The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV: The Mughul Period v4.c21.56
The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV: The Mughul Period v4.c21.56
- Language
- English
v4.c21.56
Bālājī Vishvānāth was a Chitpāvan or Konkanāstha Brāhman, whose ancestors were hereditary Deshmukhs or revenue officers of Shrīvardhan near Bānkot. His early history is obscure, but towards the end of the seventeenth century his father appears to have migrated to the Deccan and taken service at the Sātārā court.¹ For a time he served under Dhanājī Jādav, the Senāpati, who held him in high esteem and gave him several responsible posts. This aroused the jealousy of Dhanājī’s son Chandra Sen, and shortly after the latter became Senāpati a quarrel broke out which caused Bālājī to flee for his life to Shāhū’s protection. Chandra Sen insolently demanded his surrender from Shāhū, and being refused, proceeded to join the Kolhāpur faction. Bālājī Vishvānāth, in gratitude to Shāhū, made himself invaluable to the king, in whose favour he rose daily higher and higher. He enlisted fresh forces, for which he received the title of *Senākarta*, or “maker of armies”, and came to terms with the Nizām. He next attacked a notorious robber-chief, Dāmājī Thorat of Hingangāon, who, however, defeated him and held him up to ransom. He had better luck in putting down another rebel, Krishna Rāo of Khātāv. Meanwhile, Shāhū had despatched an army under Bahiro Pant Pingle, the Peshwā, to protect the Konkan and overthrow Kānhojī Angria, the hereditary admiral of the Marāthā fleet, who had taken the opportunity afforded by these disorders to ally himself with Kolhāpur, advance up the Bhor Ghāt and seize the forts of Rājmāchī and Lohāgarh, commanding this important highway into the Deccan. But the Peshwā was a mediocre general, and he suffered himself to be defeated and captured. Angria now threatened to march on Sātārā. Shāhū was in despair, and “looked around him to discover a fit person to recover his conquered districts”. He applied to the Pratinidhi, but that officer excused himself on the ground that “the army was not at his devotion”. Then, in the words of the Marāthā chronicler,