Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Shivaji and His Times c16: Chapter XIV. Shivaji's Relations with the English and the Portuguese

Shivaji and His Times c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIV. Shivaji's Relations with the English and the Portuguese

c16.2

§1. Shivaji's first encounter with the English, 1660.

c16.3

Early in January 1660, Shivaji's general Doroji seized the port of Rajapur, in pursuit of three junks of Afzal Khan in which Afzal's agent at Dabhol had fled there with his own and his master's property, on the capture of the latter place by the Marathas (Ch. 10.) From this incident sprang the first collision between the English and the Marathas, but its real cause was not any hindrance offered by Shivaji to the legitimate trade of the East India Company or its servants. It was solely due to the greed and crooked dealing of Mr. Henry Revington, the Chief of the Company's Rajapur factory. An Indian broker employed by him had lent some money to Rustam-i-Zaman and taken a bill for it, falsely in the Company's name as creditor. When Rustam's governor of Rajapur was trying to run away from the invaders in one of the Dabhol junks, the broker influenced Mr. Revington to assist him in getting his money back. Mr. Revington sent an English ship, the *Diamond*, to stop the junk occupied by the governor and make him pay what he falsely represented as "monies due to the Company." A part of the amount was immediately paid in goods. But just then Shivaji's horsemen appeared on the bank to seize the junks of Afzal Khan and called upon the English to give up the one in which the governor was. The English declined, and the governor gladly seized this device for escaping capture by the Marathas and urged the English "to take possession of two of these junks and own them." Mr. Revington took one of the vessels over, renamed it the *Rajapur Merchant*, and placed it under an English captain.

c16.4

In a parley with Doroji, the Maratha general, the English refused to give up the goods in the junk unless he gave them an order on the revenue of the town for the money claimed by them. The largest junk, which had not been taken over by the English, weighed anchor and fell down the creek to beyond the range of the Maratha guns, after firing on Shiva’s men on both banks. At this disappointment, the Marathas seized the English broker Balji at Jaitapur (at the mouth of the creek, 11 miles west of Rajapur), on the ground that "the English would not take the junk for them, but let her go." (*Ibid*; also Surat Council to Company, 6 April 1660, *F. R. Surat*, Vol. 85.)

c16.5

Mr. Philip Gyffard was sent to the Maratha camp to demand the release of the broker, but they seized him too, and carried away the two prisoners to Kharepatan fort that night, threatening to detain them unless the English captured the junks for the Marathas and delivered to them the goods they had taken on the governor’s junk (18th January 1660.)

c16.6

On 13th February, Revington wrote a letter to Shivaji promising him the friendly help of the English in an attack on Danda-Rajpuri, and soliciting an order for the release of the two captives as they had been seized only because the English "would not take the junks lying in Rajapur river and be enemies to those who are our friends." But before this the broker had already appealed to Shivaji and Rustam-i-Zaman, and orders had come from them for the release of the two. Balji was immediately set free, "but Mr. Gyffard was kept by a rogue Brahman in Kharepatan castle, out of the lucre and expectation of a bribe." Mr. Revington protested against it to Shiva and Rustam. (Rajapur to Surat, 15 February 1660.)

c16.7

Before any reply could come from Shivaji, Mr. Revington, learning that the Maratha governor of Kharepatan was sending Mr. Gyffard away to Satavli (9 miles north-west of Rajapur) or to Khelna fort, despatched a party of 30 soldiers, who waylaid the Maratha escort in a town 10 miles from Rajapur and rescued Mr. Gyffard by force. (Ibid, 23 February.)

§2. English factors of Rajapur prisoners of Shivaji, 1661-1663

c16.s1.1

The second Maratha attack on the English took place at the beginning of March next, and here again the Englishmen were clearly in the wrong, though the Company's official attitude was correct and neutral.

c16.s1.2

In 1660, while Siddi Jauhar, acting on behalf of the Bijapur Government, was investing Shivaji in Panhala fort, the English factors of Rajapur supplied him with some grenades "which (the vendors promised) undoubtedly will be the chiefest disturbers of the besieged." Some Englishmen of Rajapur were also bribed to go to the Bijapuri camp outside Panhala and help in the bombardment of the fort, by "tossing balls with a flag that was known to be the English's." (Ch. 4.)

c16.s1.3

Shivaji punished this act of hostility about 3rd March 1661, when he surprised Rajapur, plundered the English factory, and carried off four of the factors,—Henry Revington, Richard Taylor, Randolph Taylor, and Philip Gyffard,—as prisoners.

