Ponda fort was repaired and, at its

entrance, the idol of Ganapati was planted.176 The last of Bijapur’s fortress-keepers was Mahomed Khan. Shivaji appointed Trimbak Pandit in his place.177

The ancestors of the Rajput house of Dharampur used to impose and recover chauthai from the people of Daman territory. On this account, the Portuguese called the prince of Dharampur Chauthiya Raja. The Italian traveller Manucei has also called him by the same name. The oldest reference to this in the Portuguese records is found in a manuscript, Cronic Dos Cucecuse Doreino de Gujarata. This was written in 1535 and is deposited in the Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa.178 Detailed information about chauthai is found in a manuscript Tombo ce Damao prepared in 1592 and now in the Goa Archives.179

It is mentioned in the travelogue of Padre Manoel Godinho written in 1663 that the chauth tax (pensao) was being paid from the days prior to the occupation of Daman by the Portuguese to Chauthiya Raja.180 Godinho also says that the prince maintains a cavalry of 600. Useful information about this tax is also found in Garcia de Orta’s Coloquios, published

in 1563 in Goa.181 Decada Ⅶ by Diago do Couto182 and Decada ⅩⅢ and Livro das Fortalezas da India, a historical work by Antonio Bocarro.183 Unpublished information on this topic has been given elsewhere by the present author.184

Chauthai means a fourth part of the revenue. After the Sultans of Gujarat had conquered Daman, the people of Daman used to pay 25 per cent of the revenue from the villages to the Rajput princes (known as Sarset) in order that they should not molest them. After Daman passed to the Portuguese the Rajput princes continued to recover it from the people as they had done before. This led to brawls and skirmishes between the Portuguese and the forces of the Chauthiya Raja. Fernao de Miranda, Captain of Daman, to avoid all trouble, made an agreement with the Sarset prince, that ‘chauthai’ should not exceed 17 per cent of the total revenue and that the tax should be made over in cash to representatives of the Raja at Daman.185

In 1670, in keeping with the agreement made with the Sarset prince, the ratio of chauthai in Mahim pargana was 12·50 per cent and in Tarapur pargana 14 per cent.186 The condition was laid down that, in exchange for this cess, the prince of Sarset should protect the people of these two parganas from the depradations of thieves and robbers.187 The prince of Sarset was the Raja of Ramnagar. As mentioned earlier, it was customary to call him Cauthiya Raja.188

The Koli Raja of Jawhar rebelled against the Chauthiya Raja in 1670 and demanded of the Portuguese that the chauthai be paid to him. The Portuguese did not do so. He therefore plundered and burnt several villages from Dahanu to Kalve Mahim. The Chauthiya Raja could

nowhere obstruct his progress. The Portuguese therefore came down and agreed to pay chauthai to the Raja of Jawhar. Later, the Portuguese picked a quarrel with the Koli Raja with the help of the Raja of Ramnagar and burnt down a number of his villages. However, the Portuguese were unable to subdue the Koli Raja and they, therefore, through Manoel Furtado de Mendonça who was appointed Captain of Daman in December 1671, secretly requested Shivaji to punish him. Accordingly Moropant Pingle, the Peshwa of Shivaji, allacked Jawhar and put the Koli Raja to rout.189 Still, the Raja of Ramnagar did not surrender to Shivaji and

continued his resistance. After having taken most of the territory of Ramnagar, Shivaji demanded, the chauthai of Daman from the Portuguese but on the excuse that the whole of the Ramnagar raj had not been conquered, the Portuguese kept with them as deposit the chauthai from 1671 to 1677 and did not pay it either to Ramnagar or to Shivaji.190 Even so, the Portuguese have recorded, Shivaji did not molest Daman in any way.

In January 1677, Shivaji completed the conquest of Ramnagar and threatened the borders of Daman by posting troops to prevent any depradations by thieves or robbers. He then demanded chauthai from the Portuguese. The Daman Municipality resolved that the demand was just and fair and the Vice-Rei of Goa was informed accordingly.191 On 10

January, 1678, the Vice-Rei informed Shivaji by a letter that the chauthai would be paid after the Captains of Daman and Bassein had informed him about the capture of the Chauthaiya Raja’s whole territory.192

In a letter written to the General of Bassein, the Vice-Rei ordered that the chauthai should be recovered and an agreement should be made with Shivaji on the lines of the one with the Chauthiya Raja. But the Vice-Rei instructed the sum to be paid to Shivaji should be calculated only from the date on which his conquest of Ramnagar was completed; the arrears were not to be paid.193 For a long time, the correspondence regarding chauthai was continued between Shivaji and the Vice-roy. Shivaji’s envoys, Pitambar Shenvi, Jiwaji Shenvi and Ganesh Sheth, went to Goa and held talks with the Portuguese Viceroy.194 The French

traveller Carre has in his book given an account of the mission Shivaji sent to the Portuguese in 1672.195

At the beginning of May 1677, Shivaji had sent his representative, Abaji Pant, to meet Don Manuel Lobo de Silveira and negotiate the question of chauthai.196 The Portuguese agreed to pay the chauthai for Daman according to past usage but on, one pretext or another, they did no pay the dues to the last.197 On the contrary, they paid, in several instalments, more than Rs. 13,000 secretly to the Prince of Ramnagar so that the Chauthiya Raja might continue his resistance to Shivaji.198 A manuscript in the Biblioteca da Ajuda puts down the revenue of chauthai from Daman per year as 12,975 asurpees. Substracting 3,898 asurpees as the wages of the vatandars, the chauthiya Raja retained 9,077 asurpees,

according to a record dated 4 June, 1683.199 From this, how much the Portuguese owed Shivaji on account of chauthai from Daman can be estimated.200 The same manuscript has recorded that, by the end of 1681, the deposits with the Portuguese on account of chauthai were of the order of 11,728 asurpees. So, till the end of the year, the Mahrattas did not get their chauthai dues.

