History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c43.24

v2.c43.24

Perhaps Mr. B. C. Mazumdar thinks that a false statement gains ground by repetition. Therefore, on the next page we find the statement that: "That the principalities of the Sambalpur Tract remained thoroughly independent during this time is proved by the fact that the Marathas after becoming masters of Eastern Orissa had to ask the Ruler of the principalities of the Sambalpur Tract to acknowledge the overlordship of the Bhonslas of Nagpur almost towards the end of the 18th century."² We are not aware of any petition submitted by Raghujī Bhonsle I or any of his successors to the great would-be Mahārājās of Sambalpur or Sonpur applying for their pleasure to become the subordinates of the Bhonsles. Agnew, who was a soldier and not a lawyer, states definitely that Mohan Singh exacted a tribute from Sambalpur and the surrounding Zamindaris and his language implies the fact that the pseudo-Chauhans received the same blunt and ruthless treatment as the Nizām-ul-mulk of Haidarābād Deccan. Mr. B. C. Mazumdar naively admits that the petty chief Prithvi Singh Deo was kept a close prisoner at Nagpur by the Bhonsles for seventeen long years and after the death of his son he had to be ransomed.² Throughout the succeeding pages two facts are constanly dinned into our ears : That the pseudo-Chauhan chiefs never paid tributes to the Marathas and were independent throughout up to the British conquest and that their rank is much higher than that of all other Garhjāt chiefs of Orissa. It has been proved that all pseudo-Chauhan chiefs, whether of Sambalpur, Sonpur or of Patna, had to pay tribute to the Marathas though it might have become necessary to enforce its payment, at times as in Orissa Proper. It is also certain that the status of all Garhjāt chiefs of Orissa was higher than that of all chiefs of the Chhattisgarh Garhjāt. This can be proved from the fact that at the first engagement with the British Government the settlement with Sonpur was for five years only and therefore his status was that of an Oudh Tāluqdār after the deposition of Wājid Ali Shāh of Lucknow. But Mayurbhañj, though ceded to the same power by Raghujī Bhonsle II in 1803, pays the same tribute to the British Government as it did in 1804 and that is one-sixth of what it paid to Raghuji II. Sonpur and Patna remained included in the Central Provinces till 1905 and therefore they obtained better treatment from the Government of the most backward province in India, while the Orissa Garhjāt chiefs suffered a continual diminution of their ancient powers and privileges on account of their inclusion in Bengal, then the Metropolitan province of the British Empire in India. It is needless for me to pursue further the legal chicaneries of this learned legal representative of the Sonpur family beyond stating the fact that the Chhattisgarh Garhjāt chiefs were never independent, were thoroughly subjugated by the Marathas before 1755 and were regarded as Zamindars, not even as feudatories, by the Bhonsles of Nagpur till 1818. Motte distinctly states in 1766 that Sonpur was dependent on Jānoji.¹ I understand that the History of the Bhonsles of Nagpur is being compiled and written according to the modern critical method by certain Deccani gentlemen of the Central Provinces and it will be very soon possible for Mr. B. C. Mazumdar to learn how the ancestor of his client, Prithvi Singh Deo, was really treated by his so-called friend, Raghujī Bhonsle I. during his imprisonment for seventeen years at Nagpur and how much *revenue* not *tribute* was paid to the Bhonsles by them up to 1818.