c16.s1.4

A graphic account of this second sack of Rajapur is given by the Dutch Chief at Vingurla: "Shivaji sent 1,000 horse and about 3,000 foot soldiers to take possession of Rajapur. This force, on reaching the town, invited the principal inhabitants to come out and escort it in, according to custom, promising to do no harm. These simple men, suspecting no evil, went to the place of meeting, accompanied by the English President Revington, with two or three other Englishmen, who thought it well to pay this mark of respect. They were all immediately seized and their property confiscated, after tortures had been inflicted. Revington and those who accompanied him were placed in one of Shivaji's fortresses......The factory was entirely stripped, even the floor being dug up in search of hidden treasure. The robbers also plundered many foreign merchants, who yearly bring goods to Rajapur from Persia and Muskat."*

c16.s1.5

While the English prisoners were still at Rajapur, the Brahman agent of Shivaji told them that his master would give them a fine salt port (*mit bandar*) on the coast, if they helped him in taking Danda-Rajpuri; but they declined to "discourse about it" unless he set them free. Then Shivaji laid a ransom on the captives, and sent them to Waisati fort. Many other persons—Hindu merchants (*banians*), Indian Muslims, Persians and Arabs—were kept there in his prison in a miserable plight and beaten to extort ransom.

c16.s1.6

∗ *Batavia Dagh-Register*, 1661, p. 215, quoted in Foster, xi. 4-5. The date given is "about the middle of March" [New style], which was equivalent to "about the 5th of March" in the Old style followed in this book. The English report has been lost. The Dutch statement, that "the Englishmen who had remained behind in Rajapur were likewise imprisoned and one died under torture," was based on false rumour, as only three factors besides Revington were carried off into captivity, and the factor who died at Rajapur, evidently Richard Napier, had been reported on the 16th February before "as "dangerously ill and not expected to live" (F. R., Rajapur to Company.)

c16.s1.7

The Englishmen steadily refused to pay any ransom and tried to secure their liberty by feigned negotiations for helping the Marathas with English ships in capturing Danda-Rajpuri, but taking care to impose such terms as always left the English "a hole to creep out of their obligation" after recovering liberty. Then they tried the effect of threat by saying that if they were not released their countrymen at Surat would grant Aurangzib's desire by transporting a Mughal army into the Deccan [i.e., the Konkan district] by sea. (Orme MSS., Vol. 155, pp. 1-21, letter from the English prisoners at Songarh, 10th June 1661.)

c16.s1.8

Raoji Pandit had been sent by Shivaji to take charge of all the prisoners in Songarh and "do with them as he thought fit." The four Englishmen were well-treated. But their captivity was prolonged past endurance. To the demand for ransom they replied that they could pay nothing, having lost their all in the sack of Rajapur. Shivaji's absence on a projected expedition for recovering Kalian (June, 1661) also delayed the progress of the negotiations about an alliance with the English against the Siddis. The "disconsolate prisoners in Raigarh," after a year's confinement, lost their temper and wrote in disrespectful and abusive terms to the President and Council at Surat, charging the latter with making no exertion for their release. The reply of the Surat Council (on 10th March, 1662) was a stern but well-merited rebuke: "How you came in prison you know very well. 'Twas not for defending the Company's goods, 'twas for going to the siege of Panhala and tossing balls with a flag that was known to be the English's. None but what [is] rehearsed is the cause of your imprisonment.*

c16.s1.9

It seems that the four Englishmen made an attempt to escape from Songarh, but were caught and sent off to Raigarh to be kept in "closer confinement." Towards the middle of 1662, when their captivity had lasted a year and a half, the Council at Surat, finding all appeals to Shivaji and his suzerain fruitless, commissioned some of the English ships to make reprisals by capturing on the high seas Deccani vessels, whether belonging to the king of Bijapur or Shivaji or any merchant of the country, especially the one bringing the Dowager Queen Bari Sahiba back from Mecca. They hoped that such a success would compel the Bijapur Government to put pressure on Shivaji to release the Englishmen. But no good prize offered itself to the English privateers. The Surat Council also influenced the Mughal governor of Surat to write to Shaista Khan, who was then reported to be pressing Shivaji hard (about November 1662), to importune him to move for their release.†

c16.s1.10

† Surat to R. Taylor, 17 May, 1662, 1662, F. R. Surat, Vol. 85; Surat Consult., 21 July, F. R. Surat, Vol. 2; also under 21st July, 19th August and 14th November in Vol. 85.

c16.s1.11

On 3rd February, 1663, the Council commissioned the captain of H. M. S. Convertite to capture two vessels of considerable burden which Shivaji was fitting out at Jaitapur for Mocha and loading with "such goods as were driven by storms upon his coast, which was of considerable value." (F. R. Surat, Vol. 2.) But such a step became unnecessary, as Raoji Pandit, the Maratha governor of Rajapur, sent for the four captives from Raigarh and set them free (about 5th February) with a solemn assurance from Shivaji that the English would enjoy his protection in future. The Council at Surat say that they "had desisted from calling that perfidious rebel Shivaji to an account, because they had not either conveniency of force or time." They were still resolved to avenge the wrong done to their masters' property and the sufferings of their "loving brethren," but sadly realized that "as yet we are altogether uncapable for want of shipping and men necessary for such an enterprise, wherefore patience."*

c16.s1.12

∗ *Ibid*, also Surat to the Prisoners in Rairi castle, 10 March, 1662, F. R. Surat, Vol. 85.

