chapter two

Saranjam System o f th« Marathas

 9O

CH\t-TER TWO

Saranjaw Sy«t«n of th« Marathaa

Tha word aaranjam waa used by the Marathsis to mean

provisions or assignment o f land to a persc») for m ilita r y

servicesi i t is in the la tte r sense that the term i s used

here* Vasudeo Sh astri Khare^ has traced the o rig in o f the

saranjaai system to qharpaqa and the finan cial d i f f i c u l t i e s

o f the Pesh%«, without re fe rrein g to the practice o f land-

assi(?nment for m ilita r y services that existed in the pre-

u Maratha period* The Marathas, however# knew the saranjam

system o f the Mughals from w ith in ^; son« Marathas'liad served

as mansabdars under the Mughals* The Marathas adopted the

system in the eighteenth century and made, without much

thought and fo resight, chancres in i t . I t would be necessary

to understand the saranjam system o f the Sultans of Delhi and

the Mughals, so as to understand t^e changes brought therein

by the Marathas* I t would be however u sefu l to note the system

o f land grants in ancient In d ia to find out whether the

practice of assig n in g land for m ilita r y services e x ifted in

ancient India*

Land-grants in Ancient In d ia

The grants of land in a n c io it In d ia , could be made only

 26

by thm king and not by a d i a t r l c t o f f i c e r L a n d was glv«n In

grant for r e lig io u s and educational purposes to the Brahndns*^

rhough there are a few cases In ancient tines o f land given In

grant restxned by la te r klngs^# the general tendency was that

such resumptions %fcre reqarded as s in f u l by the Bratunlns*^ And,

therefore* w hile g iv in g grants the kings excepted the grants

already made to the Brahmins and temples*^

There was, however, a thought that land should not be

granted to the government o f f i c i a l s and I f granted there should

be scste re stric tio n s* The g i f t o f land, according to Kautllya/

may be made to higher o ffic e r s but they could not s e ll or

O
mortgage I t . The Shukranltl s a r I s more emphatic* P .V* Kane

sayst **The ^ u k r a n l t l s a r emphasizes that s a la rie s should be

In panas, that a king should not make a g i f t even o f a flnger-

br«tadth o f land as emolument to any servant, but that I f does

give land. I t should be held only for the llfe - tln « o f the
m9
o ffic e r*

There are some scholars who In d ic a te the practice o f

grants o f land to the Brahmins from the f i r s t century onwards

and In d ic a te that a ft e r lOOO A*D*, the kings grsmted lands to

t h e ir v a s sa ls and o f f i c i a l s * T h e r e seems, however, little

evidence of the e xisten ce o f the grant of land for m ilita ry

service In the ancient times, though land was granted for

adm inistrative purposes* Xt I s , however, statc^fl that "th e secular

v a s sa ls helped t h e ir lords by governing th e ir f i e f s and

 27

supplying troops in times o f war*

.11

J a g ir System u n d T the Muhamadans

The Muhammadans even b efo re th eir invasion o f In d ia had

developed the system o f land assignm ents*^^ The Sultans o f D elhi

used i t w idely in b rin g in g fresh te r r it o r ie s under control; they

d istr ib u te d tracts o f land amona th e ir followers and o f f i c i a l s *

These tracts of land were called as iqta and the man entrusted

w ith the charge o f an iq ta was called a m\iqta»^^ Though the

system o f land'assignm ent continued throughout the Sultanate

period« the sense of attachment to the land received on the

I

part o f the dcnee i s apparent fr<»n the beginning* Sultan Balban

during h is Lahore campaign came to know that '*the old Shamsi

m ilit a r y grantees o f land were u n f it for service and never

14
went out.** On further in q u ir y he came to tanow that many of

the grantees o f Shamsu-d-din in the Doab had e ith e r d ied or

become infirm and that th e ir sons had taken possession o f the

grants as an inh eritan ce from t h e ir f a t h e r s * S u l t a n Balban

ordered to pension o f f the old and the u n f it i ^ l e the v illa g e s

under persons who could perform m ilita ry services were not

to be taken back* The Sultan^ however* took back the or^ier on

the ccmpassionate ground*^®

Sultan Alau>d*>din K h i l j i ordered that "w h e r w e r there was

a v il l a g e held by proprietary rig h t (m ilk ) . in free g i f t

 2B

r>
(in *am) , or as a r e lig io u s endovnnnent (w akf) i t should* by one
..17
stroke o f pen be brought back under the exchequer*'

Alau»d»din« thus» put a check on the practice o f granting

these three types o f land-grants# though he could not have

p ossib ly confiscated a l l such grants* *?he very fact that he

employed a powerful intelligence*syatem to gain information

X8
about the a c t iv it ie s o f the n o b il it y and forbade unauthorised
19
meetings amcmg i t s metribers , in d ic a te s that n o b il it y and

e s p e c ia lly m ilita ry n o b il it y d id continue under Alau-d»din K h i l j i .