Mention is made of a tax called gavkhandi having been paid to Shivaji by the Portuguese from Tarapur and Sayban parganas of Bassein province in 1677.201 The Portuguese paid this tax also to the Chauthiya Raja. Two letters from the Mahrattas to Portuguese officers written on 16 August 1677 mention this demand. One of them is from Bayjipant.202 Chauthai and gavkhandi were different imposts.

In August 1678, the General of Bassein learnt that Shivaji had collected a large army near Kalyan and Bhivandi with a view to attacking Salçette.203 In 1679, the relations between the Portuguese and Shivaji deteriorated considerably.204 The Governor of Goa kept 5,000 infrantry ready near Cuncolim Surmising that Shivaji would invade Salçette in Goa. Antonio de Pais de Sande was then the Governor. He was aware of Shivaji’s prowess and valour. He used to say that Shivaji was the Attila of India.205

The Portuguese planned to lead an attack on Ponda before the Mahrattas invaded Goa. The Mahrattas, under the leadership of Mahadaji Anant, were ready for a fight. Just then came the news of Shivaji’s passing away and the Mahratta troops that had gathered on the Goa border hastily withdrew and this conflict was averted.206 The Portuguese Governor

Sande has said that Shivaji died on 13 April 1680.207 This date is in accordance with the new system and is ten days earlier than the English date. In a contemporary work in Portuguese in the Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa, it is recorded that Shivaji died of an ulcer (anthrax).208

There is no mention of the age at which Shivaji died in Portuguese sources. The only mention of his age is the one made by Cosme de Guarda.209 He says that in 1660 Shivaji was 29 years old (Sendo pois este ano de 1660 … se achava com 29 de idade). Jedhe Shakavali, Shivabharat and some other sources indicate that Shivaji was born in 1630. Guarda’s

statement approximates to this indication. The figure 29 is not current in popular talk and so Guarda must have taken the trouble to find it out and record it.

Shivaji vigilantly watched the Portuguese in his declining years.210 The English, in a letter written from Rajapur to Bombay on 31 May 1675, mentioned that Shivaji had become the ruler of Karwar and that people expected him now to turn his attention to Goa. But there was no wisdom in fighting the Moghuls and the Portuguese simultaneously and for this reason Shivaji avoided a conflict with the Portuguese.211 The Vengurla Dutch have recorded that

Shivaji hated the Portuguese.212 He always claimed Salçette and Bardez as his.213 The Portuguese also were afraid of him and considered him an enemy.214 The fact of the matter is that he did not have the time to expel the Portuguese from Konkan or, may be, he did not realise the urgency of it.

The Portuguese experienced a feeling of relief at Shivaji’s death. The then Governor of Goa bas recorded : “This state is now free from anxiety. He was far more dangerous in peace than in war.”215 The Jesuit father Lainez says in his Latin book Defensio Indicaram Missionum, published in Rome in 1707, that, “The whole of India was in terror of Shivaji”.216

The same feeling has found expression in the Shiva Bavani of poet Bhushan in his Hindi composition :

Oh Shivaji, the good son of Shahaji,

In terror of you the foreign residents (yavanas)

Of Bhelsa, Ujjain and Malva had to run away

As far as Shiraz, the Capital of Iran.

The residents of Gondvan, Telangan, Rohilkhand,

Karnatak and Firangana quake with fear.

Great Captains have lost courage and the doors of Bijapur Golconda, Agra and Delhi forts open only once a fortnight and not daily.217