c16.s1.13

Therefore, instead of resorting to force, they began negotiations with Shivaji for compensation for the loss done to their factory at Rajapur. These were protracted for many years till the hearts of the Englishmen grew sick. Even when Shivaji agreed as to the amount of the damages and admitted his liability for it, the actual payment was repeatedly put off and never fully carried out. With the help of the Factory Records preserved in the India Office, London, we can clearly trace the history of these negotiations through their successive stages,—the alternate hopes and disappointments of the English, their diverse tactics, their series of embassies, and their final conviction, at the close of Shivaji's life, that they would get nothing at all from him. The records of this long-drawn diplomatic intercourse afford striking examples of the perseverance and patience of the English traders, though one is apt to smile when he reads how they held diametrically opposite views of Shivaji's character and feelings at different stages of the negotiations, as they hoped for or despaired of a settlement of their claims. Our psychology is naturally coloured by our emotions.

c16.s1.14

∗ F. R. Surat 103, Rajapur to Surat, 6 Feb.; Vol. 2, Surat to R. Taylor, 9 Oct. 1663.

c16.s1.15

Shivaji’s encounter with the English during his two raids on Surat (in 1664 and 1670) and the dispute between them in connection with his fortification of the Khanderi island have been dealt with in earlier chapters.

§3. Negotiations for Rajapur factory damages

c16.s2.1

The policy of the English traders is thus clearly set forth in a letter from the Deputy Governor and Council of Bombay to the President and Council of Surat, dated 25th November, 1668:

c16.s2.2

“According to your commands, we shall at convenient time enorder such as we employ to treat Shivaji’s servants civilly wherever they meet them, but not to enter into any contract with them, letting them know the great damage the Hon’ble Company hath suffered and the abuses offered to our people on several occasions, for which we expect satisfaction and reparation before we enter into any league with their master,—all of which, we suppose, will come to his ears by one or more of his servants, though we are not of opinion that ever he will be brought to a peaceable treaty till he be forced to it.” (F. R. Surat, Vol. 105.)

c16.s2.3

In another letter, dated 17th March, 1669, the Bombay Council write, “Shivaji Rajah having by his servants requested a favour of no great import, not exceeding Rs. 300...we...having much occasion for a good correspondence with his people on the main [-land] from whence most of provisions come hither, and wood [i.e., fuel] in special, (which is not to be had other where), we were the more ready to gratify Shivaji Rajah.” (Ibid.)

c16.s2.4

On 5th March, 1670, the Surat Council instruct Bombay thus: "The war broke out between Shivaji and the Mughal hath put a check to some overtures which were made to the President of an accommodation with Shivaji touching the Company's demands on him; but we hope they will yet go forward,......but we would not have you appear too forward lest you undervalue our pretence [=lawful claim] and make him cool." (F. R. Surat, Vol. 3.)

c16.s2.5

In October Shivaji tried to put the English of Bombay in distress, evidently because they refused to sell him war-material (esp. lead) for his contest with the Siddi of Danda-Rajpuri. Bombay writes to Surat on 14th October, 1670: "A few days since we, as usually, sent our boats to the main [-land] for wood to burn our *chunam* with; but......our boats returned empty, being forbid by Shivaji's people to cut any more wood in those parts." (F. R. Surat, 105.) On 12th August 1671 Bombay writes to Surat, "The Deputy Governor [of Bombay] received an answer from Shivaji,......by which your Honour, etc., will see how he slights our friendship." (Ibid.)

c16.s2.6

But in September 1671 Shivaji sent an ambassador to Bombay to treat with the English. His chief motive was to secure English aid against Danda-Rajpuri, especially a supply of "grenadoes, mortar-pieces and ammunition." The Bombay Council immediately realized that unless he obtained these war-materials he "would not pay a penny" of compensation for the loot of their factory at Rajapur. The President of Surat sent the following instructions to the factors at Bombay: "Let him know that if he gives us such encouragement that we settle in his port, he may obtain from us those advantages that other nations do in whose ports we trade. But we would not positively have them [the English representatives in these negotiations] promise him those grenades, mortar-pieces and ammunition he desires, nor absolutely deny him, in regard we do not think it convenient to help him against Danda-Rajpuri, which place, if it were in his possession, would prove a great annoyance to the port of Bombay; and on the other side, our denial is not consistent at present with our interest, in respect we believe the keeping in suspense will bring him to a speedier conclusion of the treaty, hoping thereby to be furnished with those things he desires." (F. R. Surat, 87.)