One o f the main reas<%is for the continuation o f la n d .

assignment for m ilit a r y services was that the te r r it o r ie s were

only p a r t ia l l y conquered by the Sultans and sometines the

nobles conquered the te r r it o r ie s on th e ir own, which vm re then

20
granted as iq tas b y the S u ltan s . The n e c es sity o f the m ilita r y

n o b il it y fe lt by the Su ltan s was perceived and, therefore,

exploited b y the n o b il it y , %rtiich tr ie d , d e sp ite strcmg Sultans,

to look upon iqta as hereditary property. £ven Farid, the future

Sher Shah, had to argue w ith the Afghan nobles that the assign^

ment from the Sultan, u nlike family property, could not be

21
d ivided among h is brothers* Sikandar Lo d i, w hile granting land

to an Afghan noble, had to remind him that the iqta was granted

to him in h is personal capacity and not because he was a

22
re la tiv e o f the deceased ncdole*

These p ractices, whereby iq ta came to be regarded as

hered itary was in contravention o f the Muslim law; a grant making

 29

Iq t a h ereditary would a u ta n a tic a lly become n u ll and v o i d .^ ^

One o f the important reasons for th e in c ap acity of the Sultans

to control the n o b ilit y in i t s o verriding am bitions, as sugaest-

ed by S .B .P * Nigairi, was that the monarchs theirselves were

nobles and ccmld be accepted w l y as the fir s t among the equals

OA
by the n o b ility * The sultans tried to a sse rt th eir authority

given by the re ligio n *

What p olicy should be adopted by the sultan towards the

ncjbility ? Was he to keep befo re him the model o f Ala-ud*din

K h ilji, who refrained from g iv in g nany assignments for fear

25
of rebellicm 7 Or was he to follow^the footsteps o f Firuz

Shah Tughltiq# who was very lib e r a l w ith land assignments ? In

any case complete removal o f n o b il it y was impossible and never

tried by any Delhi Sultan*

The Mughals inh erited the system and no Mughal £mperor,

however strong, destroyed it * Strong rulers l ik e Sher Shah

an:;^ Akbar tried to keep i t w ithin lim its* During the absence

o f Akbar on h is Kabul campaign#^ the ja g ir system came to be

firm ly established* Akbar, in 1561-82, issued orders b y which

the regulations followed in the Khalsa lands, the lands

reserved to produce cash income for the central cfovemment,

were a lso to be followed In the ja g ir lands*

The ja g ird ars and the zamindars in the opinion o f Satish

Chan^ra^® formed the dominant class in the medieval society*

 30

v/hile the^zamindara w«re the hereditary landlords, called by

€Mirly w riters as Rais and Thakurs, ja g ird a rs were the assignees

o f revenue called iqtadars or muqta and later ja g ir d a r a * "The

27
iq ta d a r , S a tish Chandra says, “ was expected to c o llec t the

state dues, and to d efray the sanctioned e x p m s e s In clu d in g

h is personal expenses out o f the income"* The jag ird ar was to

m aintain a fixed contingent for t-^ie service o f the Emperor

"and^his own expenses* The j a g ir was, however, e s s e n t ia lly the

assignment o f revenue, and did not prim arily involve any

28
adm inistrative charge* The Ja g ir was ncxi>hereditary, meant for

service and was l ia b l e for transfers* The jag ird ar had no

rights in land; he could c o llec t h is dues e ith e r d ir e c t ly from

the peasants or through the zamindars*

Mansabdari System

Though the mansabdari system started by Akbar can be

trac<?^ to the e a r ly m ilit a r y organizations o f the Delhi Sultans,

the mansabdari system was d if f e r e n t from it * The main character-

29
i s t i c s of the system under Akbar were two* F ir s t ly , the

mansabdars, t^ether high or low, were d ir e c t ly subordinate

to the Emperor; the subor^i^inate o ffic e r s o f a mansabdar were

not mansabdars* Secondly, the system had a dual nature; i t was

represented b y two numbers* The f i r s t number designated zat

(persOTal) and the second sawar (c a v a lry ); w hile the fir s t

indicated the salary and the p o sitIto of the mansabdar, the

seccxid denoted the strength of the cavalry that he was expected

 3i

to maintain* The mansabdari systesn was not e x c lu siv e ly for

m ilita r y services; i t was used for c i v i l services also*

In the mansabdari system changes were introduced by the

successors of Akbar. The f i r s t important change was the

introduction o f ^ aspa sih aspa ranks, intended to increase

the sawar rank in practice thouoh not in w riting* The practice

was ctxitinued w ith greater frequency by Shah Jahan and also

by Aurangzib, who qave, in w ritin g a lso , sawar rank hiaher

than the za t rank* The second chanoe was the introduction of

the month ra tio s by Shah Jahan.

