Additins to the SecondEdtion xvii

Epilogue :
In the foregoing pages an attempt is made to analyse the
efforts of Shivaji in amelerating the conditions of his subjects
with reference to the economy of the Maratha state, with the
help of contemporary and nearcontemporary sourceswith
an emphasis on the indigenous sources.The RoyalInsignia
of Shivaji, which bears the epithet, Mudra Bhadraya Rajute
meaning 'the seal shines for the welfare', obviously of the
people of his swaraj, 818 was to a large extent translated into
practice by Shivaji. He endeavoured to make the newly
founded swaraj not only aMaratha sovereign state, but also
an economically viable state as far as he could.
However, a few historians, both Western and Indian hold
different views about the Marathas in Medieval history. It is
intended to review critically the views of these historians about
the purpose, ideology and nature of the Maratha state in
general and under Shivaji, in particular, for a proper
understanding of the role of Marathas in histor, In the words
of G. S. Sardesai, it can be said to produce a true Kaifiyat
(apologia) of the Maratha people, and place it before the
impartial public".
It was believed fora longtime and perhaps even now, that
the Maratha's state was essentially a 'robber state': the
Marathas were free booters and plunderers, they were never
so on.
a sovereign power, itwas afeudalstate, and
James Cuninghame Grant Duff, the first camprehensive
historian of the Marathas (1826) maintaine dthat the rise of
Maratha power in the 17h Century was accidentaland was
solely due to the fortuitous circumstances, and, it was
something like the parched grass kindled amid the forests of
the Sahyadrimountains, theyburst forth in spreading flame,
and men afar off wondered at the conflagration". It is quite
clear from the above statement that he ignored the long
tradition of Indian rule over this region prior to the advent of
xviii Maharashtru in the Age of Shivuji
Muslims in the Deccan in the late 13 century.
Justice M. G. Ranade, however, while analysing the
importance of Maratha his tory, says, that "there is a very
common feeling with the readers, who derive their knowledge
of these events (of Maratha history) solely from the works of
English historians'" who held that there can be no particular
moralsignificance in the story of the rise and fallof a free.
looting power, which thrived by plunder and adventure and
succeeded only because it was the most cunning and
adventureous among allthose whohelped todismember the
great Moghul Empire,after the death of Aurangzeb. 21
Ranade, inhis classic work,Rise of the Maratha Power
(1900), argued that the hypothesis of 'conflagration'
advocated byGrant Duff was his pre-mature opinion' and
rejected the views of wes tern historians wh0 attributed the
rise of the Marathas solely to the fortuitous circums tance.
He maintained that rise of the Maratha power had its
not in the Muslim conquest of the Deccan, but in the ancient
history of Maharashtra. He argued that rise of the Maratha
power was not a mere accident, due to any chance
combination, but was a genuine effort on the part of a Hindu
nationality, to assert its independence, and it became
successful due to a general upheaval social, religious and
political, of all classes of the population. He likewise
establisheda close relationship between rise ofMaratha Power
and the bhakti movement of Maharashtra. "2
Vincent A. Smith, the noted British historian of India of
the early 20h century reiterated Grant Duff's view about the
Maratha rule, in his Oxford History of India (1918) which
was atext-book in Indian His torv couses for a long time. He
writes "the Marathaindependent rule in all itsvarieies until
T618,was the rule of professed robbers." About Shivaji he
writes "A robber chief who inficted untold miseryon hundreds
and thousands of innocentneonle, Hindus and Mahomedans
 litins to the Sevnd Edtin
xix