c16.s2.7

The negotiations, as might have been expected from the diverse aims of the two parties, could not possibly end in an agreement. They were protracted till December, when Shivaji was out on his forays and "now not easily to be found or treated with." The English proposed to send Lieut. Stephen Ustick to treat directly with him, (F. R. Surat, 106, Bomb. to Surat, 8 Nov. and 15 Dec., 1671.) This envoy was directed to "set out in a handsome equipage befitting the Company's honour," with Ram Shenvi, the Company's interpreter. (F. R. Surat, 87, Surat to Bombay, 30 Sep., 1671.)

c16.s2.8

As early as the end of November, the Council of Surat gave up all hope of a settlement. They wrote to Bombay (30th November, 1671), "Ram Shenvi hath private[-ly] discoursed with us [as to] what Shivaji proposes to us by way of accommodation and what he demands from us in order to the supply of his wars against Danda-Rajpuri, in both which we find so much subtility, self-policy and unsecure inconstancy on his part, and so great difficulties and apparent hazard on the Company's to deal with him on these terms, that we begin to despair of bringing the business to any issue in the way it is now carried....We do confirm our former resolution that till the matter of satisfaction for the Company's and nation's former losses be first determined, we cannot with honour or safety concede to any thing which he proposeth."

c16.s2.9

The instructions to Lieut. Ustick were "that he endeavour to end the dispute touching satisfaction of past damages..., as also to procure his [i.e., Shivaji's] general qaul or farman for us to trade with freedom and security in all the ports of his country and inland cities whatsoever, paying 2 per cent. custom." (F. R. Surat, 87.)

c16.s2.10

The Maratha envoy had brought with himself to Bombay Rs. 6,000 worth of the cloth looted at Surat in October 1670, consisting of katanis, rumals, etc., and asked the English to buy them; but "they being not commodities proper for the Hon'ble Company to deal in" the factors refused to buy them. (F. R. Surat, 87, Surat to Bombay, 1 January, 1672.) But as Shivaji had presumably no ready money to spare, the English were prepared to accept these goods in part payment of "what shall be agreed on to be due for satisfaction of our former losses, provided that the commodities were not over-rated, but cheap and good in their kind." (Ibid, 30 November, 1671.) A compromise was, however, made with the Maratha ambassador; the English lent him Rs. 1,500 upon his goods payable at two months' time. Lieut. Ustick was to have set out on his embassy on 15th January, 1672, but was detained at Bombay by a message from Shivaji saying that he was then too busy opposing the Mughal generals in Puna and Baglana to receive the envoy. (F. R. Surat, 106, Bombay to Surat, 13 and 20 January, 1672.)

c16.s2.11

§4. Mission of Lt. Ustick to Shiva fails, 1672.

c16.s2.12

At last Lieut. Ustick was sent on his mission on 10th March, 1672, and came back on 13th May, with failure. "He, after a long and tedious attendance, had half an hour's discourse with him (Shivaji) and his Brahmans to little effect, but at last [Shivaji] proffered 5,000 pagodas towards our losses, and promiseth, if your Honour will please to settle a factory at Rajapur, to show all kindness and civility imaginable to the said factory." (Ibid, 13 March and 14 May, 1672.)

c16.s2.13

The negotiations broke down on the question of the amount of the indemnity. A Bombay letter to the Company, dated 21st December, 1672, (O. C. 3722) states, "We demanded one hundred thousand Rupees, they offered 20,000, declaring that Shivaji never made more advantage by what was robbed of the English;... that what was taken in the chests, trunks and warehouses of particular men (i.e., European private traders), it may be was plundered by his soldiers, but he never had anything thereof, and therefore would not satisfy for it; but what (booty) was received and entered into his books he was willing to restore and make satisfaction for... While these things were transacting, Shivaji was engaged in a great design against the Koli country, whereupon the (Brahman) minister appointed to treat (with Mr. Ustick) being called away, Mr. Ustick also returned to Bombay." But the English factors deliberately held back from pressing the negotiations to a close. As they write, "We have a hard and ticklish game to play, for the King (Aurangzib) being highly enraged against Shivaji, should he understand that we...hold any correspondence with him, it might probably cause him to order some disturbance to be given to your general affairs, not only in these parts but in Bengal also. On the other hand, we are forced to keep fair with Shivaji also, because from his countries we are supplied with provisions, timber and firewood, and likewise your inhabitants of Bombay drive a good trade into the main [-land], which would be a great prejudice to your island if it were obstructed. On these considerations we judge it your interest to suspend the treaty at present...We shall have great difficulty to recover anything for those gentlemen (i.e., private traders) who suffered particularly in that loss at Rajapur, for Shivaji...by the merchants of Rajapur hath understood what did belong to the Company and what to particular men; the latter he disowns totally...Had it not been for our standing on some satisfaction for them, we had ended the dispute before now." (Ibid.)