Both the changes were necessitated for economy and to

favour able and experienced o f f ic e r s , which were scarce during

the la te r h a l f o f A u ra n g zeb 's reign*

How Marathas came to adopt saranlam svstewi

Changing a ttitu d e towards saranlam system

The assignment o f land for service, whether c i v i l an d/o r

m ilita r y , was a firm ly established system and a legacy o f the

Muslim ru le, when S h iv a ji became the ru le r o f the Swarajya* He

was, i t appears, f u lly aware of i t s merits and demerits* In

the mountainous monsocai region o f the Swarajya, with very

d i f f i c u l t means o f communications, there could be no altejma-

tive to the system o f land assignment* Yet, he was a lso aware

that g ivin g free scope to the a ssig n ees, lik e the watandars.
 32

was dangerous for hi,s In fa n t klncpdom. Shlvaji# as the eon of

a Jag lrd ar# knew that watan' was an Imoortant cause of feuds

and l i t ig a t i o n .

32
On the one hand« S h iv a ji regarded him self as a watandar ,

continued the p riv ile g e s o f the watandars^^f he created new

34
watans and continued even the watans which were discontinued

b y the previous g o v e r n m e n t . O n the other hand, he punished ir«ny

watandars b y c o n fisc a tin g th e ir watans^^ and i t i s a lso mention*

37
ed that he confiscated kul watans^ meaning a l l the watans*

The meaning o f kul must be taken to be many and not a l l ,

because b y destroying a l l the watans S h iv a ji could not have

functioned as a ruler* The intentio n behind the confiscation

o f watans in newly acquired regions b y S h iv a ji was to b rin g the

Iwatandars uinder h is control*

The p olicy which S h iv a ji adopted towards the w t a n d a r s

can be xinderstood by studying the Sabhasad bakhar and

esp e c ia lly the Ajnapatra* Sabhasad, w hile describing ^ i v a j i ' s

policy towards watandars and mi rasd a r s ^ -^says that S h iv a ji

destroyed th e ir fortresses, appointed royal guards on

important forts, co n fiscated the rig h ts of the inirasdars and

38
started payment in cash*

Ajnapatra, which i s a work <xi the p o lic y o f S h iv a ji,

I

says that i t i s unjust to grant land to a servant* A king should

not be lib e r a l w ith land assignment because w ith the lo ss o f

 33

bhu i»e« land, he would not o il y lose revenue b u t would cease

39
to be a b h u p ati, the lord or the ru ler of the land* In the

chapter c« \^tandars, the author o f Ajnapatra does not advocate

e ith e r the destiruction of or complete freedom to the ^ t a n d a r s *

He suggests policy according to the nature of the watandar*

I f there I s an honest _watandy > which would be a ra r ity like

gold having good flavotir# he may be encouraged* The others

should be kept under firm royal auth o rity ; they should not be

permitted to b u ild forts* An uncontrollable watandar should be

sent on a d i f f i c u l t ex p e d itio n ; i f he performs i t or expires

w hile performing i t , both are good for the sta te .

S h iv a ji did not adopt the system of land»assignment for

m ilita ry service* Sainbhaji, the son and successor o f S h iv a ji,

thouah hard-pressed by Aurangzeb, d id not adopt the saranjam

system; Sambhaji was* there i s reason to b e lie v e , again st the

41
p olicy o f granting watan* i'he Mughal invasicm o f Maharashtra

re su ltin g in the a ssassin atio n and mutilaticsi o f Sambhaji,

impriscmment of h is w ife and son and the flig h t of h is brother

Rajaram to J i n j i forced the hands o f Rajaram and h is advisers

Ln adopting the saranjam system.