NOTES

• 1. A hon is equal to Rs. 4.
• 2. Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, Ⅰ, p. 52; J. Sarkar, House of Shivaji 3rd ed., p. 39.
• 3. Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅱ, pp. 113-5.
• 4. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, Shivaji, p. 3n.
• 5. Ibid.
• 6. Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅲ, pp. 295, 296, 347, 348, 357, 366, 371, 372, 374, 375, 561, 562, 579, 583, 595, 631, and 633; Goa Archives : D. Francisco Luiz Lobo’s petition dated 18 February 1658. Baltazar Mascarenhas, a Brahman Christian of Sirula (Shiroda) from Bardez was the first to inform the Goa Government about this conspiracy. About Mateos de Castro, see Don Theodore Ghesquiere’s Mathieu de Castro (Louvain, 1937) and P. Carlo Cavallera, Matteo de Castro Mahalo, Primo Vicario Apostolico dell’ India, Roma, 1936. There is information about this Bishop’s intrigues with the Dutch against the Portuguese in Corpus Diplomaticum Neerlando Indicam, Vol. I (1596-1650). The letter of Bishop Mateos addressed to Brahman Christians of Goa in regard to this revolt is in the records of the Jesuits in Rome (Goa 40, fls. 373r-383v). The author has a photostat copy of this letter.
• 7. Letter of Shahaji Raje (Shivaji Souvenir, p. 115). There is mention of Suryarao, an ancestor of some Desais of Bhatagram, having gone to see Shahaji (G. S. Sardesai’s historical letters etc. p. 15). A letter written by the Portuguese Governor, Fernao de Albuquerque, to Suryarao, Desai of Bicholim, is available (Goa Archives, RV No. 1, fls. 58v). From the Kaulnama dated 27 November 1668, it would appear that the Desais of Bhatagram had contact with Shahaji (S. N. Joshi, Collection of letters of Shivaji’s times, Part Ⅲ, p. 106).
• 8. Goa Archives, MR 26, fl. 78.
• 9. Goa Archives, MR 26, fl. 383v.
• 10. C. R. Boxer, The Carreira da India, 1650-1750, reprinted from The Mariner’s Mirror Vol. 46, No. 1, February 1960, p. 53. The Portuguese called the ships built by Shivaji sanguiceis because such ships were built on the Sangameshwar river. These ships usually carried 20 armed men. (Diogo do Couto, Decada Ⅹ, Parte Ⅰ, p. 521). About 1590, a sardar named Maloji rose in revolt against Adilkhan and set up his fleet in Sangameshwar river. The Portuguese destroyed this fleet (Goa Archives, MR 3A, fl. 407v).
• 11. “Trezentos soldados brancos e pretos” (300 Portuguese soldiers, white and black). AHV. India, avulsos (Caixa 25).
• 12. Pissurlencar, “Attitude of the Portuguese towards Shivaji during the campaign of Shaista Khan and Jaisingh” in Proceedings of the Indian Historical Records Commission, Ninth Meeting, December 1926.
• 13. BNL “Livro das Cartas que esrevo a S.M. o. Sr. Don Rodrigo da Costa” fl. 25 (manuscript No. 8538). 14) AHU. India avulsos (Caixa No. 25); Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 6, 7.
• 15. Pissurlencar, Maratas em Baçaim, pp. 2, 3.
• 16. Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅳ, p. 141.
• 17. Letter to the King of Portugal from Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente, dated 20 September, 1667 (BNP, Fond Portugais, Ms. 33, fl. 129); Assentos Ⅳ, p. 189n.
• 18. “Galleywats or gallivats, were large rowing-boats with two masts, of 40 to 70 tons, and carrying four to eight guns (Biddulph, The Pirates of Malabar, 1907, p. 92n.).
• 19. Cosme de Guarda, Vida de Celebro Sivagy, 1730, p. 139.
• 20. Goa Archives, RV Nos. 2 and 3 Dr. S. N. Sen, Preliminary Report on Historical Records of Goa. 21) Guarda, Sevagy, p. 139-41.
• 22. Goa Archives. Livro de consultas, No. 5 : Serviços de D. Fernando de Castro : “… no reconhecer de uma armada do Sevagi que andava entre os Ⅰlheos de Mormugao, que foi trazida a Goa, com os parangues que tinha tomado…”
• 23. Goa Archives, RV, No. 2, fls. 36v-37.
• 24. Goa Archives, Papeis avulsos.
• 25. Sen, Military system of the Marathas, 1928, p. 183.
• 26. Goa Archives : “O Sivagi se emsobrebeçeo de maneira pello successo possado que se atreveo a mandar por uma armada nos Ⅰlheos de Mormugao a impedir os mantimentos que vinhao para esta cidade.”.
• 27. Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 347. 348.
• 28. Goa Archives. RV, No. 2, fl. 27.
• 29. Pissurlencar, Maratas em Baçaim, p. 9n.
• 30. Collection of Letters in Shivaji’s Times Part Ⅱ, p. 385.
• 31. For instance, Dr. S. N. Sen, Military System of the Marathas, p. 186; Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Sivaji, 1952, p. 263.
• 32. Goa Archives : “e na palleja que e nossa Armada teve com a do inimigo Sevagi em que lhe tomarao tres barcos de guerra da Enseada de Quellocy e … na peleja que ouve com dezoito barcos do mesmo Sevagi na tomada de duas galleotas appataxadas …” Livro de consultas, No. 2 fl. 97. (Requerimento dos serviços de Don Aleixo de Almeida fidalgo da Caza de V. Magestade).
• 33. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Shivaji, 1952, p. 252.
• 34. Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 5, 6.
• 35. Biker, Tratados Ⅳ, pp. 136-8.
• 36. Goa Archives. Livro de Chaul, No. 1, fl. 35v.
• 37. Biker, Tratados IV, pp. 171-5; “Pissurlencar, Shivaji and the Portuguese” in Shivaji Souvenir, pp. 123-33. 38) Pissurlencar. Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 214-16.
• 39. Ibid. pp. 225, 226.
• 40. Albuquerque’s letter dated 30 November 1513. Cartas de Afonso de Albuquerque, tomo Ⅰ. p. 136. 41) Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅳ, p. 555.
• 42. Ibid, p. 556. CONTENTS43) Ibid, p. 346-7.
• 44. Pissurlencar, Tentativas dos Portugueses para a ocupaçao do concao; The attitude of the Portuguese towards Shivaji. 45) Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 17; Pissurlencar PM, 1 p. 7n.
• 46. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 14v.
• 47. Goa Archives. RV No. 2, fl. 16v. : “por ser tao inclinado as cousas de V. S.” (Vice-Rei’s letter to Shivaji dated 2 June 1663, Pissurlencar, PM, 1 p. 8.
