[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [The Military System of the Marathas, with a Brief Account of Their Maritime Activities](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928) › c6 # The Military System of the Marathas, with a Brief Account of Their Maritime Activities c6: Chapter II: Chauth and Sardeshmukhi The Military System of the Marathas, with a Brief Account of Their Maritime Activities c6 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c6.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.46) — 4 parts ### Chapter II: Chauth and Sardeshmukhi ### [c6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.2) The term \*chauth\* has been invariably associated with the Marathas as an appropriate expression of their predatory genius. About its character there has been some difference of opinion; but its origin has been unanimously attributed to the resourceful mind of Shivaji. Shivaji, however, did not invent this ingenious method of raising revenue nor was the system by any means confined to the Marathas. Its character, which varied according to circumstances, may be likened to the variations of the chameleon's skin, which are frequently only skin-deep. ### [c6.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.3) Long before Shivaji and his Marathas were heard of, a petty Rajput chief, the ancestor of the present Raja of Dharampur, used to exact \*chauth\* from the Portuguese subjects of Daman. His territories were first raided and then conquered by Shivaji and as all the rights and prerogatives of the conquered were held to have automatically passed to his conqueror he demanded \*chauth\* from the Portuguese as a matter of routine. The demand, however, was extended to Bassein, another Portuguese possession, and in the closing month of 1677 Pitambar Shenvi¹ was sent as an envoy from the Maratha court to the Portuguese capital to settle the question, if possible, by peaceful negotiations. The relations between the two powers were not uniformly friendly, and how the negotiations ultimately terminated we are unaware. But a few letters on the subject have come down to us, which, while representing the views of one party only, form conclusive evidence of the pre-Maratha origin of \*chauth\*. ### [c6.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.4) ¹ Sen, Historical Records at Goa, pp. 12-13. ### [c6.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.5) The first of these letters was addressed to Shivaji by Pedro d'Almeida, Conde de Assumar, Viceroy of the Portuguese State in India, on 10 January 1678. It runs as follows: ‘Pitambar Shenvi, the envoy of Your Highness, gave me a memorial on certain negotiations that speaks of some letters delivered to the Viceroy, my predecessor, to which he had given no reply, for he was at that time occupied with some business. I immediately ordered a diligent search for them in the secretariat and I shall try to ascertain the particulars of which they treated, so that I may negotiate with Your Highness (on the subject). The envoy has delivered to me the much esteemed letter of Your Highness, in which Your Highness expresses satisfaction at my arrival, informing me of your health and the progress of your arms, which delighted me much, (for) it is in accord with the excellent friendship that Your Highness always had with this state, and Your Highness may be assured of the continuation of the good relation between us without any failure on my part as the Prince, my master, recommended to me. Your Highness asks me to write to the captains of the fortresses of Bassein and Daman that they should pay to Your Highness the \*chauth\* that has been always paid to the Chauthia, as Your Highness is now in possession of his territories, I order the said captains to enlighten me (about it), for having arrived here only a few days ago, I have till now got little information on this subject, and when their reply arrives I shall advise Your Highness to send a person with powers to make a settlement with the people I nominate, after an examination of the terms of the contract by which the said \*chauth\* was settled and the conditions on which it was conceded. Your Highness may be certain that when it is proved that Your Highness is the absolute master of the said territories, there will remain no doubt about paying to Your Highness what has been paid to the said Chauthia. As to the rest of what Your Highness tells me in your letter, I observe to Your Highness that the Portuguese are better as friends than as enemies, and as Your Highness is so wise, you should consider these things with care, that our amity may be preserved and augmented, and Your Highness will always find in me a faithful friend. May God illuminate the person of Your Highness in His Grace.¹ Two other letters were addressed on the same date to Annaji Datto and Moropant Pingle. The letter written to Annaji could not be deciphered; but in the epistle addressed to the Peshwa, reference is made to his demand for chauth, and the answer is exactly similar to that in the letter quoted above.² The Viceroy being a recent arrival in India, was bound to enquire into the justice of the Maratha claims. ### [c6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.6) ¹ \*Livros dos Reis Visinhos\* (Goa Archives), Vol. I, fol. 2. Sen, \*Historical Records at Goa\*, pp. 14-15. ### [c6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.7) ² Reis Visinhos, Vol. I, fol. 2. ### [c6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.8) On 15 January the Viceroy wrote a second letter to Shivaji: ‘I have already written to Your Highness another letter, in response to two of yours, which I delivered to Pitambar Shenvi, Your Highness’s envoy. And I thought (it proper) to write this letter to renew my thanks to Your Highness for the demonstrations with which Your Highness welcomed my arrival which I shall reciprocate with loyal friendship, preserving for ever (the good relation) that Your Highness has with this state, as Your Highness will experience throughout the whole term of