alike, merely for the sake of gain using without

kinds of cruelty and treachery to attain his wickedscruple
all
ends" 2}
Such a iew of the British bistorians may be partly due to
Jack of proper unders tanding of the source
perhaps mainly due tothe imperialpolicy of the material
and
British rulers
whoaimed at establishing their racial
superiority. British
colonial administrator his torians generally suffered from a
strongdose of racialprejudice. Among the Indian histo rians,
of Medieval period, the views of Professor Jadunath Sarkar
and Professor Irfan Habib in this respect deserve some
attention.
special
Professor Jadunath Sarkar, one of the leading biographers
of Shivaji in English, wasmainly concerned with his political
career.As we know his major interest of study was Aurungazeh
andthefull of the MughalEmfpire, which inevitably led to the
study of Maratha history. He believed that for studying
Maratha history the authentic and useful sources are only in
Persian, Rajasthani and European languagesand 'none' in
Marathi. Obviously this is an absurd proposition. If Persian
sources are authentic toMughal his tory, why should we not
apply the same yards tick to Marathisources for Maratha
hisotry. One could hardly get acorrect picture of the Maratha
society,economy and polity without analysing Marathi sources
and comparing them with the source material in other
languages. Thisindifferenceto Marathi sources, perhaps,led
him to such conclusions as the Marathas neglected the
economicdevelopment of the state and that the Maratha state
was a war-state, Kriegstaat. 25
The charge that the Marathas neglected the economic
development , is certainly not applicable to the 'Swaraj' of
Shivaji The present study, tries to prove that Shivaji
endeavoured throughout his shortspan of life, tocreate an
enduring state aimingat uniting all Maratha people and
making it economically viable. Shivaji never made his state a
 Maharashtnu in the Ageof Shivaji
personal entity but always depended on his associates and
the institutions that he had set up. for administering it.
The efforts made by him in setting the terri tory in
improving the economy of the state that had devastated by
the Great Famine on 1630, by promoting agriculture
protecting and developing indigenous industries, encouraging
trade and commerce, estab lishing friendly relations with the
foreign powers,collecting trustworthypeople around him and
appealing to their latent qualities, creating jobs for the young
and talented people, promoting learning by giving generous
grants, allthese activities fully explain the political ideals and
policiesof the Maratha state. It was a self-governing entity
created for the people of the Maratha country which was
sustained by them, by their will and determination.
In his another book, House of Shivaji, a supplementary to
his major work, 'Shivaqi and his times', adhunath Sarkar uses
choicest phrases in praising the achievements of Shivaji.He
extols him in these words," The Historian of Shivaji, at the
endof acareful study ofall records about him in eight different
languages, is bound to admit that Shivaji was not only the
maker of Maratha nation, but also the greatest constructive
geniusof medieval India." He describes him as 'hero as king'
'a pilar of peoples hope' and that'his memory will be cherished
by the people for ever' 5,
One, therefore, finds contradition in Jadunath'sassessment
of Shivaji, when he extols him as one of the greatest
constructive genius of medieval times, and in the same breath
blames him for the negligence ofeconomic development of
his state.
Jadunath Sarkar links up with the negligence of economic
tactor by Shivaji with the concept of war-state Kriegstaat. ln
justificationof this charge, he cites only one example and
repeated
that was the sack of Surat. He writes "Shivaji's
plunder of Surat scared awav tradeand wealth from that city
Akitions to the SevndEdtion Xxi

and the constant dread of Maratha

incursion entirely
impoverished Surat and ettectually dried up this source of
supply." He thus concludes that "fromthe
wiew, the Maratha state had no stable basis, economic
point of
normal means of
growth within itself"
Sarkar's charge of instability and the lack of means of
growth within itself has already been refuted earlier. However,
it isworth considering why Surat declined after 1664 and
ultimatelybecame impoverished? Sarkar argued that the
Marathas created an atmosphere of constant war in that area,
which resulted into the decline of trade of Surat and
impovershing the city. But this seems to be afarfetched
inference. Had the Mughal administration been effcient and
strong in that area, the Mughal power could have easily
prevented the Maratha raids on Surat. But the Mughal
administration was so poor in Surat, that even the Mughal
governor of the town who had failed in inducing Shivaji to
come for terms of ransom, himself fled to the fort leaving the
poor townspeople to the mercy of the enemy. The rich Muslim
merchant Haji Said Beg.whose residence andware-houses
were next to the company's factory could save his property
from Shivaj's raids, because of timely help from the Company,
and not from the mughal Governor. Sarkar has accused Inayet
Khan the Governor of Surat for his inefficiency, corruption
and cowardice27, The Dutch, the Turkish and Armenian
merchants, like the English defended their factories and suruies
but not the townspeople. The decline of Surat, may be,
therefore, attributed to the political, economic and religious
policies of the Mughals which must have created a feeling of
uhcertainty among the people, particularly the trading
community, who must have migrated to some other safer
places. The British gradually shifted to Bombay after 1664
and developed the island inspite of the presence of Shivaji, in
its vicinity.
 Xxii Muhnshtx in the Age f Shiwaji
Sarkar accused the Maratha State as a war-state, which
always considered war as its only or main source of income
and therefore, it always got involved incessantly in war. Grant
Duff's History of the Marathas, also created a similar
impression about the Marathas as warmongering people. His
'history' of the Marathas was assailed byV.K. Rajwade,the
historan, as 'a chronicle of wars', and not the real History of
the Maratha people.
Perhaps, the views of British historians likeGrant Duff or
V.A. Smith might have partly influenced Sarkar to consider
Marathas as the enemies of all other powers in India. In fact,
Shivaji was avoiding all sorts of confrontation with other
powers because of his limited military power. He was mainly
concerned with the liberation of his people from foreign
control, which made him involved in some petty wars in the
Deccan, which brought him some 'spoils of war and 'gains
from war' was a budget iten ofstate income in medieval times.
Shivaji's state should not be nade an exception to this
medieval practice by calling it a Kriegstaat.
While analysing the politicalideal of Shivaji, and the
difficulties he had to encounter in realizing it, Sarkar, however,
admitted that itwould be unfair to think that Shivaji merely
foundeda kriegstaat, or that he was merely an entrepreneur
rapine, a Hindu edition of Alaudda Khilji or Timur. He was
not miserly in praising Shivaji for his permanent contribution
to Marathacountry, in particular and Indiain
general.
The inperishable achievement of his life was raising ot the
Marathas into an independent self-reliant people, conscious
of their oneness and high destinyand his most
was the spirit that he breathed into this race".
precious legacy
Sarkar's genuine
admiration for Shivaji is reflected in his followings words:
"States full, empires break-u), dynasties becomes extinct, but the
memory ofa tre king like Shivaji remain n imperishable historical
legucy for entire hunan race".
 A lit imsto the Second Editin Xxiii