• 48. Collect ion of letters etc. of Shivaji’s times, Part I, No. 41, p. 231.
• 49. A Portuguese Jesuit padre, Fernao de Ceiros lived in Goa for many years. He wrote a book in 1680 called, Conquista Temporal e Spiritual de Ceylao in which he says : “That the Natives call that tract of land below the Gate, Concao, and the inhabitants Concannis … But the most usual thing among these people, is to reckon Concao from Banda, which is five leagues to the north of the bar of Goa, up to Mirzeo.” (English translation).
• 50. Dagh Registar. Letter dated 14 November 1663; Dr. Balkrishna. Shivaji, Ⅰ, p. 538.
• 51. Assentos, Ⅳ, p. 188.
• 52. Collection of letters etc. of Shivaji’s times, Part Ⅰ No. 1221, p. 791.
• 53. Pissurlencar, Os Primeiros Goeses em Portugal, in Boletim, Instituto Vasco da Gama, No. 31 (1936); Leonarde Nunes, Cronica de Dom Joao de Castro, pp. 13-17, 36, 139. 163; Antonio de Castilho, Commentario de cerco de Goa e Chaul no ano de 1750; Padre Francisco de Souza, Oriente Conquistado a Jesu Christo, Ⅱ, Conw. Ⅰ, div. Ⅱ, p. 26.
• 54. Pissurlencar, Assentos, Ⅲ, pp. 371-376, 579; Vol. Ⅳ, pp. 3, 13; William Foster EFI 1655-1660, p. 247 (Revington’s letter dated 10 December 1659).
• 55. Collection of letters etc. of Shivaji’s times, Part Ⅰ, No. 959.
• 56. Assentos, Ⅳ, p. 137.
• 57. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 16v : “por ser tao inclinado as cousas de V. S.” Vice-Rei’s letter to Keshav Naik and Keshav Prabhu dated 19 June 1663.
• 58. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fls. 21-21 v.
• 59. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 21 v.
• 60. Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, pp. 108-16.
• 61. BACL, Manuscript No. 58, p. 75; Sivagi entrou e roubou Surrate e no mez passado Bicholim e toda fronteira ate Raibag e Xapur (Letter dated 4 January, 1665).
• 62. Lakham Savant used to stay at Candolim near Aguada, the Desais of Pernem at Colvale and those of Sanquelim and Bicholim at Panvel.
• 63. Goa Archives, MR No. 31, fl. 20; Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, p. 113.
• 64. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 33; Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, p. 114.
• 65. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 32 (Viceroy’s letter to the envoy of Adilshah dated 13 December, 1664), fl. 33 (Viceroy’s letter to Khavas Khan dated 13 December, 1664). Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, p. 115.
• 66. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 31; Pissurlencar PM, Ⅰ, p. 12.
• 67. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 31 v.
• 68. Goa Archives, MR No. 31, fl. 244.
• 69. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 32.
• 70. Goa Archives, RV No. 2, fl. 31 (Viceroy’s letter to Krishna Savant dated 11 November 1664); Pissurlencar Antigualhas, p. 114.
• 71. Goa Archives, No. 31, fl. 20; Pissurlencar, Antigualhs, p. 113.
• 72. Chronicle of Shivaji by Chitragupta edited by Sane), p. 113. G.D. Gribble, A History of the Deccan, Vol. Ⅰ. 73) Goa Archives, MR No. 30, fl. 143; Pissurlencar PM, Ⅰ, p. 9.
• 74. Goa Archives : MR No. 30, fl. 159; Pissurlencar, Maratas em Baçaim, p. 4, 5.
• 75. Pissurlencar, Maratas em Baçam, pp. 5-8; The Attitude of the Portuguese towards Shivaji.
• 76. Pissurlencar, The Attitude of the Portuguese; Cosme de Guarda, Vida do Celebre Sevagy, pp. 143-144. 77) Biker, Tratados, Ⅳ, pp. 125-6.
• 78. The following clause occurs in the Moghul-Portuguese treaty; “The Portuguese should not give shelter to anyone who might rebel against the Moghul Emperor. If anyone did, it should be regarded as if he had risen in revolt against the King of Portugal.
• 79. Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 171-2.
• 80. Ibid, pp. 151-3.
• 81. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fls. 46v-47 (Viceroy’s letter to Adilshah dated 9 October, 1666); RV No. 2, fls. 44-44v (Viceroy’s letter to Rustomjama dated 5 May 1666).
• 82. Goa Archives : Livro de Chaul, No. 1, fl. 12v
• 83. Sarkar, House of Shivaji, 1955, pp. 167-170; Shivaji’s Visit to Aurangzeb at Agra, pp. 40, 41, 59. The well-known historical scholar, G. H. Khare, secured a Hindi letter (dated 16 August 1666-newstyle) and published it in July 1964. The earliest known mention of Shivaji’s escape is in this letter. In the light of this, Sarkar’s statement has to be modified. (Quarterly Journal of Bharat Itihas Samshodhak Mandal, Vol. 40, Nos. 1-4).
• 84. Rajasthani letter No. 56, from Parkaldas to Kalyandas dated 18 November 1666 (Sarkar, Shivaji’s visit to Aurangzeb at Agra, p. 58).
• 85. Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 170-4; Sarkar, Shivaji, 1952, pp. 154-5, 157-9, 402.
• 86. S. R. Sharma, Maratha History Re-Examined, p. 158.
• 87. BNP, Fond Portugais, 33, fl. 129. “as astucias, o valor, a actividade, e a prudencia militar deste homem se pode igoalar com a dos Cesares e Alexandres … he homem que esta em toda a parte e nao tem lugar certo em nenhuma.”
• 88. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 48.
• 89. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 48 v.
• 90. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 49.
• 91. Vice-Rei’s letter to the King of Portugal dated 20 September 1667; “e (Shivaji) fica hoje muito nosso vizinho em ponda”. (BNP, Fond Portugais 33, fl. 129).
• 92. Goa Archives CO No. 4 fl. 63 v (Vice-Rei’s letter to Reitor of Colvale dated 12 October 1667; RV No. 2, fl. 69 (Vice-Rei’s letter to Keshav Naik, Desai of Pernem, dated 27 September, 1667).