c16.s2.14

§5. Embassy of Thomas Niccolls, 1673.

c16.s2.15

Between May and December 1672 two envoys were sent by Shivaji to the English factors at Bombay. In February 1673, a third envoy, Pilaji, came from Shivaji, but was dismissed without effecting anything. In May the Bombay Council resolved "to send Mr. Thomas Niccolls with a Banian broker to make a final demand of the damage done us at Rajapur, and now lately by his forces in Hubli."*

c16.s2.16

On 19th May, Niccolls left Bombay with 37 persons in all for Rairi castle, which he was permitted to ascend on the 23rd. He interviewed Shambhuji on the 24th as Shivaji was absent on a pilgrimage. On 2nd June Shivaji returned to the castle, and next day Niccolls was received in audience. The Rajah took the English envoy by the hand and showed him where he should sit, which was on the left hand near one of his side-pillows, and then asked him his business. But in spite of the kindness of his manners, Shivaji did nothing to settle the dispute and on the 6th dismissed Niccolls, saying, "He would send on an answer to the President by one of his own people named Bhimaji Pandit, a day or two after me." So Niccolls returned to Bombay (17th June) without achieving anything. (Niccolls' diary in O. C. 3787.)

c16.s2.17

∗ The latter amounted to 7,894 pagodas, or £3,500. (F. R. Surat, Vol. 3, Surat Consult., 24 May, 1673.)

c16.s2.18

Soon afterwards Bhimaji arrived at Bombay (21st) and after some discussions left with Narayan Shenvi (the interpreter of the English) to represent matters to his master. Late in September the two returned to Bombay with the following letter (O. C. 3952):—

c16.s2.19

From Shivaji Rajah to the Hon'ble Gerald Aungier, Governor of Bombay: "I received your Honour's letter by Bhimaji Pandit and Narayan Shenvi, who manifested the good correspondence that your Honour doth use with me; likewise they treated with me about the business of Rajapur which I have answered and do send them again to treat with your Honour, my desire being only to keep the same correspondence which your Honour doth with me. I shall not say more but desire you that there may be no difference in our friendship, for I am very well acquainted of your Honour's prudence. I sent your Honour a present, which I desire you to accept of."

c16.s2.20

A Committee of the Bombay Council was appointed to meet on 1st October and receive Shivaji's objections to the Company's demands. On 3rd October the Maratha envoy offered 7,000 pagodas, which was refused. Later he increased it to 10,025 pagodas, to be allowed in custom duties, etc. (O. C. 3758; F. R. Surat, Vol. 106, Bombay to Surat, 29 September, 1673.)

c16.s2.21

The Surat Council agreed with Bombay (10 July, 1673) "to accept so small a sum as eight to ten thousand pagodas, which is not the quarter part the damage the nation sustained in Rajapur;" of this amount 8,000 pagodas were to be paid in money or goods, and the balance in the form of exemption from all custom duties at the port of Rajapur for five or at least three years. (F. R. Surat, Vol. 3.)

c16.s2.22

The repeated evasions of Shivaji at last thoroughly disgusted the English merchants. As the Surat Council records (F. R. Surat, Vol. 3, 19 July, 1673), "Seeing there is no probability of security from such a heathen, who, while we are in treaty with him for satisfaction for our losses at Rajapur, gives orders for the robbing our factory at Hubli, we can think of no better way to recover the Hon'ble Company and nation's right than by taking what vessels belong to his ports." A little earlier, on 24th May, they had concluded, "It is absolutely necessary to break with him, but not at this time when we have war with the Dutch." But by 1st October an amicable settlement was in sight, "Shivaji holds a fair understanding with us and we with him, the old difference of Rajapur being in a manner concluded upon honourable terms, to our advantage and reputation." (O. C. 3779.) The hopes of the English ran high; on 23rd October Bombay writes to Surat (O. C. 3870), "We are near a conclusion with our neighbour Shivaji for the old wrongs of Rajapur ..........The new controversy touching Hubli we have reserved for another time,.........so that if Shivaji attempts Surat you may be somewhat the safer, though we advise you not to trust him, yet we daresay if he hath a kindness for any nation it is for the English, and we believe he will not disturb any house where the English flag is."

c16.s2.23

But the treaty though fully agreed on between Shivaji's envoy and the English in the third week of October was not signed and confirmed by Shivaji himself for more than two months afterwards, as he was absent on a long campaign (O. C. 3910, Bombay to Co., 13 December, 1673.)