my administration, for I have conceived special affection for Your Highness, as I had already heard much about your great qualities while yet in Portugal, and also because the Prince, my master, had likewise charged me with all possible earnestness (to that effect). As regards the business on which the above mentioned envoy came I shall send an answer to Your Highness with all possible speed as Your Highness (may perceive) in this letter. The above mentioned envoy will be able to assure Your Highness of the good will that he finds in me and the expedition that I have given to the letters. I have ordered (letters) to be written to Moro Pandit and Annaji Pandit in reply to those of theirs, and to the captains of the fortresses of the North to inform them truthfully about the particulars of which I asked them to make enquiry regarding the \*chauth\*, and their answer I shall send to Your Highness; and in the said letters I have charged them to maintain good relations and amity with the Subedars of Your Highness, and not to suffer in our lands the malefactors of the Kolis and the Chauthia, so that they may not create disturbance or commit robberies in the territories of Your Highness. I expect Your Highness will also on your part require the said Subedars to keep the same relations and friendship with the said captains, so that there may not be between us any occasion for resentment or grievance. May God illumine the person of Your Highness in His Grace.’¹ ### [c6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.9) ¹ Reis Visinhos, Vol. I, fol. 3. ### [c6.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.10) Within a fortnight of the despatch of this letter the Count of Assumar left India for Mozambique, where he died fourteen months later. The departure of the Viceroy naturally caused some delay in the enquiry instituted by him, as is clear from a letter addressed to Pitambar, the Maratha envoy, by Antonio Paes de Sande, one of the two Commissioners in charge of the Portuguese Government in India during the absence of the Viceroy. The letter is dated 12 July 1678, and runs as follows: ‘We have received the letters that Pitambar Shenvi wrote to me and the Arch-Bishop Primate, in which he represented to me that he came to this city in connection with the subject of the payment of \*chauth\* of the territories of Daman, which used to be paid to the King Chauthia. The Viceroy, Dom Pedro d’Almeida, replied that he would send for information (on this subject) from the Captain General of the North and from the commandant of the fortress of Daman, and when the said information came he would advise Shivaji Raze to send a person with authority to settle this business with the said captains, after examining the terms under which the said \*chauth\* was created; but the said advice had not come and the decision that was expected has been delayed. To this my answer is that the cause of the delay arose from the embarkation of the said Viceroy for Mozambique and on that account the said captains neglected to send the information he asked of them. It was not therefore possible to inform you that this state is not tributary to any neighbouring king. As however I desire to preserve peace and amity with Shivaji, I do not take any notice and pretend to be ignorant of the information that the said captains gave me. From that information it is clear that the said \*chauth\* had its origin in the covenant that the village-managers (varadores das aldeas)¹ of the district of Daman made on their own initiative with the King Chauthia, without informing the past Viceroys and Governors, in order to avoid the loss and robbery that his subjects used to commit in those villages. From that covenant a contract has been solemnly drawn up with various conditions which were to be operative between them, and I have no doubt that in conformity with them the said \*chauth\* will be paid to Shivaji Raze, as I am told in his letters that Shivaji is in possession of his (Chauthia’s) kingdom. To settle this business Pitambar Shenvi may advise Shivaji Raze to send on his behalf a person with proper authority. I write on this subject after consulting the captain of the fortress of Daman and examining the terms under which the agents of the said villages subjected them to the payment of the said \*chauth\*. The consideration of this affair is entrusted to the judges deputed for it, so that after the said villagers have been heard and the common law and the known custom relating to the \*chauth\* have been considered, the final decision on this matter may be made with justice. Shivaji Raze may be informed that I, on my part, do not lack the desire of seeing his claim decided so that our friendship may continue to increase.² ### [c6.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.11) ¹ Varadores are frequently mentioned in the \*Bombay Public Consultations\* as assessors of rent. ### [c6.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.12) ² Reis Visinhos, Vol. I, fol. 12. Sen, \*Historical Records at Goa\*, pp. 17-18. ### [c6.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.13) The last letter on this subject bears the signature of Antonio Paes de Sande and was addressed to Shivaji on 20 March 1679. As it deals with other subjects besides the Maratha claim to \*chauth\*, I quote here only the portion relevant to that question. ‘Received the letter of Your Highness, delivered by Ganu Chaty, on the subject of sending Your Highness the \*chauth\* that some villages under the jurisdiction of Daman used to pay to the King Chauthia, as Your Highness is now in possession of those territories. Pitambar Shenvi, the envoy of Your Highness, discussed this subject in this city with the Viceroy Pedro d’Almeida, and after his departure and after I had succeeded him in this Government, I solicited Your Highness as a friend to settle (this question) and to send to that end a person on your behalf with all necessary power to treat of the form and conditions of payment. For this contribution was paid by some villages of the said (district of) Daman under certain conditions to be observed by the two parties in which this state did not otherwise participate, except in the matter of giving them that permission. All these have been shown in the letter I wrote to the said envoy to be presented to Your Highness. I now remit to Your Highness a copy of that letter, so that it may be clear that I have not in any way failed in the observance and preservation of peace and amity and in offering good will to Your Highness.'