The Military System of the Marathas, with a Brief Account of Their Maritime Activities c6.56

c6.56

This ingenious explanation, however, will not bear close scrutiny. In the first place Ranade forgot that whatever might have been the nature of the agreement made between Shivaji and the Sultans of Bijapur and Golkonda in 1668, the actual treaties have not come down to us. We know, however, that Shivaji did not cease to harass the provinces of Bijapur and Golkonda during the last twelve years of his life. So far as the Portuguese were concerned, it is not clear whether they ever actually paid *chauth* and *sardeshmukhi*,² but we have already seen on what terms they were prepared to allow Shivaji to collect *chauth* (and not *sardeshmukhi*) from villages under the jurisdiction of Daman. Shivaji exacted *chauth* from Mughal provinces without the consent of the ruling power. It is, therefore, needless to point out that ‘the original idea as worked out by Shivaji’ bore no resemblance whatever to the ‘idea which in the Marquis of Wellesley’s hand bore such fruit a hundred and twenty-five years later’. The main features of the policy of subsidiary alliance as pursued by Wellesley was the surrender of the diplomatic independence on the part of the allied states on the one hand, and on the other, assumption by the East India Company of the responsibility for their defence against foreign aggression. With the internal affairs of their allies the East India Company’s Government had nothing to do. Shahu, on the other hand, made himself responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in the six imperial provinces of the Deccan; and although he undertook to serve the Viceroy with 15,000 men, he could not expect the Mughal Government, which certainly did not agree, to surrender their diplomatic independence or to shape their foreign policy according to dictation from Satara or Poona. During the Peshwaship of Balaji Baji Rao and Madhav Rao I, we read more often of *khandani* and *mamlat*, under which terms were included all Maratha claims for the time being. The term *mamlat* was used in relation to the less powerful principalities like the Rajput states of Udaipur, Jodhpur and Jaipur, who were expected to pay their contribution with more regularity and without much resistance. It was never applied in relation to more powerful states like those of the Nizam and Mysore under Hyder Ali and Tipu, and the Maratha Government never concluded anything approaching a subsidiary alliance in their political relation with them. But the weaker states probably did expect some protection against foreign aggression as we may infer from a Hindi *sanad* granted to the Chief of Bhandawar by Balaji Baji Rao in the year 1746-7. The Chief ceded half his territories to the Peshwa, who in his turn undertook to defend his territories against all aggression.¹ Be it remarked, however, that protection was not purchased by the payment of *chauth* or any other contribution, but by territorial concessions, which are the usual accompaniment of a subsidiary alliance. By an agreement made with Rao Raja Umed Sing of Bundi in the year 1769-70, he was required to pay his *khandani* (tribute or contribution) punctually to the Peshwa’s agent and to refrain from allying himself with any enemy of the Maratha state. The Peshwa offered to protect the Rao Raja ‘according to the agreement’ if he behaved loyally to the Maratha state; but the nature and extent of this protection are in no way indicated in the above mentioned agreement.²