Administrative System of the Marathas c18.s17.1

c18.s17.1

Here we may also explain some terms which will often appear unintelligible to the reader of the old records.² The Marathas, unlike the modern European nations, did not extend their empire by peaceful penetration. Their victims had no reason to misunderstand their method. Shivaji invaded the territories of his enemies and offered them the option of purchasing security or submitting to plunder. The price that he first demanded was the Sardeshmukhi or Rs. 10 for every 100 levied by the Government. To the Sardeshmukhi was subsequently added another claim, that of the Chauth or 25 per cent. of the total Government collection. The whole of the Chauth was reserved for the Government treasury. The *Babti* or 25 per cent. of the Chauth was collected for the Raja by his principal officers, *vis.*, the Pratinidhi, the Peshwa, and the Pant Sachiv,—the rest was called the *Mokasa* and was partitioned among the Sardars for maintaining troops. Six per cent. of the whole Chauth was, however, reserved for the Pant Sachiv and was called the *Sahotra* and three per cent. was reserved as *Nadgaunda* to be granted at different times to different persons according to the pleasure of the King. Thus only sixty-six per cent. of the *Chauth* could be available for other *Mokasa*-holders. The Sardeshmukhi also came to be similarly divided afterwards. When the territories paying the Chauth and the Sardeshmukhi were finally annexed to the Maratha dominions, the remaining three-fourths of the revenue were styled as *Jagir* in contradistinction to the Chauth. It is needless to add that the Jagir also was granted in *inam*. As a result of this complex division, and complicated arrangement different individuals might have different claims over the same village. One might claim the *Sahotra*, a second, half the *Mokasa*, a third the other half, while to a fourth might have been granted some percentage of the *Jagir*. If all these claimants had sent different collectors, as they sometimes did, the rayat would have been subjected to unnecessary inconvenience. The duty of collection in such cases was, therefore, for common convenience entrusted to one of the grantees only.a