The Military System of the Marathas, with a Brief Account of Their Maritime Activities c6.50

c6.50

But the concession of chauth was by no means unconditional. A Maratha force under the personal command of Balaji Vishwanath went to Delhi in the train of Syed Hussain Ali; and the grant of *chauth* and *sardeshmukhi* made by the Viceroy was confirmed by the puppet Emperor. One of these imperial *farmans* has come down to us; its terms are clear, definite and unambiguous. As a good and loyal vassal, Shahu undertook to serve the Viceroy of the Deccan with 15,000 men; as a wellwisher of the empire, he offered to restore the deserted and devastated villages to their former prosperity within a period of three years; as a good baron, he was to devote himself to the maintenance of peace and order in the imperial provinces of the south, and prevent miscreants and evil-doers from creating troubles and disorder. If a theft was committed in the imperial provinces, it was Shahu’s business to detect the thief and punish him; if he failed to recover the stolen property, it was obligatory on him to pay compensation for the loss out of his own coffers.¹ Shahu by his acceptance of *chauth* and *sardeshmukhi* on these terms became for all practical purposes what Shivaji never agreed to be—namely a servant of the Emperor of Delhi. Thus both in its character and in the method of collection *chauth* became in Shahu’s time a pension, exactly as the Portuguese regarded it in their relations with the Raja Chauthia of Ramnagar. From this position neither Shahu nor any of his successors openly receded, though in practice they seldom, if ever, honoured their obligations. But if the Emperor could not enforce the terms of his *farman* on the Marathas, neither could he make his powerful governors respect it. This led to constant mutual recriminations; the Marathas could never rely on the punctual payment of *chauth*; while the contribution by no means always represented a quarter of the entire revenue. The Maratha chiefs would often compound their claim for a lower sum, as they did with Hyder; for the financial results of a campaign of depredation did not always come up to their expectations, as has been pointed out by two writers of different ages and different nationalities. Khafi Khan states that the Maratha leaders were always eager to settle the amount of *chauth* to be paid and were not willing to indulge in pillage and loot. ‘Their men, on the contrary, strove to prevent any arrangement of the *chauth*, so that they might be free to plunder.’² We hear almost an echo of this in the words of the Dutch Admiral, John Splinter Stavorinus: ‘It will naturally be asked, why do the opulent states submit to be tributary, and what security have they that these licentious plunderers will abide by their agreements, and not continually encroach upon them, and raise their demands? The reason is plain; it is less expensive, and a lighter tax upon trade, to agree to some certain payment, than to engage in the unknown expense of armies, to free themselves from so irregular a foe; and as to greater exactions, if the chief have once settled the Chout, he will hardly, venture to struggle for more, as the money agreed on goes to his own pocket; and were he to procced to the more violent method of compulsion, by invading the country, the spoil would all become the property of his troops, under the articles of plunder, and his own share would come very short of the sum stipulated; besides they have the prudence to consider, that a country ravaged by their troops, will produce neither tribute nor plunder for a time’.¹