c16.s2.24

§6. Embassy of Henry Oxinden, 1674.

c16.s2.25

The English, therefore, decided to send a formal embassy to Shivaji to conclude the business, especially as his grand coronation was to take place in June 1674. Mr. Henry Oxinden was chosen for the mission, and Narayan Shenvi was sent to Raigarh (arriving there on 24th March), "to prepare business against Mr. Henry Oxinden's arrival to him." (F. R. Surat, Vol. 3, Surat Consult., 16 April, 1674.)

c16.s2.26

The story of Oxinden's mission to Shivaji, from 13th May to 16th June, is graphically told at great length in his Letters and Memorial or Narrative which also give valuable details about Shivaji's coronation, the course of the negotiations, and the final agreement..

c16.s2.27

Shivaji held out for some time on the question of restoring to their owners the ships of the English or of the inhabitants of Bombay wrecked on his coast, but on 11th June Niraji Pandit (a minister of Shivaji whom the English had engaged to act as their intermediary with his master) sent word to Oxinden that "the Rajah had granted all our demands and articles, except our money passing current in his country." On the 12th all the ministers (*ashta pradhan*) signed the treaty, which was formally delivered to Oxinden at Niraji Pandit's house. (F. R. Surat, Vol. 88.)

c16.s2.28

In November Shivaji's request to buy 50 great ordnance from 40 to 60 cwt. weight and 2 great brass guns, was politely declined by the English as "so public an action as that must needs provoke this king" [Aurangzib.] (Surat to Bombay, 13 November 1674.)

c16.s2.29

§7. English traders of Rajapur interview Shivaji, 1675.

c16.s2.30

In the terms of the above agreement, the English factory at Rajapur was re-opened in 1675, with some difficulty, as the following letter from the Rajapur factors to Surat, dated 6th February 1675, shows:—

c16.s2.31

"It was thought fit to send the broker with the President's letter to Annaji Pandit and the Subahdar, giving them notice of our arrival. Mr. Ward being earnest for our old house, Annaji told him that he should not have it, and that he did not care whether we stayed here or no; if we did not, his master would save 1,000 pagodas by it; and further will have it [that] the house was allowed for in that sum granted us by his master towards satisfaction for our losses. He is not only one of Shivaji's great favourites but Governor-in-Chief of all Konkan, so that we cannot settle in any place but it is under his jurisdiction." (F. R. Surat, 88.)

c16.s2.32

In March next the factors of Rajapur had an audience with Shivaji of which a detailed and very interesting report has been preserved (Rajapur letter, 20 April 1675. F. R. Surat, 88):—

c16.s2.33

"The Rajah came on the 22nd [March] about midday, accompanied with abundance of horse and foot and about 150 *palankins*. So soon as we heard of his near approach, we went out of our tent and very near met him. He ordered his *palankin* to stand still, called us very near him, seemed very glad to see us and much pleased [that] we came to meet him, and said the sun being hot he would not keep us now, but in the evening he would send for us.

c16.s2.34

"[23rd March?] The Rajah came. He stopped his *palankin* and called us to him. When we were pretty near him we made a stop, but he beckoned with his hand till I was up close with him. He diverted himself a little by taking in his hand the locks of my periwig and asked us several questions; at length asked us how we liked Rajapur and said he was informed we were not well pleased there, but bid us not be in the least dissatisfied for what [had] passed. He would order things for the future to our full satisfaction, and that we might be sure that......no reasonable request we should make to him would he deny us . . . . .

c16.s2.35

"The next morning [25th March] we were sent for again in the Rajah's name. We were admitted into his presence. I was placed so near him on his right hand that I could touch him. With him we continued about two hours, which was most part spent in answering many of his questions. At length we presented him our paper of desires [previously "translated into the country language"], which after had been read to him with a little pause, seriously looking on us, [he] said that it was all granted us. He would give us a *farman* for all." But the siege of Phonda, which Shivaji began immediately afterwards, delayed the granting of such a *farman*.

c16.s2.36

§8. History of the Rajapur indemnity.

c16.s2.37

In September 1675 Mr. Samuel Austen went to Raigarh on an embassy from Bombay to demand satisfaction for the damage done to the Company's factory at Dharangaon in Khandesh. This Shivaji refused to pay, saying that the factory was looted by "vagabonds and scouts without order or the knowledge of his general." He, however, "after a strict debate" gave his qaul (assurance of safety) to all the English factories "to prevent like injuries." (O. C. 4106.)

c16.s2.38

But the Rajapur damages long continued unpaid. On 19th July 1676 Surat wrote to Bombay suggesting that a "discreet and sober" Englishman with Giridhardas should be sent to dun the Rajah for the money, as Narayan Shenvi was dilatory.