¹ ### [c6.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.14) ¹ Reis Visinhos, Vol. I, fol. 29. Sen, \*Historical Records at Goa\*, p. 21. Abbe Carré says that the Portuguese of Daman had stipulated to pay the neighbouring princes a certain sum per year for keeping their turbulent subjects in check and preventing them from committing any trouble in Portuguese territories. In 1673 Shivaji demanded that the stipulated money should be paid to him, and the Portuguese Government was not in a position to refuse payment. Carré was at Daman when Shivaji’s envoy arrived there, but he does not say probably because he did not know, whether the tribute demanded by Shivaji was called \*chauth\* (Carré, \*Voyages Aux Indes Orientales\*, Vol. II, pp. 25-32). Prof. Pissurlencar says that in 1684 the Portuguese had agreed not only to pay to Sambhaji the \*chauth\* of Daman but also \*gaokhandi\* of the district of Bassein, while Sambhaji undertook to defend the territories of the Portuguese. The extent and the precise nature of Sambhaji’s obligations cannot be ascertained, as the original treaty has been lost and only a short ### [c6.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.15) These letters clearly prove that the Portuguese subjects of Daman used to pay a contribution called \*chauth\* to the Raja Chauthia as the price of his friendship; and this arrangement had been concluded sometime prior to 1677 with or without the knowledge of the Portuguese Government who were evidently not in a position to stop the depredations and the plundering raids of the Chauthia’s subjects. But as Shivaji had demanded \*chauth\* from the people of Surat as early as 1664, the pre-Maratha origin of this contribution cannot be satisfactorily established unless it is proved that the mutual arrangement between the villagers of Daman and the Raja Chauthia, mentioned in Antonio Paes de Sande’s letter, was concluded before that date. Fortunately, other Portuguese documents conclusively prove that this was the case. ### [c6.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.16) On 12 March 1635, a treaty on the subject of the payment of \*chauth\* was concluded between the King of Asarceta and the Captain of Daman. This treaty was ratified in 1670 and 1719 and it mentions in the preamble another treaty concluded as early as 1579,¹ dealing with the same subject and the relation between the Portuguese Government and the Raja of Sarceta or Asarceta in the dominion of Ramnagar. In 1617, Jaeda Rana, King of Sarceta, sent two envoys for the conclusion of a defensive alliance as well as for the regular payment and correct assessment of \*chauth\*,² and in 1604 a royal \*alvara\* was issued on the subject.³ This \*chauth\*, therefore, came into existence as early as 1579, if not earlier, and continued to be paid by the villagers of Daman and collected by the Raja of Ramnagar until 1719.⁴ Let us now determine what was exactly the relation between this Raja and his Portuguese neighbours, in what form this contribution was paid, and by whose agents it was collected. ### [c6.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.17) ¹ Biker, \*Tratados da India e concertos de Pazes\*, Vol. II, pp. 61-85. ### [c6.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.18) ² Ibid, pp. 197-203. ### [c6.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.19) ³ Ibid, pp. 81-3. ### [c6.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.20) ⁴ See footnote 1, p 26 ### [c6.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.21) In a letter to His Majesty the King of Portugal, dated 11 September 1638, the Viceroy, Pedro da Silva, defined \*chauth\*, which was paid by the inhabitants of Daman to the Raja of Sarceta, as ‘a kind of impost which obliges the said King not to harbour robbers in his dominions and to refrain from capturing men and cattle belonging to the farmers of the province of Daman.’⁵ The royal \*alvara\* or letter patent of 1604 states that the King has been informed that the captains of Daman do not treat the King Chauthia fairly, but pay his \*chauth\* in the form of overpriced old horses and other similar things. The King forbids this unfair practice on pain of severe penalties, and orders all persons concerned to pay \*chauth\* in cash.⁶ ### [c6.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.22) ⁵ Biker, \*Tratados da India\*, Vol. II, p. 101. ### [c6.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.23) ⁶ Ibid, p. 82. ### [c6.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.24) Of more interest is the paper recounting the favours which Jaeda Rana of Sarceta solicited through his envoys in 1617. In the first place he was anxious to secure military help from the Portuguese in case of foreign invasion. Then he goes on to ask that the \*chauth\* belonging to one Berba may be paid to him, as the said Berba was his uncle, to whom the \*chauth\* had been given by the Raja’s ancestors, and the sons and wife of Berba had now transferred to the Raja the \*chauth\* originally belonging to Berba by a deed of gift, a copy of summary given in a contemporary letter is now available (P. Pissurlencar, \*Prince Akbar and the Portuguese\*, pp. 5-6). ### [c6.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.25) which was sent by the King for the Viceroy’s perusal and examination. In this paper Berba’s sons describe the \*chauth\* as their ‘grasso’, a word derived from Sanskrit ‘grasa’ meaning ‘maintenance allowance’, and therefore somewhat analogous to the Maratha \*watan\*. The King further prayed that his \*chauth\* should be paid in \*Mahmudi Chalanis\* and not in \*Mahmudi Chaparis\*, as was then the practice, and suggested that as the Portuguese inhabitants of Daman did not return a correct statement of the revenue of their villages and the Raja was thereby defrauded of his income, the Viceroy should send an honest and conscientious Portuguese to make an enquiry in the matter.