• 93. What Sarkar has written while commenting on the sentence ‘com e favour do Vice Rey’s is baseless. Those words refer to the frantic efforts made by the Viceroy to turn Bardez Hindus into Christians. Sir Janunath has written : The words, ‘favour of the Viceroy’ do not mean force but only the prohibition of the sale of Hindus as slaves to other than the Christian fathers who converted them” (Shivaji, 1952, p. 355). That Sir Janunath’s conclusion is incorrect is clear in the light of the extract from Vergel de Plantas e lores da Provincia da Madrerde Deos dos Compuchos Reformados.
• 94. Fr. Jacinto de Deos, Vergel, p. 20.
• 95. Goa Archives : MR No. 42, fl. 177.
• 96. BNL, Livro das Cartas que escreveo a SM. o Sr. Don Rodrigo da Costa.
• 97. J. Sarkar, A short history of Aurangzeb (Chapter Ⅷ).
• 98. Fernao da Miranda Henriques, Captain of Cheul, wrote in his letter dated 27 December, 1664 that Afzul Khan had ordered all Hindu temples in Upper Cheul to be demolished (Goa Archives : MR 24, fl. 366) Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji the Great, Part Ⅳ p. 172 (Muslim persecution of the Hindus).
• 99. Pissurlencar, Roteiro, pp. 62-95; Assentos, 5 vols; Tombo Geral de Francisco Paes; C. Rivara, Archivo; Padre A. Silva Rego, Documentaçao : J. Wicki. Documenta Indica; Padre Sebastiao Gonçalves, Historia da Companhia de Jesus, etc.
• 100. Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, pp. 128-30; Assentos Ⅲ, pp. 475, 476; A Bocarro Fortalezas da India (1635) : “Conde de Linhares … Mandou lançar bandos que nenhum genito morasse nem tivesse fazendas nas ditas terras de Salcette, antes que se nao quizeçe fazer Christao, se foçe dellas dentro em tantos dias como em effeito se cumprio e se forao muitos.” The purport of this is that Hindus who did not wish to embrace Christianity should leave Salcette within a specified period. Accordingly, many people bid adieu to Salcette and the land they owned for all time. In the Bibliotheque Nacionale de Paris, there is a certificate given to Conde de Linhares for this good deed by the Jesuit fathers. It is included in the manuscript by Barreto de Resende called Epilogo dos Vice-Reis. (BNP, Fond Portugais 1, fl. 68).
• 101. Pe. A de Silva Rego, Documentaçao, Vol. 8, p. 59; Pe Joseph Wicki, Documenta, Vol. Ⅳ, pp. 650, 825; Pissurlencar, Bharatamitra, January 1939.
• 102. Pe A. de Silva Rego, Portuguese Colonizacao in the Sixteenth Century, 1959, p. 64. In Shivaji’s times, most Hindus in the territory under the Portuguese had been converted to Christianity, though some Hindus still remained. For them, the old laws were in vogue. One of the most irksome of these laws was about orphans below fourteen. Even if the mother was alive such children were forcibly converted. So what Sir Janunath says must be dismissed as a half-truth (Shivaji, p. 354).
• 103. Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, p. 123.
• 104. Ibid.
• 105. The English in Surat recorded that, entering Bardez, Shivaji resorted to arson and carried away 1,300 captives. (Letters etc. of Shivaji’s Times, Part Ⅰ, p. 333) Lenartz, the Dutch factor of Vengurla, said, in his letter dated 28 November, 1667, that Shivaji carried away 1,600 captives (Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji Ⅰ, p. 573).
• 106. Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji the Great, Vol. p. 575; After this Shivaji … made all his sodiers (5,000 foot soldiers and 1,000 horsemen) bake dry wheat cakes for three days in this place and departed…… and came on the 20th next (being Sunday when everybody was attending mass) to surprise Bardees… He carried away 1,600 natives, mostly women and young girls. Besides he had several Christians put to death, among whom there were three priests.”
• 107. BNL. Livro das cartas que escreveo a S. M. o Senhor Don Rodrigo da Costa, fl. 24 v (manuscript No. 8538). 108) Memorias para a historia eclesiastica de Goa e Missoes da Asia (BNL, Manuscript No. 177). 109) Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, pp. 121-2.
• 110. Goa Archives : Livro das merces, 1638. fl. 62.
• 111. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 66.
• 112. BNP, Fond Portugais, 33, fl. 129 v. The date of the original letter is 20 September 1667. After this date at the end of the letter is the detailed report reproduced below. Obviously the information contained therein was written after the conclusion of the treaty of 5 December 1667. Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente says : Depois de ter dado a V. Magde, conta do Estado da Asia, chegou Correo de Glanda, para os ministros da Companhia, e como eu tenho entre elles pessoa de confiança, sobre o seguinte : Mandao ao seu geral que se venha a Cochim com a armada e (porque elles tem muitos navios) sera o numero delles a medida da sua necessidade, que sem romper com os Portugueses de todo, que facao as ostillidades possiveis em os navios que passarem ao sul… que va pessoa a Idalxa sobre romper com os Portugueses, e que se arive a guerra do Canara, e de todas as outras partes com segredo, porem que descobertamente se nao façao ostillidades aos nosses barcos… Com este avizo despachey a procupar Sivagi que nao duvidou, em se agustar comigo, entre ao Capitul açcoes tivemos muitas duvidas, porque este homem; he assas cavilose; concluimos bem, e me da feitoria em Dabul (cauza utilissima ao Estado) que ja tivemos e perdemos como o mais. O Idalxa esta muito com os olandezes, inda nao tive reposta sua…”.
• 113. Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji the Great, Vol. Ⅰ, p. 574.
• 114. Ibid, p. 13.
• 115. Ibid. Also Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, pp. 32-4; Antigualhs, p. 91 (“… O que esta assinado com os sellos de Sambhaji Raze e do Principe Sultao Acabar …”).
• 116. Shivacharitrapradeepa (Shivaji and Portuguese).
• 117. A Dutch letter mentions the number of padres as three.
• 118. Padre Silva Rego, Documentaçao, Vol. Ⅴ. p. 444; Pissurlencar, Assentos, Ⅲ, p. 349. What great part the Franciscan padres played on the occasion of Sambhaji’s invasion of Goa in 1684 is found in a letter they sent to the king of Portugal (MR, 52, fl. 120) :