Rajaram, who succeeded Sambhaji in 1689, w aa beseiged

at Jin Ji for eight years* He, because o f the force of

circumstances and h is mild nature, was very lib e ra l in giving

42
land-assignments* In t h is respect he had not clea rly
 ■ 34

understood S h l v a j l 's p olicy regarding land assigninents# as

elaborated in the Ajnapatra*

Rajarain in h is abhaypatra^^ from J i n j i dated 22 Inarch 1690

ordered B a ji Jedhe to co llec t people in Maharashtra and a fte r

c a r e fu lly studying the p o l it ic a l s ^ t ^ t i o n work in the in terest

of the Swami« In return E a j i Jedhe was to be given j^ranjam

worth hons one thousand^ h a l f o f which was to be sof B aji and

the remaining h a l f for N e t a ji Jedhe* Rajarain moreover gave

four v illa g e s in Is M a fa t i. meaning v il l a g e s held in permanent

*1 -^4
fanr\by an inamdar , and two more in vetan i * e * salary*

~ t.
I t was Rajaram who adopted the saranjam system to seduce
/y\M "TAi ■I ■
^ p erso nsjlike Hanmantrao Ghorpade and Magoji Mane to the side of
^ 45
the Marathas* In h is le tte r to Hanmant Ghorpade# Vajaratroab

dated 4 June 1691, Rajaram promised him saranjam worth hons six

lacs* The premise was qiven by Rajaram because Hanmantrao

Ghorpade had requerted through Nagoji Mane to jo in the kingdom

o f Rajaram, provided he gained something in return* T h is Nagoji

Fiane too was serving the Mughals* Rajaram had in April 1791

paid the price o f h is service by granting the sardeshmukhi

46
watan o f the twelve mahals* The saranjam was to be given to

Hanmantrao Ghorpade and K rish n a ji Ghorpade in the pjroportion o f

5 i l in fiv e instalm ents* Eoth of them were to jo in t ly gain four

equal instalm ents o f saranjam worth h « i s 7 5 ,0 0 0 . These four

saranjams were to be given a f t e r th eir conquest and acq\iisition

 33

o f Raigad p rant,BiJapur, Bhaganagar I . e . Hyderabad and

Aurangabad. The £l£th instalm ent o f hons 3 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 was to be given

to them a ft e r th e ir having acquired D e l h i. Rajaram says that the

saranJam would be given in proporticaj to the cavalry co llec ted.

Both o f them were to give one h a l f of the loot collected from

the en «ry . This i s the e a r l i e s t reference about the grant of

the saranjam by the ru le r o f the Marathas. The le tte r, thus,

re fle c ts upon the attitud e o f some Maratha sardars who wanted

to gain saranjam for themselves in return o / the expansicxi of

A
the power of the Maratha king in North and bputh In d i a . It

a lso r e fle c ts upc»i the po licy adopted by the ru ler o f the Mara

to fig h t the Mughals w ith the help o f saranjami sardars.

Two years la ter i . e . on 9 March 1693 Rajaram gave an

order^^ to Ramchandra Pant Amatya that in view o f the services

of Nagoji Mane for the kingdom o f the Swami^ he was given the

charge o f prant Aurangabad and sarkar Nanded and Varhad. It

was Nagoji Mane who was to conquer these t e r r ito r ie s and to

c o lle c t ^ a n d a n i from i t . Rajaram ordered Ramchandra pant

Amatya to help him in h is mamla^ according to the sanads given

to him. In the lette r there i s rrention o f swatantra mamla^

48
meaning separate or independent saranjam. In another order

sent a few days afterwards re ite r a tin g the previous order

regarding Nagoji Mane the term swatantra karyabhag, meaning a

separate fie ld o f a c t iv it y , for Nagoji Mane has been mentioned.

Thus Rajaram, who had prcMinised the saranjam o f Aurangabad to

 36

Hanmantrao Ghorpade In 1691 transferred I t to Nagojl K^ne.

Rajaram# most probably unknowingly# adopted the policy of

the Sultans of Delhi of assigning unconquered territory to

the nobility with instructicms to bring it xmder ccxitrol*

Rajaram, in October 1796, gave the mahal of Faltan in inain to

Mudhoji, son of Ba jaji Naik Ninibalkar^ for the annual service

49
of the government with 100 swars. The Nimbalkars of Faltan

thus became the saranjaindars of Rajaram as they held Faltan

for military services*

Rajaram# therefore, who regarded Shahu, the son of

^iribhaji, as the real successor and felt that he was only

working for him, was fre«ly distributing land to the Maratha

nobility out of proportion to the extent of the Swarajya. He

was^moreover^giving free scope to the Maratha sardars when he

was personally in confinement and not in a position to check

their selfish interests* The policy of supporting the

turncoats like Nagoji Mane and Hanmant Ghorpade created

discontentment among loyal and brave supporters of the

Swarajya* Nagoji Mane who was seduced from the Mughals for

a grant of saranjam went back to the Mughals after murdering

an outstanding general like Santaji Ghorpade*

Shahu, as the Chhatrapati, continued the policy vHiich

Rajaram had adopted* He had neither knowledge nor experience

to weigh the pros and cons in adopting suitable policy in

the matter* Yet he, as the Chhatrapati and the grandscxi of

 tIL'