c16.s2.39

On 11th October news was received from Narayan Shenvi at the Maratha Court, that Shivaji was willing to satisfy his debt to the Company in "vairats or batty," and the Council agreed to accept them if no better terms could be secured. Six days later the Surat Council in disgust order the Rajapur factory to be withdrawn, since, "so long as that pirate and universal robber [Shivaji] lives, that hath no regard to friend nor foe, God nor man, there can be no security in any trade in his country." This was only a threat to Shivaji's ministers, and the factory was dissolved only in 1681.

c16.s2.40

Early in 1677 the patience of the English seemed to have been exhausted. Surat wrote to Bombay on 26th January 1677, "If Shivaji still continues to baffle you, we desire you to seize and make prize of some of his vessels belonging to Dabhol, Chaul or Kalian or any other of his ports, letting the men have their liberty and taking care that none of the goods be embezzled or made away, for this will be the only way to make him rightly understand himself." (F. R. Surat, 89.) The threat, however, was not carried out. The people of Bombay were entirely dependent on Shivaji's territory on the mainland for their fuel, timber, fresh provisions, and cattle, and he could also have effectually stopped the passage of their export merchandise across the Konkan and Kanara coast-strip, the whole of which was now in his hands. He, on his part, depended on Bombay for salt and European manufactures.*

c16.s2.41

In January 1678, as we learn from a Surat letter, "for Shivaji's former debt, they [i.e., the Rajapur factors] are forced to take betel-nuts as Shivaji's ministers will rate it at." (F. R. Surat, 89.) But even thus the indemnity was not paid. The Surat Council, in April, May and July, express their indignation at the deceitful fair promises of Shivaji's ministers and that Rajah's evasion of the demands made upon him, and decide to withdraw the factories at Karwar, Hubli and Rajapur, if matters did not improve. (Ibid.) On 18th March 1680 Bombay writes to Surat, "We are very glad the management of the business with Shivaji is to your liking. He hath confirmed all...A hundred khandi of betel-nut is sent us on account of our demand for satisfaction of the two vessels lost." (F. R. Surat, 108.) On the 4th April following, the Rajah died.

c16.s2.42

Shivaji never paid the promised indemnity in full as long as he lived, and the Rajapur factory was closed in Shambhuji's reign (December 1682 or January 1683.) (F. R. Surat, 91.)

c16.s2.43

∗ At the marriage of Rajaram (15 March, 1680), he ordered 2,000 wax-candles from Bombay. (Peshwas' Daftar.)

c16.s2.44

In 1684, after Richard Keigwin, the usurping Governor of Bombay, had made a treaty with Shambhuji, the latter wrote to his subahdar of Rajapur: "Captain Henry Gary and Thomas Wilkins, ambassadors, and Ram Shenvi, interpreter, on behalf of the English, came to me earnestly desiring peace with me, intimating that my father Shivaji Rajah did contract to pay them 10,000 pagodas Padshahi on account of goods taken from them, of which account 3367 being paid, there remains 6633, requesting me to pay the same......I have promised them to satisfy what remains unpaid of the said 10,000 pagodas." (To be paid in kind by rebuilding the English factory-house at Rajapur, and in cocoa-nuts betel-nuts, &c., by degrees.) (F. R. Surat, 109.)

§9. Shivaji and the Portuguese

c16.s3.1

Portuguese India touched only a fringe of Shivaji's activities and did not influence his policy or history to any appreciable extent. The smallness of the population of Portugal for maintaining a colonial empire, the suppression of the national energy during the sixty years of Spanish domination (1580—1640), the ruinous naval war with Holland (1650—1663), and the rapid moral decline of their settlers in Asia,—all made the Portuguese in India in Shivaji's time a decadent Power, anxious only to hold their own, and timidly averting an armed encounter with every other State by employing friendly appeal, patient endurance, and diplomatic evasion. Their territory of Goa was then much smaller than now, as it did not include Phonda, Bicholim, Pernem or Sanquelim. But their Konkan possessions, called the Province of the North, practically stretched from Chaul to Daman along the coast and for a short distance inland.

c16.s3.2

Out of these, Bombay island was given up to the English in 1668. Immediately east of these lay the dominions of the Mughal and Adil Shah, and the conquest of them by Shivaji made the Maratha power impinge upon the Portuguese territory on the coast. But though there were occasional plunderings and skirmishes between the two, these never led to a regular war, before Shambhuji's time.

c16.s3.3

The points of conflict between Shivaji and the Portuguese arose out of four things, namely,—

c16.s3.4

(a) The Portuguese claim to dominate the Indian seas and insistence that all Asiatic vessels plying there should take passports from them for a fee. But though they helped the Siddi of Janjira in his earlier wars with Shivaji, they had no naval war with the Maratha king.