(Os religiosos da sua Ordem) assistiram com particular zelo e trabalho enquanto a guerra durou, obrando com grande valor, guarnecendo as muralhas, fazendo vigias, rondas e sentinelas, nas partes do maior risco, acodindo pontualmente aos ferods … animando a todos para defençe como sucedeo ao Pe. Frey Luis de S. Francisco e ao Pe. Manoel de S. Antonio no forte de Chapora que nao entregou senao depois de um destes religiosos ser morto, no combate, de uma bala pela cabeça, depois de obrar proezas c lever aviso a Goa a todo o risco…

• 119. Padre Silva Rego, Documentacao V. p. 444.
• 120. Ibid., p. 447 : “ … nao cuidavam que os Bottos dos Portugueses fossem tao bons soldados…”
• 121. A learned Goan padre, Sebastiao Rego, author of a biography of Padre Jose Vaz in Portuguese, in a sermon delivered in 1745, declared that Catholics were the masters of Goa and the Hindus had no right to reside there. This sermon was published in Lisbon in 1759 under the title, Sermao da Santa Cruz dos Milagres.
• 122. The following is an extract from a letter dated 5 February 1668 addressed to the Municipality of Goa by vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente : “Sou informado que na Camara Geral de Goa assiste um genito; estranho muito e de hoje em diante se nao permita tao torpe e abominavel abuzo” (Goa Archives, CO no. 4, fl. 71). (I understand that there is a Hindu in the employ of the Goa Municipality. This is very irregular. Hereafter, such mean and abominable practices should be discontinued).
• 123. Goa Archives : Livro das provisoes a favour da Cristanidade, fl. 49 v. (Pissurlencar, Roteiro, p. 69).
• 124. Pe. Sebastiao Gonsalves, Primeira Parte da Historia dos Religiosos da Companhia de Jesus, peb. por Jose Wicki, Vol. Ⅱ, 1960, p. 324; C. Rivara, Archivo, Ⅳ, p. 73.
• 125. Fr. Jacinto de Deos, Vergel de Plantas e Flores da Provincia da Madre de Deos, 1690, p. 20.
• 126. Padre Silva Rego, Documentacao, Vol. Ⅴ, p. 406. The Vice-roy had informed the King of Portugal in a letter dated 10 January 1707 that very few Hindus had remained in Bardez (Goa Archives : MR No. 69, fl. 158).
• 127. Life of Shivaji by Sabhasad, 4th edition, p. 68.
• 128. Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji the Great, p. 573. “He (Shivaji) carried away 1,600 natives, most women and young girls…”.
• 129. The treaty mentions that all men, women and cattle that were seized in Bardez should be restored without compensation of even a rupee.
• 130. Sir Janunath wrote that “three padres and some Indian Christians were beheaded by them, evidently in retaliation for the abduction and conversion of Shivaji’s subjects especially Brahmans” Shivaji, 1952, p. 352); Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji, Vol. Ⅱ, Part Ⅰ, p. 507.
• 131. Letters etc. of Shivaji’s Times, Part Ⅰ, p. 331, No. 1186.
• 132. Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji, Ⅱ, p. 573.
• 133. English Records on Shivaji, 1931, p. 119.
• 134. BNP : Fond Portugais, 33, fls. 200-201; Vice-Rei’s letter to the Vengurla Dutch (Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 72 v). 135) Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 73.
• 136. BNP : Fond Portugais, 33, fl. 200.
• 137. B. Carre. Voyage des Indes Orientales, Paris, 1699, Vol. Ⅰ, p. 82 : “Ⅱ (Shivaji) fit des courses sur les terres des Portugais, don il avait recu quelaques deplaisir : il prit sur eux l’isle de Bardez, et apres avoir desole le pais, les contraignit de craindre pour Goa.” Surendranath Sen has translated this thus : “he made inroads into the territories of the Portuguese who had given him offence; he wrested from them the island of Bardez and, after desolating the country, caused them great anxiety for Goa” (Foreign Biographies of Shivaji, p. 206) .
• 138. Rivara, Archivo Ⅳ, p. 125; Pissurlencar, Assentos Ⅲ, p. 476; letter from King of Portugal dated 5 March 1587 (Goa Archives; MR 3A, fl. 275).
• 139. Diogo de Couto, Decada Ⅴ, pp. 396-7 (Coimbra, 1937) : Quanto as Castas, o mor impedimento que ha na converssao destes gentios he a sapperstissao que guardao em suas castas … E a primeira com quem mais guardam esta serimonia he com os Portugueses, porque comem vaca. E assim em falando com hum delles, ou tocando nelle, logo se vao purificar.
• 140. Fr. paulo da Trindade, Conquista Spiritual do Oriente. BV, MS. No. 7746; Padre Silva Rego : Documentacao, Vol. 8, p. 115.
• 141. Padre Francisco de Souza, O Oriente Conquistado, Vol. Ⅰ, p. 115 (Bombay 1881-1886).
• 142. “O mais vil e mizeravel gentio nao se assentara meza do Vice-Rei com obrigacao de comer o que o Vice-Rei come.” (Goa Archives: MR No. 54, fl. 147).
• 143. Pe. Silva Rego, Documentacao, Vol. Ⅶ, p. 342. Father Wicki, Documenta, Vol. Ⅳ, p. 345.
• 144. English Records on Shivaji, Vol. Ⅱ, p. 348 : “But he tolerates all religions..” (Balkrishna, Shivaji, Ⅳ, p. 176). 145) Jadunath Sarkar, Shivaji, p. 383 (1952).
• 146. Chronicle of Sabhasad, p. 26 (1923).
• 147. Balkrishna, Shivaji Ⅳ, p. 176; Khafi Khan (Elliot and Dawson, History of India, Vol.Ⅶ, page 260). 148) Cosme da Guarda, Vida do Celebre Sevagy, p. 69.
• 149. AHU, India, avulsos (Caixa 27); BNP, Fond Portugais, 33.
• 150. Balkrishna, Shivaji, Ⅰ, p. 573 : “He carried 1,600 natives, mostly women and young girls, whom he sells to his sodliers.”
