Shivaji and His Times c16.s2.13

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.)