¹ The reply of the Portuguese Government and the observations made on the subject by Dr. Goncalo Pinto da Fonseca may be passed over, for a subsequent document informs us that the arrangement made on this occasion did not take effect. It is, however, worth remarking that when the King Chauthia had declared war against the Portuguese state in 1614, the Viceroy, Dom Jeronymo de Azevedo, had ordered the collection of \*chauth\* as usual by a commission of three, especially appointed on that occasion, to meet the expenses of maintaining a small force of fifty footmen for the defence of the chauth-paying territories out of the fund collected which was not otherwise to be interfered with.² ### [c6.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.26) ¹ Biker, \*Tratados da India\*, Vol. I, pp. 197-200. ### [c6.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.27) ² Biker, \*Tratados da India\*, Vol. II, pp. 83-5. ### [c6.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.28) But the most interesting document is the treaty of 1635. The word \*chauth\* really signifies ‘a quarter’, but the first Article of this treaty definitely laid down that the Chauthia should in no case receive a quarter of the total revenue collected.³ In some \*parganas\* his share amounted to 17 per cent. while in others he was entitled to no more than 14 and 12½ per cent., of the revenue. To avoid misunderstanding, these \*parganas\* were clearly mentioned in the text of the treaty, and Article 2 debarred him from making any further demands from the peasants and landholders of these \*parganas\*, all his claims having been included in the above mentioned 17, 14 and 12½ per cent. of the revenue.⁴ It was settled by Article 3 that \*chauth\* should be collected annually in the month of October in the city of Daman and its sub-divisions, and not in the villages. According to Article 4 the Raja Chauthia was expected to send his \*Pradhan\* and receiver at the appointed time of collection to collect and receive \*chauth\*, and two persons of noble birth and acknowledged honesty were to be elected by the officers and people of Daman to act as assessors of \*chauth\*. In return for the \*chauth\* which he received the Raja and his people were expected to refrain from doing any injury to the chauth-paying districts; and if any robbery or theft was committed in the district of Daman by any of the Raja’s subjects, he was to hand over the culprits to receive condign punishment, failing which he would be obliged to pay compensation for the losses caused by his people. He was not to allow the Kolis and other predatory tribes to pass through his lands. The Raja of Sarceta was also required to serve His Majesty the King of Portugal with his army, whenever he was called upon to do so by the Governor and captains of the fortress of Daman. He was to be a true and honest friend of the city and province of Daman, as his grandfather and father before him had undertaken to be. This treaty was with certain modifications renewed and reconfirmed in 1670; but the first five articles which regulated the payment and collection of \*chauth\* remained unaltered, and from a letter of the Viceroy in 1719 it appears that the annual \*chauth\* (which no longer fulfilled the conditions implied in the term) amounted to 18,000 Xerafins.¹ ### [c6.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.29) ³ Ibid, p. 63. ### [c6.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.30) ⁴ Ibid, p. 63 ### [c6.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.31) ¹ Biker, \*Tratados da India\*, Vol. VI, pp. 6-7. ### [c6.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.32) Despite the protest of Antonio Paes de Sande, the payment of \*chauth\* cannot be regarded as a private arrangement of the villagers of Daman, when it formed the subject matter of so many treaties from 1579 to 1719; nor could the Portuguese Government have been so ignorant of this levy in 1678, since one of the treaties had been renewed in 1670. It is equally clear that when the Portuguese Government conceded this impost to the King of Ramnagar, otherwise called the Chauthia, they did not in any way acknowledge his supremacy or suzerainty. On the contrary, from the language of the letter patent and the treaties already discussed, he seems to have been in the position of a vassal of the Portuguese. He received the \*chauth\* as a sort of remuneration for the performance of certain police duties.² It is noteworthy that in the viceregal letter of 1638 \*chauth\* is described as an impost, and in another viceregal letter of 1719 it is called a pension. Prof. Pissurlencar, Curator of the Records at Goa, said in a paper published in May 1926 that in the old Portuguese records the \*chauth\* is never styled a tribute (Tanto isto e verdade que nos antigos documentos o chouto e designado como uma pensao ou foro e nunca como um tributo), and he quotes Antonio Bocarro, who wrote in 1634 that the Raja Chauthia had enjoyed this pension even in pre-Portuguese times.¹ This may or may not be accurate; but the \*chauth\* which he collected in Portuguese times was hardly different from the perquisites granted in the period of the Peshwas to the Koli and Bhil Naiks for keeping their disorderly bands in check and maintaining peace and order throughout the countryside.² ### [c6.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.33) ² See footnote 5, p 26. ### [c6.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.34) ¹ P. Pissurlencar, \*Portugueses e Maratas\*, pp. 40-1. ### [c6.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.35) ² It may not be an accidental coincidence that the perquisite granted to the Bhils for maintaining peace and order was also called \*chauth\*. See \*Peshwa's Diaries\*, Vol. III, pp. 162-3. ### [c6.