• 151. Dr. Surendranath Sen, Indian Travels of Thevenot and Careri, p. 40. Thevenot writes, “He (Shivaji) carried off the General’s treasure and took his daughter, to whom he rendered all the honour he could. He commanded his men, under rigorous pains, not to do her the least hurt, but, on the contrary, to serve her with all respect; and being informed that her father was alive, he sent him word, that if he would send the sum which he demanded for her ransom, he would send him back his daugher safe and sound; which was punctually performed.”
• 152. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ; Shivaji Souvenir, pp. 125-8; Letters etc. of Shivaji’s Days, Part Ⅰ, p. 329. 153) Assentos, Ⅳ, pp. 562-3.
• 154. Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, p. 131; Goa Archives: RV No.2, fls. 87-87v.
• 155. Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji, Ⅰ, p. 574.
• 156. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, p. 21. The present author published the text of the treaty from the original in 1926. The celebrated Portuguese author, Cunha Rivara, had published it in Boletim do Governo da India previously but in his version there are some grievous errors. Biker copied Rivara once again (Tratados Ⅳ, p. 171). Dr. Braganca Pereira copied Rivara once again (APO, Ⅰ, 3, 1, p. lix) and so they repeated the mistakes of Rivara. Cunha Rivara wrote “desculpando-se da entrada que elle (Shivaji) e suas gentes fizeram em Bardez” in place of “desculpando-se da entrada que ignorando elle suas gentes fizeram em Bardez.” This led to complete misrepresentation and Braganca Pereira reached the conclusion that Shivaji had not personally gone to Bardez and that his troops attacked Bardez without clearance from him. Not only that, but Braganca even relied on a letter of the Karwar English factor dated 16 December 1668 (new style) and stated that the invasion of Bardez did not take place at all (APO. Ⅰ. Vol. Ⅲ, p. Ⅰ, p. 1vi). It is actually quite unnecessary to point out that this letter refers to Shivaji in quite another connection.
• 157. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, Supplement.
• 158. Viceroy’s letter dated 1 December, 1667 to the Dutch factor at Vengurla (Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 72v). 159) BNP, Fond Portugais 33 (Vice-Rei Conde de San Vincente to the King of Portugal).
• 160. Goa Archives : RV No. 2, fl. 54.
• 161. Goa Archives : Assentos Ⅳ, p. 190.
• 162. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, p. 27.
• 163. W. Foster, FFI, 1668-1669, p. 15; Balkrishna. Shivaji Vol. Ⅱ, Part Ⅰ, pp. 508-10; English Records on Shivaji, Ⅰ p. 128. 164) English Records on Shivaji, Ⅰ. p. 125; Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, pp. 132·4.
• 165. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, p. 27.
• 166. Minguel Vaz demolished Hindu temples in Goa in 1540. (Pissurlencar, Tombo Geral de Francisco Paes, p. 67; Padre Silva Rego, Documentacao, Vol. 8, p. 68—Padre Froice’s letter dated 13 November 1560; Rego, Documentaçao, Ⅱ, p. 103—Padre Minguel Vaz’s letter dated 6 January 1543 to the King of Portugal; Padre Lucena, Historia da Vida do Padre S. Francisco Xavier, 1600, p. 74).
• 167. Wicki. Documenta, Vol. p. 173.
• 168. Quarterly Journal of the Bharata ltihas Samshodhak Mandal, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 30. The inscription in the Narve temple gives a wrong date.
• 169. The letter written by Narayan Shenvi on 4 April 1674 was in Portuguese (JO Factory R Surat, Vol. 88, fls. 78-83). 170) Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, p. 133.
• 171. Ibid.
• 172. The Mahrattas led an assault on Cuncolim and Chandar and killed a servant of the Catholic Church but nobody said that this was the result of the religious policy of the Portuguese.
• 173. Assentos Ⅳ, p. 242.
• 174. The English factor at Rajapur mentions in his letter dated 15 May 1675 that the Ponda fort was completely besieged by Shivaji and the English factor at Karwar says in his letter of 18 May, 1675 that Shivaji had captured the fort. From these letters, it would appear that the Mahrattas captured the fort about 16 May, 1675. Adilshah’s chronicle, Basatin e Salatin says that Ponda fort was captured by Shivaji on 15 Safar, 1086 (Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, p. 134) Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji, Vol. Ⅱ. Part Ⅰ, pp. 139-
• 175. Cosme da Guarda, Vida do Celebre Sevagy, p. 148; Dr. S. N. Sen, Foreign Biographies of Shivaji, p. 147.
• 176. This beautiful, carved black-stone plate was found by the author buried around the Ponda fort about twelve years ago. It was deposited in the Goa Museum.
• 177. Goa Archives; RV No. 2, fl. 3v.; Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅱ, p. 4n. Riyasatkar Sardesai has written that Shivaji appointed one Dharmaji Nagnath as Killedar (Shakakarta Shivaji, p. 169). The Goa Archives clearly show that he was appointed after Trimbak Pandit. Portuguese material throws a bright light on the history of this fort. In 1535, it was a small fortress under the charge of a Thanedar. His troops consisted of about five hundred solders and some twenty to thirty horses. (Gaspar Correia, lendas da India, Vol. Ⅳ, p. 601). In 1547, Governor Don Joao de Castro attacked it and burnt it. (Leonardo Nunes, (Cronica de D. Joao de Castro, pp. 167-8; Luis Keil, As Tapecarias de D. Joao de Castro, 1928). But Adilkhan built it again. The Governor of Goa, Francisco Barreto, attacked Ponda fort in December 1556 and demolished it. But Adilkhan once again reconstructed it (Padre Sebastiao Goncalves, Da Historia da Companhia de Jesus, Ms. BNL. fl. 79v).
• 178. BNL, Ms. 299 F. G.
• 179. Goa Archives, MS. No. 7599.