Thus the discovery of new material and significant

einterpretation of the old Sources do clearly and decisevely
woto prove that the unsubstantial charges that the Maratha
State had no stable basis' or no normal means of growth
within itself,or it was a "war-state'are not tenable.
Professor Irfan Habib, a leading historian of Mughal India,
idnot differ much from the views of historians discussed
earlier; in his assessment of Shivaji. In his book Agrarian
System of Mughal India, he maintains that, "There will be no
eater mistake than toconsider Shivaii and the Maratha
chiefs as a conscious leaders of a peasant uprising," His main
argument is, the Maratha State of Shivaji was feudal in
character. Shivaji was the son of a zamindar who spent his life
inserving the Nizamshahi, the AdilShahi and for some time
the Mughals, he started his carrer as Jagirdar, the economic
and political policies of the Marathas indicate the deep roots
of zamindari in Maratha society; the rise of Maratha power
can be attributed to the zamindariand feudalism. He cites
the example of the Maratha practice of collecting 'chauth'
which according to him was an instrument of plunder. He
also accused Shivajiof giving bad treatment to his soldiers,
who were recruited from lower classes, and were 'naked and
'starved rascals' because of low payment or nopayment of
wages at all.
This is the sum and subs tance of the views of Professor
Habib about Shivaji, his state and his policies. His analysis is
based mainly on Persian sources, and the accounts of the
European travellers of the 17h century. Among the Persian
Sources consulted by him are the Memoris of Bhimsen
Burhanpuri's Nuksha-i-Dilkasha (1700 AD) and Azad
Bilgrami's Ahakam-i-Alamgiri and Khajana-i-Amira. Bilgrami
regarded the Marathas as ashiya (robbers) by which name they
Were officially recognized. His another source of information
is, Dr. Fryer's New Account
 Maharashtra in the Age of Shivaji
According to Bhimsen Burhanpuri, the ryot in the pre.
Shivaji periodwas harrassed by the zamindars and the state
offlcale underthe Muslim and Mughal rule in this region,
Sabhasad, the chronicler of Shivaji, has also painteda similar
pic ture ofthe condition of ryot prior to the rise of Maratha
power. Professor Habib asserts that Shivaji aso utilized the
services of the ryots for building up his Marathakingdom
without makíng any regular payment for their services; they
had tomaintain themselves on plunder. No plunder, no pay
was the order of Shivaji.
Dr. John Fryer, a British traveller who was in Shivaji's
dominion in 1675-76 had mentioned."We are told that Shivaji
demanded double ratesof rent from the ryots than they were
paying before, and they were allowed to retain only a small
part of their agrarian production, which was hardly sufficient
for their bare maíntenance. In Karwar, nearly one third of
the land couldnot be brought under cultivation because of
Shivají's tyranny"
The accounts ofthe travellers in many cases are basedon
hear-say, as it is quite clear from the words 'we are tol. Such
statements unless otherwise corraborated byother credible
primary sources, they can hardly be accepted as historical
facts.
About the leadership of Shivaji, the extant records suggest
that the people of the Maratha country had accepted him as
their leader willingly and unreservedly. For instance, while
deciding a case of mirasi tenure which could not be
satisfactorily resolved by the officer, Shivaji had to inferfere
and settle the problem of ownership. He unequivocally
declared to the officer thathe knew each and every person in
his dominion, and therefore he (the officer) is not in aposition
to decide who was the Mirusudar and who was not."
Shivaji had warned the watandars of the paragana that if
they failed in their duty of protecting the ryot from the inroads
Additions to the Second Edition XXV