um
37
1

Shlvajl the Great, gave a definite turn to the Maratha

Ccmfederacy in his lifetime* It was in the reign of Shahu

that the saranjani system came to be firmly established* Due

to the personal and the circiinstantial factors that the

saranJaiTi systont came to be accepted by the Marathas* The

characteristics of the saranjam system of the Marathas and

the points of its deviation from the saranjam system of the

Sultans and the Mughals deserve careful study*

^Vasudiylshastri Khare on Saranjam System of the Harathas^^

K

Vasudecj^astri Khare discusses the origin and the nature

of the saranjam system of the Marathas in his introduction

to the Patwardhan papers in the first volume of M t i hasik

Lekh Sangr4)l* Utider the Peshwas there were two types of

cavalries; one was sarkarpaga and the other was gharpaga* The

sarkarpaga« ccmsisting of bargirs# belcxiged to the government

and was usually given under the control of the sardars* The

sardars received the amount of salary of the bargirs annually

from the sarkar# though they had to pay monthly wages of

the bargirs*

The gharpaga, on the other hand, was usually raised by

a %«ealthy and/or enterprising person* This cavalry was then

invited by the sarkar to join an e)^pedition* The owner of the

qharpaga received rupees 300 per swar as tanakha> he tried to

¥
manage in such a manner that the expenses towards the salary
 3 ‘^

o£ the awar and the maintenance o f the house would be covered

by loot or plunder, w hile he could pocket the en tire tanakha»

♦
W ith the growth o f the cavalry, the owier o f ghargaga u su ally

received a meadow on the banks o f a riv e r and a few v il la g e s

as lnam»

Ju st as the a c t i v i t i e s o f the Marathas became widespread,

more cavalry was u t ilis e d * The Peshwa government v ^ich was in

perennial fin a n c ia l d i f f i c u l t i e s , started a ssig n in g te r r ito r ie s

Instead o f cash* V*V* Khare, thus, feels that the qharpaga

and the fin a n c ia l d i f f i c u l t i e s o f the Peshwa led to the

adoption o f the saranjam system*

Though the term sarkarpaga does occur in extant Marathi

docxanente, the term gharpaqa does n o t. The terms sarkarpaga

and gharpaga, on the b a s is o f th eir descriptio n given by

Vasudeo||hastri mean nothing else than b a rg ir and s h ile d a r* The

practice o f employing ahlledars or ^[harpaga in the Maratha

cavalry might have furthered the se lfis h n e s s o f the Maratha

sardars, but the p ractice by i t s e l f could not have led to

the o rig in and development of th eir saranjam system* The

Marathas knew the saranjam systran of the Mughals; a few

Marathas had served in the Mughal army and, therefore, knew

the systmt from w ithin* Thus the Marathas adopted the saranjam

system from the Muhamnadans and yet made changes therein* I t

would be In te r e stin g to study the s a lie n t features o f the

 39

s a r a i ^ ^ systein of the Marathas, as I t was clo s e ly connected

to the o rig in and development o f th« Maratha Confederacy.

The Saranjam System of the Marathas

I . Grant o f saranjam

The saranjam was qlven cm the b a s is o f the taln at labta.

which was the dociunent e x h ib it in g the various stipends o f

ta in a t i or r o ll o f stip e n d aries*^^ The word ta in a t means eith er

^ ___ _ £• 0%

a(m ilitary^ charge or salary and the word labta means either

or an auth o rizing d o c u m e n t . T h e saranjam was given for

a year durino the reign of Shahu and e s p e c ia lly upto 17 35 ^^.

The paragana Kanad in prant Doulatabad was given to P i l a j i

Jadhav on 24 August 1716 and then every year takidbatras^

^ 56
le tte rs renewing the saranjam, were issued upto the year 1723.

When the above-mentitxied saranjai^was niven to P i l a j i

Jadhav, i t was given a ft e r deducting what are called as

57
futJT^ukase. Futmukase or Futgacai were v il l a g e s which were

already given in grant to others and were# therefore, excepted

(lik e the grants to the Brahmins and temples in ancient India)

from the sa^janjJW* s im ila r ly , the inairi and the khasol

CO
v il l a g e s in the region were excluded frc»n the saranjam.