• 180. Relacao Lisboa, 1944, p. 24 : “Choutea, regulo que poe em campo. seiscentos de cavalo. Tem este regulo nas terras de Damao certa pensao, a que chamam chouto, a qual se lhe pagava ainda antes de serem nossas.”.
• 181. Coloquios, 1891, p. 119.
• 182. Diogo do Couto, Decada Ⅶ, p. Ⅰ, pp. 40-2 (1778).
• 183. Decada ⅩⅢ, pp. 70, 248, 390, 675, 676; Fortalezas da India (Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, p. 40).
• 184. Pissurlencar, Antigualhas, pp. 62-71; PM, Ⅰ, pp. 39-50; Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 252-4, 556; “Shivaji and the Portuguese” (Shivacharitrapradeep), pp. 178-82.
• 185. Goa Archives. Tombo de Damao.
• 186. Boletim do Governo, 1873, p. 206; Antonio Bocarro, Decada ⅩⅢ, p. 390.
• 187. Diogo do Couto, Decada Ⅶ, p. ii
• 188. BNL: Noticias da India (F. G. Ms. No. 465, fl. 299).
• 189. BACL : MS. 58, fl. 235; Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 556-9).
• 190. Pissurlencar, Antigualhas Ⅰ, pp. 69-70; Assentos Ⅳ, p. 259.
• 191. Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 556-9 : Antigualhas, pp. 62-71.
• 192. Goa Archives : RV No. 3, fl. 2.
• 193. Goa Archives : Papeis avulsos.
• 194. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ pp. 42-7.
• 195. Carre, Voyages des Indes Orientales, Paris, 1699. (Antigualhas, pp. 67-9).
• 196. BACL MS. 58, fl. 202.
• 197. Governor Antonio Paes de Sandes’ letter dated 13 March 1679 to Bassein General Goao de Melo de Sampayo (Papeis avulos); Pissurlencar. PM, Ⅰ, pp. 47-9, Boletim da Filmoteca Ultramarina Portuguesa, No. 21 (1962); Antonio Paes de Sandes e Castro, Antonio Paes de Sande, pp. 163-5. The letter of 13 March 1679 was published and is quoted here :— Porquanto sou informado que o dinheiro do chouto que os vazadares e curumbins das aldeas do distrito de Damao pagavao a El-Rey Choutia, conforme aos consertos antigos, por defender as ditas aldeas dos ladroes, se tem cobrado por conta de fazenda real de seis anos a esta parte. Pondesse em depozito em hum cofre no Collegio dos Padres da Companhia, para depois se dar a quem pertencer. em razao das guerras em que o Sivagi anda com o dito Rey. para senhorear suas terras, do qual dinheiro se tirarao por ordem do governo passado mais de treze mil rupias, porvezes, que se derao ao dito Choutia……
• 198. Ibid. Mention of secret payments by the Portuguese to Chouthia Raja is found for the first time, in the acting Governor’s letter dated 12 May, 1678. (Goa Archives : RV No. 3, fls. 6-6v).
• 199. BA : Cartas da India, fl. 246 (MS. 31-Ⅸ-1 ).
• 200. Five rupees were equal to 12 assurpees or one assurpee (Xerafim) was equal to six annas and eight pies. But, generally, the Portuguese Court regarded a rupee equal a to two assurpees (Pissurlencar, PM Ⅳ, p. 168; Ⅴ. p. 24).
• 201. Pissurlencar, PM. p. 50; BACL: MS. 58, fls. 201v-205, 280v; Assentos Ⅳ, pp. 294, 295, 559. Mention is made of the gavkhandi tax in a letter of Shivaji in 1657. The tax was a fixed cess per khandi of grain to be recovered from peasants in all villages (A. V. John and Aba Chandorkar, Shrishivashahicha Lekhanalankar, p. 31).
• 202. BACL. MS. 58. p. 202. In August 1677, Bajajipant sought asylum with the Portuguese for himself and also for his wife and nephew because Shivaji had charged him with having conspired with the Raja of Kolvan to hand over the raj to him for a gratification (BACL: Livro do registo do 1° Conde de Assumar, MS. fls. 280, 287).
• 203. BACL: Livro do Registo do 1° Conde de Assumar, Vol. Ⅳ.
• 204. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, pp. 46-9.
• 205. ‘‘e era tal a astucia, manha e valor, daquelle novo Attila da India” (Letter of Portuguese Governor Antonio Paes de Sande. No. 1951, p. 151; Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ. p. 51).
• 206. Pissurlencar, PM. Ⅰ. pp. 48-9; Sande e Castro, Antonio Paes de Sande, pp. 163-5; BNL: Breve resumo dos successos do Estado Portuguez na India (MS. Caixa 201, No. 4).
• 207. Pissurlencar, PM, Ⅰ, p. 49.
• 208. BNL: Breve resumo dos successos do Estado Portuguez ma India (MS. Caixa 201, No. 4). “Sivagi marrero de hum antraz.”
• 209. Cosme da Guarda, Vida e accoes do famoso e felicissimo Sevagy, p. 52.
• 210. Balkrishna, Shivaji the Great, Vol. Ⅰ, p. 538; Vol. Ⅱ, Part Ⅰ, p. 515.
• 211. “e que por hora estas diversoes embarassavao ao Sivagi a que nao entendesse conosco” (Letter dated 15 November 1680—Antonio Paes de Sande, p. 152).
• 212. Assentos Ⅳ, p. 258.
• 213. Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji, Vol. Ⅱ, Part I, p. 173 “He is said to have demanded from the Portuguese in Goa the evacuation of 60 villages on the ground that they belonged to the castle of Ponda which had been taken by Shivaji the previous year”. Letters etc. of Shivaji’s Times, No. 1221 : “On the ground of his mastery of Bijapur, Shivaji is claiming the island of Salcete also. The Portuguese are much afraid of him.” (Dutch Records, Vol. 29, p. 140).
• 214. Assentos Ⅳ, p. 258; Dr. Balkrishna, Shivaji Ⅰ, pp. 519, 545. The acting Governor of Goa wrote in a letter dated 19 July, 1669 : “(Shivaji) como tao grande inimigo que he deste Estado” (Goa Archihves : Papeis avulos).
• 215. “Com os reis vizinhos se acha este Estado em pax e com a morte do Sivagi livre do cuidado que dara este inimigo, mais para temer na pax que na guerra” (Governor Antonio Paes de Sande’s letter dated 24 January 1681, AHV : India avulsos).
• 216. “Sevaji, qui mediocri loco natus in tantam potestatum virtute bellica excrevit, ut totius Indiae terror foret.” 217) Shivaji Souvenir (Shiva-bhavani).