Fall of the Mughal Empire v4.c50: Appendix D. Tukoji Holkar’s defence of his attitude
Fall of the Mughal Empire v4.c50
- Language
- English
Appendix D. Tukoji Holkar’s defence of his attitude
v4.c50.2
(Instructions to Yeshwant Gangādhar, his agent in Punā, 23rd January 1793.)
v4.c50.3
Sindhia has been telling the Peshwā:—"I am a sardār equal in rank with Holkar. By my own exertions I have reconquered territories [in Hindustan] and out of them given Holkar his fair share, and also additional lands worth five lakhs a year in order to satisfy him. And yet our master does not consider it necessary to allot a task to him [in our master’s business.] Holkar does not keep even the quota of troops proportionate to his fief. His total unspent balance [of income from his fief] amounts to ten lakhs a year. Speak to him on this point and send him to campaign in Patiālā or Kathiāwād-Kach-Bhuj. If he cannot undertake this task, recall him and keep him in the Desh country. He has done harm to my military undertakings at several places by his hostile intrigue. I can prove it against him. Let our master judge the matter and decide who is to blame, he or I."
v4.c50.4
On receiving this complaint, the two Punā ministers have summoned me to their court. You should give them my reply in the following terms:—
v4.c50.5
"It is not true that Mahādji Sindhiā alone has done our master’s work, while I have sat down at home, rendering no service but consuming my pay in idleness.
v4.c50.6
For twelve years [1776-1788] I remained in attendance [on the Punā darbār] and performed every task assigned to me. . . . Consider the fact that as Sindhia served in North India, so I too when stationed in the south, fought Goddard who had come to invade us, and thanks to our master’s power, I was victorious and "made Goddard see the sea-coast," [i.e., Goddard’s Bor-ghat expedition was defeated.] Then came the Karnatak campaign in which I maintained our master’s supremacy. More recently, after my coming to North India, when the battles with Ismail Beg [at Patan,] and with the Rathors at Mertā took place, it is known to the world who did the real work, Sindhia or I. It is not true that Sindhia alone has rendered conspicuous service to the State while I have done nothing. By our master's order I had to remain in the Deccan for twelve years, which enabled Sindhia to win the heritage of Hindustan and talk big. . . . I remained there in obedience to orders . . . and is this the fruit of my loyalty? . . .
v4.c50.7
If the Peshwā desires that all the lands gained in Hindustan should be administered directly by himself, I agree to it. The lands which may be gained in future should also be similarly administered and not divided between the two of us.
v4.c50.8
Sindhiā is demanding payment of the sums advanced by him for the work of our Government. . . . Let our master consider how Sindhia alone has gained all the vast sums from the property of the Delhi Emperor, Afrāsiyāb Khan, and Ghulām Qādir, and the loot from Ismail Beg and [from the Rajputs] after the Patan and Mertā battles, besides many miscellaneous sums in ransom and revenue collection from smaller places. If our master takes these facts into account, Sindhia's claim to be a creditor to our Government will be seen to have no basis in fact. . .
v4.c50.9
If you do not agree to send me out on [North Indian] campaigning on the terms I have stated above, then recall me to the Deccan and keep me there.
v4.c50.10
The Peshwa knows well who has created mischief [by disturbing the political arrangement dictated from Punā.] Sindhia has no authority over Jaipur, and yet he has sent his troops and everywhere disturbed [my administration] and now denounces me to the Peshwā as the mischief-maker. It is surprising that the Peshwa and his ministers listen to such talk (without protesting.)
v4.c50.11
I am determined not to relinquish my heritage of Hindustan as long as I live. In the same way, Sindhia is determined not to let Holkar stay in Hindustan in order that he alone might hold that country. The Punā authorities ought to give their own decision in this dispute and confirm to each party its legitimate share. . . . At present our Government merely repeats to me the words of Sindhia. . . . The discussion in Punā is purely one-sided. This is very nice indeed! I have so long held my soul in patience, wishing to obey our master's command and to resolve this dispute without resort to internecine war. But in Punā things remain as on the first day”. . . . (*Hingné Daf.* ii. No. 93.)