c16.s3.5

(b) The *desais* of the south Ratnagiri district on being dispossessed by Shivaji, took refuge in Goa and made it a base of their operations against him, thus violating the neutrality of Portuguese territory.

c16.s3.6

(c) The interruption of trade from the upland parts to Goa (especially in rice, livestock, &c.) by Shivaji's officers.

c16.s3.7

(d) Shivaji's claim to *chauth* from the Daman villages which had once been subject to the Koli Rajahs.

c16.s3.8

But the Portuguese vicercys very wisely avoided war with him and remained strictly neutral during his wars with the Mughals and Bijapur, though solicited by both.

c16.s3.9

When, in 1659, Shivaji's first few vessels, built at Kalian and Panvel, began to ply the sea, the Portuguese viceroy ordered his deputy at Bassein to hinder their voyage. But with the growth of Shivaji's power, the Government of Goa found it politic to assume a more friendly attitude towards him. The occasional petty conflicts between the two fleets have been described in Chapter 11.

c16.s3.10

Lakham Savant and other desais of the country immediately north of Goa, had opposed Shivaji's advance at the end of 1664, but they had been signally defeated, deprived of their lands and forced to flee to the Portuguese district of Bardes, from which they fitted out expeditions for recovering their former possessions. (Ch. 10 §4.) The viceroy's repeated warnings to them to maintain peace had no effect, and at last on 19th November 1667, Shivaji's forces made a dash into Bardes in order to punish these desais, and carried off a number of Portuguese subjects and cattle. The viceroy complained to Shivaji against this act of war while he was maintaining amity. He sent (24th Nov.) Ramoji Shenvi Kotari as his envoy to the Maratha king, who replied in friendly terms. Next, Shivaji's agent Sakho Pant came to Goa and a treaty of peace was arranged, (signed by the viceroy on 5th December and sealed by Shivaji on the 11th.) Father Gonsalo Martins, S.J., was sent by the viceroy to Shivaji's Court to get the treaty ratified and take delivery of the released captives. It was also promised in this treaty that trade between Portuguese India and Shivaji's territory above the Ghats would no longer be obstructed by his officers.

c16.s3.11

But the desais continued to violate the neutrality of Goa by sallying out to attack Shivaji's men, and the viceroy had to expel them from the Portuguese dominions at the beginning of June 1668.

c16.s3.12

The treaty of amity and peace with Shivaji was renewed on 10th Feb. 1670, each side agreeing to a restitution of the shipping of the other side detained by it during their recent quarrel. In addition,

c16.s3.13

(a) the viceroy removed a constant source of friction by extending to Shivaji's ships equality of treatment with Mughal vessels in the matter of granting Portuguese passes on the payment of the customary fee. The small Maratha coastal traders (especially provision-boats) were not required to take out passes.

c16.s3.14

(b) The viceroy, who had helped the Siddi during Shivaji's grand attack on Janjira in 1669, now offered as a mutual friend to mediate between these two Powers and compose their quarrel. Shivaji's envoy Vittal Pandit had come to Goa to try to win Portuguese support for his master's war.

c16.s3.15

(c) Shivaji repeated his promise to forbid his officers to harass or overtax the trade between Goa and the country above the Ghats.

c16.s3.16

(d) Shivaji agreed not to build any fort or stone-house at any place in his dominions on the Portuguese frontier unless a river separated the two.

c16.s3.17

The Rajahs of Ramnagar (of the predatory Koli tribe) had been accustomed from early times to levy an annual blackmail from the Daman district in their neighbourhood. This money was popularly called *chauth* or one-fourth of the revenue, but in practice the proportion varied from 10 to 25 p. c. in the different villages, and the Rajah was known as the *Chauthia Rajah* (*Storia do Mogor*, ii. 132.) Shivaji after his annexation of Ramnagar (1676) demanded this payment from the Portuguese as his lawful right in succession to the Koli Rajah. The viceroy of Goa delayed giving a direct answer as long as possible, by every diplomatic device, such as calling for reports from his local officers, examining the old revenue accounts, settling the details about particular villages, &c., while at the same time he professed unbroken friendship with Shivaji and eagerness to give him every satisfaction. The negotiations were thus spun out for over two years. Shivaji’s envoy Pitambar Shenvi, who had reached Goa in December 1677 on this mission, died next August, and was succeeded by his grandson Jivaji and later by Ganesh Sethi. At last Shivaji’s patience was worn out and he threatened war, but his premature death gave the Portuguese a short respite.∗

c16.s3.18

∗ I pass over the abortive negotiations of the Portuguese with the Mughals and with Shivaji from which nothing of consequence resulted. The details are given in P. S. Pissurlencar’s careful and fully documented work, *Portugueses e Maratas*, i. Shivaji, on which I have based this section. Several treaties and letters are given in Biker, iv.