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.36) The \*chauth\* that Shivaji demanded from his enemies and neighbours was quite different from a pension paid by a superior power in consideration of his services. Yet it is not difficult to see how the practice prevailing in the Portuguese province of the North must have suggested to the quick mind of the great Maratha leader the idea of exacting a regular contribution from his wealthy enemies to replenish his war chest. He often passed through the principalities of Jawhar and Ramnagar on his way to Surat, the richest emporium of trade in the east, and he was served by a very efficient intelligence department. When he learnt how a petty chief like the Raja of Ramnagar had succeeded in securing a permanent and certain income, he decided to try an experiment on similar lines for his own advantage. But until he had conquered and annexed Ramnagar, he could not claim this impost as his 'grasso' or \*watan\*; and even that conquest afforded little validity to his claim in the eyes of his Muhammadan neighbours. But he realised that similar evils demanded similar remedies, and that if the Chauthia could by his robberies and depredations compel the Portuguese to make financial concessions to his power, he might also extort similar tribute from the harassed villagers and townsmen of Mughal India. He in no way acknowledged the supremacy of the Emperor of Delhi when he demanded \*chauth\* from his subjects of Surat, nor did he undertake to render any service whatever to the Rajas of Sunda and Bednore, when they were compelled at the point of sword to pay \*chauth\* which in this instance may be styled a tribute, or more accurately, satisfaction for refraining from plundering their territories. ### [c6.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.37) Shivaji was in urgent need of money. War required funds for its prosecution, even in those medieval days; and he was fighting simultaneously against two powerful enemies. He had done all that he could to develop the natural resources of his territories; but his normal income was hardly adequate for the incessant hostilities involved in the foundation of a new kingdom and the creation of a nation. He had therefore no alternative but to make war pay for war. The Muhammadan kings of India had set an example which he now emulated with rapid effect. He sent his army on \*mulk-giri\*, which connoted its existence at other people's expense for eight months out of the twelve. This was obviously a clumsy way of maintaining a standing army, for the material advantage accruing to the invading force was bound to be far less than the loss it inflicted on the invaded country. Shivaji realised that it would be far more profitable and convenient to exact a regular contribution from his enemies in return for an undertaking to refrain from plunder; and this was in fact the salient feature of his subsequent demand for \*chauth\*. Shivaji made his position quite clear in a letter to the Governor of Surat and Mirza Mosum to which reference is made in a letter written from Surat to Bombay on 25 June 1672 (fol. 47, F. R. Surat. Vol. 87): ‘The same day also were brought letters from Sevage to the Governor and Mirza Mosum demanding the third time (which he wrote should be the last) the Couty or ¼ part of the king’s revenues under this Government, declaring that as their king had forced him to keep an army, for defence of his people, and countrey so that army must be payed and if they sent him not the money speedily, he bid them make ready a large house for him, for he would come, and sitt downe here, and receive the rents and customs; for there was none now to stop his passage’. Those who condemn Shivaji as an enemy of trade and commerce forget that no belligerent power can afford to foster trade and commerce in an enemy country, nor was it to his interest to constitute himself the guardian of peace and order in Mughal provinces. It was the business of the Mughal Government to provide for the security of life and property in their dominions. How sadly they had failed in this primary duty is evident from the account of their defenceless condition as conveyed by the Surat factors to their friends at Bombay on 26 May 1677 (F.R. Surat. Vol. 89, fol. 40 and 41). ‘This citty of Surat and the countreys adjacent have for this four years been under a continuall feare of being surprized by Sevagees armys for his soldiers are loged and garrisoned securely in Nunsaree and Gundavce and the chief officers taken up the Desy’s owne houses who with their family and the Cozzy’s and the chiefe men are all fled to Surat, and Sevagees men do not only force contribution from the country but come boldly into this towne with forty or fifty horse att a time and publiquely demand provisions, and contributions from the Governor and the Kings officers, and tis confidently affirmed that Sevagees army increases daily more and more, and that many of his souldiers are loged privately in the very town of Surat upon some designe, which hath caused the captain of the castle to raise 500 souldiers more for his defence, and to keep an extraordinary strict watch day and night and you may concceive that our French and Dutch neighbours, as well as ourselves, have the same apprehension for their masters’ estates, and our own libertys, but should Sevagee surprize the towne, there is no possibility for us to oppose them, but must keep as fair termes with them as wee can.’¹ In demanding and exacting \*chauth\* from Mughal subjects Shivaji did nothing more than the primary duty of every soldier, which consists in taking every advantage of an enemy’s weakness and unpreparedness. ### [c6.