The forts in the territo ry given un^er saranjam were a lso not

given. Even Durgoji Naik Mahadik, the brother .-in-law o f Shahu,

was not given the forts in the twelve sarkars from d iffe r e n t
 4U

* 59
prants*

W hile assig n ing ja g irs to Sekhoji J^wantrao, Narharrao

J lw a ji and Mukundrao S a b a jl, the Peshwa govem m &it p la in ly

admitted i t s ignorance of whether or not the Bundelas and

Bagheias had t e r r it o r ie s ea st and south o f Bilheri*® ® They

were given Jagirs not caily in provinces under the control o f

the Marathas* but they were asked to attack region north o f

the Ganges and ^rtiatever te rrito ry they would acquire was

promised to be given to them in j a g ir « * ^ te r r it o r ie s like

the paraganas o f Hushangabad and Slwanl under the control of

the R o h lllas was qiven in saranjam to Ramchandra Bhuskute* He

r\
was ordered to conquer the paragana without any assistanc e from

the Peshwa; he was« further, ordered to protect i t b y m ain tain,

in g force through the income o f the te r rito ry .

Transfer of Saranjam

The saranjam could be transferred from one person to

a n o t h e r ~ ^ the reign of Shahu. There are a number o f examples

o f such transfers* The Kanad paragana in prant D ^ l a t a b a d was

given to Damsing Thorat in 1710; the next year h a l f o f i t was

given to Sev aji Jadhavrau and the remaining h a l f was kept

k h a s a g i. In 1713, the paragana was civen to Shahaji Shlnde and

the next year i t was tr a n sfe rrei to Ranoji Nimbalkar* In 1715

the paragana was 'i v e n to Damaji Thorat and in 1716 i t was

transferred to P i l a j l Jadhav.®^
 4i

A paragana was soRietimes given to a person holding

certain office and with the change of person the saranjam was

also riven to the fresh incumbent* The paragana of Pangam

in prant Parande was Qiven to Vanagoji Ninbalkar, %rt)o was

working tinder the Sena pati# in 1710; in 1713 it was given to

Mansing More Senapati* The paragana was given to Frataprao

More Mamlakatniadar in 1714 and continued to him annually

through takidoatras till 1717* Khanderao Dabhade* Fattesing

Bhosale* were in charge of the paragana in 1718 and 1719

respectively* Later on Amarsing Shirke under Senapati

Khanderao Dabhade, Trimbakrao Dabhade, Firangdji Nirnbalkar

and in 1735 Yashwantrao Dabhade were in turn given the

saranjam*^^ The paragana of Pusad in sarkar Vasim and subha

Ganqathadi was held by Rustumrao Jadhav* Sarlashkar and

7 7
Kanhoji Bhonsale in the years 1710, 1^12 and 1^13
respect ively.®^

Ill* Confiscation of saranjam

After the demise of Shahu, Peshwa Balaji Bajirao

exploited the necessity of continuaticm of saranlam to control

Maratha sardars and exact obedience fran than* The saran lam

of Fattehising Bhonsale was intended to be reduced by the

Peshwa as he so expressed in the letter written by him; the

Feshwa wished to take a large slice of it for himself*^^ In

his letter written to Nana ^urandare, the ieshwa, m his own

 42

adirlsBlon, uaed military force against the llinited army of

Dainaji Gaikwad and demanded territory# which %ras giv®n in

67
saranjam to the Dabhade family. Only wh«i the P«shwa got

the territories on Gujrat partiti«»ed after having used force

against Gaikwad and Dabhade« that the confiscation of the

saranjam of Dabhade was lifted by the Peshwa an 4 October# 1752. 61

Balaji Bajirao was# thus# interested in acquiring saran1am from

the sardars by pressurizing them*

Unlike his father# Peshwa Madhavrao was guided by the

principle of service in confiscating the saranjam* The

saranjam was given for military service and, therefore, a

lapse in the service was the just cause of ccmfiscaticxi of

the saranjam* The saranjam belonging to Rayaji Pawar was

ordered to be confiscated by Peshwa hiadhavrao# as he left in

the middle an expedition without prior permission.

The orders of ccHifiscation# however# were not always

respected by the MSSaCS* The saran iam of the Patwardhai^^s

officially confiscated by Peshwa Madhavrao I. Yet the Patwar-

dhans were not ready to surrender the fort of Miraj and the

territory. On the other hand# Govind Hari and Gopalrao

Patwardhan fought with the Peshwa*s army and defended the

fort of fUraj beseiged personally and earnestly by the Peshwa.