of the enemy, by shifting them to a safe place, they

held responsible for the ryots carried away by the would as
be
slaves. 32 enemy
Again when the ryots who vere supplying grains to a
ata ffxed rate had to suffer a loss, due to temple
the soaring up of
prices of the grains in course of time, Shivaji
iesued instructions to the officers concerned to immediately
compensate
them for the losses they were incurring due to rising prices
without disturbing the agreed share of the temple
He had enjoined his state officals that they should not
expect any thing -even the stem of a vegetable from theryot,
collect the state demand in the manner as decided by the
state i.e. in cash or in kind; they should collet all information
regarding the requirements of the ryots, and wherever
necessary give interest free loan to them, and recovere it from
them in easy instalments according to their convenience, and
34
under no circums tances confiscate their implements
Similarly, the soldiers who were paid regularly were warned
not todisturb the ryots living in the vicinily of their camps by
burning their crops, or forcibly collecting grains, fodder,
vegetables from them without making the usual payments at
market rate.
There is enough evidence to suggest that his soldiers
received regular payment of their salary. Sabhasad the
chronicler of Shivaji has clearly stated Shivaji's policy towards
the ryots. He had fixed the share of the state in the total
agricultural produce which was in the proportion of two to
five, three parts remaining with the cultivator He had issued
orders that"the karkuns of the government should survey each
and every village under theircharge and estimate the probable
yield from each crop; and collect land cess accordingly. The
ryots are not under the control of the Zamindar/Deshmukh
and Desais; if they think that they could assume power and
exploit the ryots, they could not do it." He had put several
 NNVi Maharashtra in the Ageof Shivii

restraints on the powers of the zamindars village and pargana

officias 5
If this wvas the state of affairs as revealed by authentic
records, how can one deny the leadership of the people to
Shivaji, or relying only on one set of records, maintain that
'to acceptShivaji and the Maratha chiefs as conscious leaders
of ryots as a greater mistake'. We hardly come across any
organized revolt raised by the ryots agains t the Maratha ruler
or the chiefs; though we do occassionally find complaints of
the people against the village or paragana officials for non
compliance of the state orders or for neglecting their duties.
The government used to take immediate action to redress
the grievances of the people. On the whole, it appears that
during the regime of Shivaji, the relations between the ryots
and the government both local and state were cordial.
Secondly, as regards Chauth it is necessary to clear some
misunderstanding about the functioning of the Chauth
system. It wascollected from the rulers of some non-Maratha
areas, known as 'mogalai' who agreed to pay a certain amount
annually to avoid the Maratha incursions. It was introduced
not without much success, in the last phase of Shivajis regime.
The so- called'chauth' or 'chauthai was not necessarily one
fourth of the total revenue of that region as the term seems
tosuggest.
Shivajiwas not the originator of this chauth sys tem. The
Portuguese who had acquired the arcas of Diu and Daman in
Gujarat, used to pay chauth to the Koli Raja of Ramnagar
(now called Dharamatar toavoid any inroads from him in
their region of Diu and Daman. They used to callthe Koli
Raja of Ramanagar as "chauthia Raja'". When Shivaji
conquered Rananagar in 1672, he demanded simiar payment
from the Portuguese, who were earlier paying it to theKoli
Raja. The Portuguese first agreed but never settled the
accounts. Shivaji, must have tried to extend this sys tem ot
 Additims to the Secnd Elitin XXvii