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.38) ¹ Francis Martin, the future Governor of Pondichery, visited Surat in March 1670, in company with Monsieur Carron, the Director General of the French East India Company. He found the city disturbed by a rumour of Shivaji’s intended invasion and the Governor actually invited M. Carron to inspect the city walls and to advise him as to the best measures of defence. M. Carron gave him a number of suggestions, but the Frenchmen were surprised to find that no steps were taken, and they naturally suspected a secret understanding between Shivaji and the Governor of Surat. (Martin, \*Memoire\*, fol. 92 R°). ### [c6.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.39) Although Shivaji demanded ¼ of the total revenue collected by the government of the day from a district, it is quite possible that in actual practice he was content with much less. In a letter from Rajapore, dated 6 February 1674(75?) (F. R. Surat. Vol. 88, fols. ### [c6.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.40) 15-20), we read ‘that some of Sevagees forces have bin att Callapore which redeemed itselfe from their fury by a present-giving of 1500 pagodas, thence they went to a place called Songam which gave them 500 pagodas’. The total revenue of Kolhapur must have largely exceeded 6,000 pagodas. It must also be recorded to his credit that he did not in any way molest the towns and villages which paid \*chauth\*; and the foreign merchants at Surat suffered comparatively little annoyance from him. Whenever he annexed a town or a district, he took all possible care to protect the population from the military license of his soldiery.¹ ### [c6.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.41) ¹ In a letter from Chupra dated 24 February 1679-80 (Factory Records, Surat, Vol. 108, fol. 53), we read: ‘As to Sevagees forces they have plundered and burnt most of these parts, excepting the townes which pays him 4 part, those he meddles not.’ It can be safely inferred that this was his uniform practice, for in a Surat letter dated 19 December 1670, (Factory Records, Surat, Vol. 105, fol. 93) we find that while he plundered Karanja, he spared the villages about Nandurbar, from which, ‘he hath taken writings that they will pay him 4 per cent. (probably a clerical mistake) of the revenues thereof’. In 1678 the Governor of Hubli purchased the forbearance of Shivaji’s army by payment of \*chauth\* as the Carwar merchants wrote on 5 May 1678, ‘this hee sayes was partely (due) to the payment of Sevagee’s ‡ part of the revenue of Hubely veliott, having made peace with him upon those termes’ (Factory Records, Surat, Vol. 107. fols. 91-2). Also see another Carwar letter dated 24 August 1678, Factory Records, Surat, Vol. 107, fols. 135-6. The successors of Shivaji also conformed to the same practice as in 1704 they ravaged the greater part of Berar but desisted from doing any ### [c6.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.42) The \*chauth\* in Shivaji’s time was, therefore, a military contribution paid by the defenceless subjects of enemy kingdoms and territories, for the protection of their lives and property from the invading Maratha army, which held them completely at its mercy. Shivaji did not claim it as a hereditary pension, to which he was legally entitled, nor did he base his claim on an imperial \*farman\*; his claim rested on a basis of might, and in cases where he failed to enforce his demand, he could not resort to the issue of a royal letter patent for the prosecution of his claim, as the Chauthia had done. Sambhaji and Rajaram in turn followed in the footsteps of their father, and the character of \*chauth\* remained unaltered and unaffected. During the twenty years of their reign the contribution, while continuing to bear the name of its Ramnagar prototype, did not properly conform to the characteristics of that impost, and it was not until the reign of their successor, Shahu, that a reversion to the ancestral type occurred. ### [c6.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.43) Shahu received as a pension what Shivaji had demanded as a tribute, and what Shivaji had offered as a favour Shahu undertook as an obligation. To the Mughal Government \*chauth\* still remained what it had originally been viz., the purchase price of peace and security; but while in Aurangzib's time its demand indicated defiance of imperial authority, in Bahadur Shah's time it connoted unquestioned acknowledgement of the Emperor's suzerainty. Since Shivaji's time the Marathas had never once renounced their claim to the \*chauth\* of the Deccan, and whenever occasion offered they enforced their claim, as can be gathered from the pages of Khafi Khan: 'With large armies they invaded the \*Subas\* of the Dakhin, and Ahmadabad, and Malwa, for the purpose of collecting the \*chauth\*. To cities and large towns they sent messengers and letters demanding payment of the \*chauth\* from the governor or \*zamindar\*. Or the \*mukkaddams\* and \*zamindars\* of the towns and villages hastened out to meet the Mahratta army, undertaking to pay the \*chauth\*, and begged for protection. Taking back with them a messenger and a horseman to protect the village and the cultivation, instead of showing their total rent to be one or two thousand (rupees) they made it out to be four or five hundred. But whatever sum was settled, they promised payment, and gave sureties, called \*ol\* in the language of India. They thus saved themselves from violence and plunder.'¹ Shahu might have carried on this practice for the ### [c6.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.44) ¹ Elliot and Dowson, \*History of India\*, Vol. VII, pp. 464-5. ### [c6.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.45) harm to the districts which were regular in the payment of \*chauth\*. See J. Scott, \*History of the Dekkan\*, Vol. II, p. 105. As for his treatment of the foreign merchants the Dutch Resident at Surat wrotes on 14 November 1670: 'A messenger had come from the invader (Shivaji) to assure us that no harm would befall us if we remained quiet' (India office transcripts of Dutch Records, English Translation, Vol. 29, No. D C C LXIII). About his attitude towards the populace of a conquered city we have the following evidence of John Child and Thomas Michell who wrote from Raibag on 7 August 1675: 'Newes was brought us early in the morning (of 30 July), that Sevajees party in Callapore had seized the Governor there for the King; many of the inhabitants were leaving the towne but Sevajees souldiers kept all in with promise of faire usage; soe that the townes people are preserved in quiet and some security.' Factory Records, Surat, Vol. 88, fol. 95. ### [c6.46.