The Military System of the Marathas, with a Brief Account of Their Maritime Activities c7.47

c7.47

demands of their soldiers on the one hand and to render any satisfactory account of their revenue to the supreme Government on the other. On one occasion Sindhia had to submit seven years’ accounts at one time, when it was found that the papers had not been properly kept.¹ The financial difficulties of Holkar led to the gradual dissolution of his forces, so that in September 1785, he had only fifteen hundred men for four thousand horses shown on paper.² Some of the chiefs tried to solve the difficulty by employing only a small force in times of peace and raising fresh levies when called upon to join the Peshwa’s banner. The Government often encouraged this practice, as the Peshwa on his part wanted to save the revenue by the reduction of the standing army which the fief-holder was expected to maintain. The Government at the same time expected the fief-holders to credit to its coffers the monetary equivalent for the services of which it was thus deprived. In extreme cases an indigent chief sometimes failed to render any military service or to compensate for it in cash and such failure or delinquency often escaped the stern punishment it deserved. In 1768 the Peshwa Madhav Rao ordered the confiscation of the fief of Maloji Ghorpade of Mudhol,³ as he had failed either to render military service or in the alternative to pay compensation therefor. But it does not appear that the order was executed; for a year later we find him still in possession of a large fief with an income of 1,73,900 Rupees, and in 1794 he served with a cavalry force of 775 men against the Nizam at Kharda. Once feudalism was re-established, the Maratha tradition concerning the sanctity of the watan stood in the way of any effective military reform. In February 1787, Murar Rao Jadhav was deprived of his fief and command, as being of no use to the State;⁴ but his sister-in-law was permitted to adopt a young man of the family whom she had brought up from childhood, and this youth was invested with the command of which his uncle had been deprived. It is needless to remark that such a shifting of command in itself could hardly improve the state of affairs, but as the Peshwa derived his authority from feudal customs, he could not abolish them when they happened to militate against his personal wishes and plans.