Chauth in the non-Maratha areas in the last decade of his

career, without much success. It, however, became a
foature of the Maratha state, when they adopted the regular
expansion.
policy of
Lastly, regarding the low payment or 'no plunder,no pay'
policyallegedly adopted by Shivaji towards his soldiers is aso
not borne out byfacts. The Maratha military camps were very
simple as compared to the city-like camps of the Mughals.
The wages of the solciers may be comparatively less than those
of the Mughals, but theywere regularly paid as it is recorded
in the Memoirs of Francois Martin, the French governor of
Pondicherry. They were rewarded, as the chronicler Sabhasad
has mentioned,for their valour in the battle and a portion of
´prize money' was also accorded to them for their individual
collection from wars. % Cosma da, Guarda a Portuguese
biographerof Shivaji tells usthat Shivaji paid a good salary
punctually to his soldiers, witha view to dissuading them fromn
hiding anything of the spois of war.
Recently, aDutch scholar Dr. Andre WVink, in his well
documented book "Lnd and Sovereignty in lIndia" (1986) with
special reference to the Swaraj of the Marathas has challenged
the sovereignty of the Marathas by introducing the concept
of fitna (a revolt or uprising).To jus tify his argument he has
cited one passage from acontemporary work Ajaatra(Royal
edict) of Ramchandrapant Amatya a minister of Shivaji, and
arrived at a conclusion that for the larathas sovereignty
Was a shared quality between the king and the watandars,
who have been considered as dayads (co-sharers) bythe author
of Ajnapatra. The Swaraj, therefore, according to him is
nothing but a replica of vatan. IfSwarajya then was a replica,
it will cause no surmprise to find an authochthons royal family
like the Bhonsales roo ted in their realm as incumbentsof37a
variety of watans independently of their sovereignty.
that as
Following the Ajnapatrainthis manner Wink argues
 xxviii Maharashtr1 in the Age of Shivaji
with
vatandaTS were ambitious and they were never satisfied
intention to
the vatans they possessed, thev did not have the
always
remain loyal to the lord of all land, the rja. They were
interested in strengthening their power by acquiring more
territory and bringing it under their jurisdiction by
encroaching upon others and creating sedition (dava droda).
This dava daroda is eguated by Wink tothe Persian word fitna.
In short, Wink'scontention is that Shivaj'sstate, even after
hiscoronation (1674)was not a sovereign state, but a feudal
one, having many co-sharers, (dayada)called watandars who
were notalways loyal to their feudal lord and either rebelled
(fitne) against him or their other brethrens meaning fellow
watandars.
The condition of the Maval country described in the
Ajnapatra and to which Wink refers to, are applicable to the
pre-Shivaji period, when the Deshmukhs or watandars in
general used to call themselves as Raje. However, the
connotation of the term dayad or co-sharer changed during
theperiodof Shivaji. Theterm dayad, therefore, should be
interpreted as co-sharers in Shivaji's endeavours at founding
aswaraj, and not as co -sharers of swaraj. Shivaji got coronated
with a view to declaring himselfas sovereign and master and
convey to the Deshmukhs or Deshnayaks, who had practicaly
become independent in their principalities under the Muslim
rule. The numerous extarnt contemporary documents indicate
how Shivaji utilized the services of these leaders of the regions,
for building up the Maratha Raj and relegated them to
subordinate level, without disturbing their hereditary watans.
The Jedhes of Kari, (a small place in Maval area), were
prominent Deshmukhs of the medieval period. One of the
leading Jedhes of Kari, as it is clear from the authentic Jedhe
Shakawali (chronology) and Karina (family history), how he
appealed to his fellow Deshmukhs of Maval, tosurrender their
watans, summon courage and join Shivajiwith their troops
 Adlitioms to the Second Edition
xxix

and help him in founding the Maharashtra Raj i.e. waraj,

Again dave darode does not mean sedition (fitna) but simply
4frighting' or plundering; Thus Wink's assessment of Shivaji's
state as 'a replicaof vatan, was the root-cause of sedition (fitna
ordave darode), is based on improper understanding of the
statemernts in Ajnapatra, and therefore, is not tenable.
In conclusion, it may be argued here that as the above noted
assessments of the nature of Maratha Swarai or the purpose
behind its foundation and the part played by Shivaji in
realizingit, have been based mainly on Persian and foreign
sources and no serious attempt has been made for using
Marathi sources and correctly interpreting them, it would be
rather difficult to accept them in their present form.
A careful analysis of the regional sources along with the
other contemporary sources would reveal that Shivajidid not
neglect the the economic development of his region. Judged
by the medieval standards, his state cannot be singled out
a war-state Kriegstaat. It was not a feudal state, but astable
sovereign Marathapower, a nation created by Shivaji for
promoting the welfare of the people of his region .
Maharashtra.
Maharashtra in the Ageof Shivajithus is an attempt with
the aid of extant source material especially contemporary
Marathi sources to place that period of medieval history in
its proper historical perspective.
The author is verymuch indebted to the reviewers of the
book and friends like Professor J. V. Naik of the Mumbai
University for their valuable suggestions.
19h Aprl, 2002 A.R. Kulkarni