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.46.1) rest of his life without any reference to the Mughal Government but he had spent his boyhood in the Mughal camp and had learnt to regard the Emperor of Delhi as the rightful sovereign of the whole of India. Moreover, both he and his cousin of Kolhapur were eager to strengthen his cause by enlisting on his side the moral support of the Mughal power, the visible sign of which was to be an imperial \*farman\* for the \*chauth\* and \*sardeshmukhi\* of the six \*subhas\* (provinces) of the Deccan, which the Maratha prince might then regard and cherish as his \*watan\*. The ministers at Delhi were eager to take full advantage of the internal dissension prevailing among the Marathas by procrastinating and postponing the issue of the \*farman\* sought by the rival parties; but the men on the spot found it difficult to maintain peace and order and to protect the peasant on whose labours the state revenues mainly depended, without coming to some sort of understanding with the Marathas. Daud Khan, therefore, consented to pay \*chauth\* to the Maratha Chhatrapati with one important proviso—the \*chauth\* was to be collected for the Marathas by the Mughal revenue officers. By this arrangement the Marathas would be unable to interfere with the peasantry or the internal administration of Mughal territory. ### [c6.46.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.46.2) This proposal, so necessary in the circumstances, did not meet with the approval of the Emperor and his ministers, and Chinkulich Khan, the next governor, was not disposed to accept the policy laid down by his predecessor in the office. Syed Hussain Ali, who replaced Chinkulich, at first made a determined but ineffectual effort to check Maratha depredations, and shortly afterwards political events at Delhi, which need no reference here, compelled him to purchase Maratha alliance at any price. Khafi Khan says that Hussain Ali came to an understanding with ‘Balaji Bishwanath and Jamnaji’ (Chimnaji?) through the mediation of Shankraji Malhar, a Maharashtra Brahman, who had once held an important office under Rajaram Chhatrapati. ‘There was to be paid to the officers of Raja Shahu’, says Khafi Khan, ‘a fourth of what \*amins\*, \*kroris\* and \*shikkdars\* collected as land revenue, and as \*sair\* from the government lands and from \*jagirdars\*. It was also settled that, in addition to the fourth share which they were to get from the receipts of the \*jagirdars\*, they were to receive from the \*raiyats\* ten per cent as \*sar-deshmukhi\*. Altogether they were to receive thirty-five per cent upon the total collections, (and also) upon the abwubs called faujdari, shikkdari, ziyafat, and other charges, as shown in the gross account of the collections. ### [c6.46.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.46.3) According to this account they were to receive nearly half the total revenue recorded in the government rent-roll, and (the collections) thus shared by the domineering collectors of Raja Shahu. This arrangement, by which they were to collect all taxes, fell very hard upon the raiyats, and the government officers and jagirdars; for in every district there were two collectors—one called the kamaishdar, the other the gumashta of sar-deshmukhi. On the roll of the collection the signature of the sarristadar of the sar-deshmukhi was first placed, and what was required by the rules on that account was to be taken separately.¹ Thus the Marathas obtained their desire, the right of collecting chauth on their own account and by their own agents; and although their demand was sometimes excessive, the arrangement, as Khafi Khan shows, had certain redeeming features. ‘In some places, e.g., Berar and Khandesh, the Marathas took one third leaving one third to the raiyat and one third to the jagirdars and villages formerly rendered desolate were now restored to cultivation.’² But if this purchase of Maratha protection was to the advantage of the cultivator, the presence of the Maratha tax collector in the Mughal provinces was incompatible with the sovereign rights of an independent power. It inevitably led to the further expansion of Maratha territory by the gradual absorption of the chauth-paying districts. ### [c6.46.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.46.4) It was on this account that Nizam-ul-Mulk found it necessary to purchase their departure from his immediate neighbourhood. ‘Nizam-ul-Mulk so arranged that instead of the chauth of the suba of Haidarabad, a sum of money should be paid from his treasury; and that the sar-deshmukhi, which was levied from the raiyats at the rate of ten per cent should be abandoned. He thus got rid of the presence of the kamaish-dars of the chauth, and the gumashtas of the sar-deshmukhi and the rahdari, from which latter impost great annoyance had fallen upon traders and travellers.’³ ### [c6.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.47) ¹ Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII, p. 467. ### [c6.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.48) ² Ibid, p. 468. ### [c6.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.49) ³ Ibid, pp. 530-1. ### [c6.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.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 ### [c6.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.51) ¹ P. V. Mawjee and D. B. Parasnis, \*Treaties, Agreements and Sanads\*, pp. 1-4. ### [c6.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.52) ² Elliot and Dowson, \*History of India\*, Vol. VII, p. 465. ### [c6.