By an agreement made in the year 1761-62# Maloji Ghorpade

of Mudhol was expected to serve with 250 cavalry* He did not

 o
:0

serve; neither did he irtaHe agreements, like the other

s^ranjandars* Peshwa Madhavrao« therefore. In 1768>69,

perceiving that Malojl Intended neither to serve nor to pay

money In lieu of services, ordered Gopalrao Govlnd Patwardhan

to ccxifiscate his aaranjam and to credit the amount, which

was not paid by him, with the government*

IV. t^artiticxi of saranjam aunonq the male members of a family

Unlike the Iqta under the sultans of Delhi and mansab

under the Mughal, the saran1am given to Maratha sardars could

be partitioned among the male members of the family. The

•aranjam of Bhonsale was divided between Kanhoji on the one

hand and Ranoji and Raghuji on the other by Peshwa Balaji

Vishwanath and later by Shahu himeelf*^^ While Balaji

Vishwanath divided it in the ratio of 66.6:33*3, Shahu divided

it in the ratio of 75»25* The saranjam, unlike the other

family property, was not, thus, equally divided. A large share

was ^iven to Kanhoji by Balaji Vishwanath and a still larger

share by Shahu, because the saranjam was Initially given to

Parasoji, the father of Kanhoji Bhcxisale* Kanhoji was,

moreover, given the leadership, though he was nephew of

Ranoji and according to the orders of Shahu, both Ranoji and

Raghuji were to behave according to the orders of Kanhoji*

There are a few examples of the partition of saranjam

jMTKMio different families* The twenty-two villages in samsthan

 44

Indragad were partitioned between Holkar* Shinde and Pawar in

1 7 69 ; w hile Holkar and Shinde received Q e i g h t v il l a g e s each,

Pawar gained six v illa g e s *

V. Inheritance o f saranjam

A ft e r the demise o f a saranjaindar the saranjam was

bestowed on h is son* Yashwantrao Pa%far« a fte r the death of

h is father Anandrao Pawar, was given the rig h ts of co llectin g

Tnokasa, b a b t l , aardeshmukhi and lakat fro» the ancestral

75
saranjam* Like h is father# Yashwantrao Pawar wae a lso to

work under the authority of Chironajl B a l l a l * ^ ^ I t should be

noted that Yashwantrao was not asked to pay any amount by

way o f n azar for the co ntinuation. The saranjam o f Yashwantrao

Pawar was continued to h is scm Khanderao a fte r Yashwantrao was

lost a t Panipat* Khanderao, l ik e h is father, was to take

sixteen per cent o f the income from the corrjmon control in

Malwa*^^

The saranlair, which K r is h n a ji Pawar had In Malwa and

Maharashtra from the Peshwa and the saran lain o f Vlshwasrai

which Madhavrao Pawar had from the Chhatrapati was, according

to a le tte r of Krishna J i, to be added and then equailly d ivided

78
between the two* The cxie-fourth of the s a r a n 1am o f Vlshwasrai

in possessicxi o f J l w a ji Pawar was to be d iv id e d equally

between the two* The rauts i*e* cavalry for the saranjam o f
 4a

Malwa and Vlshw asral wer« to be supplied by the two in

79
proportion o f th e ir shares* The saranlam of both the

Chhatrapati and the Peshwa was thus added together for

d iv is io n and was intended to be d iv id e d by K rish n a ji and

Madhavrao Pawar, perhaps without re fe rr in g the matter to the

Chhatrapati and the Peshwa*

80
Mahadaji Shinde, by an vadi sent on 5 Decwiber 1763,

requested the Peshwa to continue the s a r a n 1am and inams as

tinder Janako ji Shinde* Mahadaji a lso requested the ccmtinua.

t ic « of v il l a g e s in kamavis in Swades)}. saran 1ams^ meadows,

watans and inams in Malwa* Both the requests were accepted

by the P esh t»; the Peshwa d id not ask for a naaar for the
81
continuation of the saranjam*

The saranjam o f Jan ak o ji Shinde along w ith the sardari

o f the Shinde fam ily was continued to Mahadaji Shinde on

15 December 1763; yet there are le tte r s written in the name

o f Jan ak o ji Shinde in the Gulgule d a ft a r upto 23 March 1766*

O')
Mahadaji used the seal of Jan ak o ji upto 16 A p ril 1767*
84
M ahadaji, on 10 June 1767, seems to have used h is own seal*

In a very encouraging le t t e r Peshwa Madhavrao settled

a l l accounts of Malharrao Holkar in north In d ia and continued

the saranjam o f the Holkars, a ft e r the passing away o f

85
Malharrao Holkar to Malerao Holkar, h is grandson* rhe
 46

i^eshwa d id not ask for any arnoiint of money for continuing

the saranjam*

A ft e r the death of Malerao on 27 March 1767, the question

of the ccxitinuaticm of the saranjam in the family o f Holkars,

who could perform m ilita r y service in return came forth for

consideraticOT* <

Raohunathrao at th is juncture asked A hilyabai to

surrender the saranjam, which was aiven to Malharrao Holkar

Bfi
for h is services inw ed iately a fte r the b a t t le o f Panipat.