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.53) ¹ John Splinter Stavorinus, \*Voyages to the East Indies\*, Vol. III, pp. 140-1. ### [c6.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.54) Only one question now remains to be answered, did the Marathas ever undertake to protect the chauth-paying countries from external aggression other than their own? Ranade says they did so. He writes: ‘In 1668, the Bijapur Adilshahi kings agreed to pay three lakhs of rupees on account of chauth and sardeshmukhi, and the Golconda ruler agreed to pay five lakhs about the same time. In 1671 chauth and sardeshmukhi levies were recovered from the Moghul province of Khandesh. In 1674, the Portuguese possessions in the Konkan were made to pay tribute by way of chauth and sardeshmukhi for that part of the country. In return for the tributes paid by the Bijapur and Golconda rulers, Shivaji undertook to protect them from the aggressions of the Moghuls, and this protection was found very effective in the wars which took place about that time. Before his death in 1680 Shivaji had thus established his system of subsidiary and tributary alliances with the consent of the Mahomedan and Hindu rulers in Southern India whom he protected, and he enforced his demand on some of the Moghul provinces also. The demand for chauth was subsequently added with the consent of the powers whose protection was undertaken against foreign aggression, on payment of fixed sums for the support of the troops maintained for such service. This was the original idea as worked out by Shivaji, and it was this same idea which in the Marquis of Wellesley’s hand bore such fruit a hundred and twenty-five years later’.¹ ### [c6.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.55) ¹ Ranade, \*Rise of the Maratha Power\*, pp. 223-5. ### [c6.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.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 ### [c6.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.57) ² According to a manuscript chronicle entitled \*Rellacao da guerra que o Inimigo Marata fes no Estado da India, e dos progrecos della desde o dia seis de abril de 1737 the os primeiros de janerio de 1741 com algua’s noticias das antecedencias e principios que teve origem a mesma guerra\* (Archivo Ultramarino of Lisbon, fundo geral, No. 1605), the Marathas began to demand \*sardeshmukhi\* (or as the Portuguese writer calls it, ‘a decima parte de rendimento’) from the Portuguese Province of the North as early as 1718, but it was not until 1739 that the Viceroy Conde de Sandomil agreed to pay 40 per cent. of the revenue. Vyankat Rao, the Maratha General, had penetrated into the Portuguese territories as far as Margao and his retreat had to be purchased at any price. And besides the 40 per cent. of the revenue the Viceroy further agreed to pay an indemnity of 20 lakhs of Rupees. The 40 per cent. probably consisted of 25 per cent. \*chauth\*, 10 per cent. \*sardeshmukhi\* and five per cent. \*ghasdana\*. Only one instalment of the indemnity was paid but when a Maratha General entered into the Portuguese territories to realise the promised tribute during the second viceroyalty of Marquez do Lourical, he was expelled by force of arms. See \*Relacam das victorias alcancadas na India contra o inimigo Marata sendo Viceroy daquelle Estado o Illustrissimo e Excellentissimo D. Luiz Carlos Ignacio Xavier de Meneses V. Conde da Ericeira e I. Marquez do Lourical\*, pp. 9-15. ### [c6.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.58) ¹ \*Peshwa’s Diaries\*, Vol. III, p. 21. ### [c6.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.59) ² \*Ibid\*, Vol. IX, pp. 280-2. ### [c6.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.60) While the Marathas exacted \*chauth\* on an extensive scale, the practice was not confined to them alone. According to Lal Kavi, the author of \*Chhatra Prakash\*, ‘Raja Chumput levied the chouth from all the neighbouring Umeers and Soobahders, who hastened to transmit it to his camp in order to avert the impending calamity. On receiving that tribute from every contiguous country, province and city, he discontinued hostilities, and granted them peace and protection.’¹ When Chhatrasal resolved to wage war against the Emperor, he decided, as Lal tells us, to levy \*chauth\* on the Emperor’s subjects. ‘Thus at the head of a powerful army, I shall wage war, levy contributions, and grant no respite till the enemy consents to pay the chouth. He may then remain unmolested.’ This was the plan disclosed by Chhatrasal to his brother Ratan Shah.² The Sikhs in the cis-Sutlej provinces also maintained themselves at the expense of their less warlike neighbours, and the reports of Maratha envoys at the court of Delhi show that Mahadaji Sindhia scarcely knew how to shield the imperial districts from their depredations. They demanded a contribution called \*rakhi\* which formed a proportion of the revenue of the district. At first it was two annas in the Rupee or 12½ per cent. of the entire revenue; but with the growth of their power their demand increased, and they sometimes demanded as much as eight annas in the Rupee or 50 per cent. of the revenue. In one letter we read that the Sikhs also claimed \*chauth\* from their victims.³ ### [c6.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.61) ¹ Pogson, \*A History of the Boondelas\*, p. 23. ### [c6.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.62) ² Ibid, p. 57. ### [c6.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6.63) ³ Many letters published in \*Delhi Yethit Marathyanchin Rajkaranen\* refer to \*rakhi\* levied by the Sikhs. \*See\* Vol. I, pp. 112, 135, 156 and 164; for \*chauth\* levied by them \*see\* Vol. I, p. 181 and for their demand of fifty per cent. of the revenue, \*see\* Vol. I, pp. 206-7. _First 65 of 80 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6)_ ## Linked texts (1) - [Chatraprakāś](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vernacular.hindi.itihasa.chatraprakas) — Lāl Kavi, Hindi --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1928.c6) · Pramāṇa