She declined to surrender even a sin g le v il l a g e claim ing that

when she was prepared for service# the saranjam could not be
87
surrendered* She, though ready to pay a nazar amoisiting to

rupees 25 la c s, was not prepared to surrender ja g ir and,

therefore, sought the help of other sardars and made m ilitary

88
preparations* There was a proposal that Ah ily ab ai should

surrender Jagir worth twenty lacs out of the saran1am gained

in 1763 and pay nazar o f rupees ten lacs in return o f the

89
s a r d a r i^ b eing given to Tukoji Holkar* As th is proposal was

not acceptable to A h ily ab a i, I t was decided cm both sid es that

the Holkars should surrender some territo ry which they had

received in s a r a n 1am and pay a nazar of rupees fifte en lacs in

return of the recognition o f Tukoji Holkar as the sairdar in

90
charge of the saraniam of the Holkars* Tukoji Holkar received
91
the robes of the saranjam on 3 May 1767 and the official
 4V

sanad was glv«n to him on 4 Jxine 1767*

92

The attitu d e o f Ahllyabal in d e c lin in g to return the

saran iain or to accept the confiscation of the saran 1am and

to make m ilita ry preparations remind us of the a ttitu d e o f

Govlnd Harl and Gopalrao Patwardhan in 1763 o f not accepting

the co nfiscatio n of th eir saraniam.

V I. The Khasqj o f the Holkara

An In te r e stin g aspect of the saranjam system o f the

Marathas was the c r e a t i m and continuation o f the Khasqj o f

the Holkars* Only the Holkar fairily and moreover the female

meROsers o f the Holkar family enjoyed the Khasgi in the ^laratha

confederacy. I t was Ocjutamibal, w ife of Malharrao Holkar« who

received in 1734 from Peshwa B a jira o I te r rito ry % ^ c h came

93
to be called as the Khasoi o f the Holkars* The territo ry was

worth a total o f rupees 2 ,9 9 ,0 0 0 and was from the talukas o f

Choll Maheshwar, Indore, Harsola, Depalpur, Mahldpur, B arlo l,

94
Jagotl and Makdon* The te rrito ry comprising the Khasgi was

transferred mainly from the te rrito ry In saranjam o f

Malharrao Holkar*

95
Goutamlbal, i t appears from an unpublished le tte r ,

managed the adm inistration o f the Khasgi* She, in her lette r

dated 28 ^p ten ib e r 1760, ordered Bhagwant Jalram that B anaji

Matkar was sent to se ttle the border dispute in v il l a g e P lplla

 4H

in prant Maheshwar, in ccnsultatlon with the zairtlndars*

96
The letter has only the roortab sud seal at the end. Even

Ahilyabal, it seems* used the seal of Malerao on letters

relating to the Khasgi matters* It was only after May 10, 1785
97
that Ahllyabai issued the Khasgi letters in her name*

Hie details of the Khasgi of Ahllyabai giving income and

98
expendittire are given in vadi of the year 1799. The total of

the income given is rupees 2#30,425/15 and the expenditure

rupees 2 ,3 5 ,4 5 2 /8 showing an excess expenditure of rupees

5 ,0 2 6/7 over the inccwne. The territory is shown from prants

Swadesh, Memad, Malwa, Dakshan and Hindustan. The prants

shown here appear to be more than the prants mentioned in

1734 when the Khasgi was given to G^utamibai, as is clear

from the m«itlon of prants Swadesh and Dakshan.

After the demise of Ahllyabai the Khasgi was continued

to Anandibai Holkar*^^ The d^ulat of the Holkar was the

saranjam of the Holkar and it was distinct frcrni the Khasgi

which belonged! to the female members of the Holkar family.

Peshwa Eajirao I I coirmunlcated to D^ulatrao Shinde, in the

year 1800, that the <^ulat and the Khasgi of the Holkars were

distinct and that the debt on the d^ulat could have no bearing

on the K h a s g i . A year later both D^uiatrao Shinde^®^ and

Peshwa Bajirao 11^®^ warned? Kashirao Holkar that ttte d ^ l a t

and the Khasgi of the Holkars were distinct* Bajirao II

 49

cornnunicated to Kashlrao Holkar that the Dlwan, the Fadnls

and the treasury of the Khasgi were separate and distinct from

those of the dj>ulat«^®^

V I I . Saranjain System and the Relaticyis Between the

Sapdarg

The relations between the Maratha sardars wex«, in

consequence of the c(»iflicting interests# antagonistic to

each other in general# but at certain occasions they showed

solidarity in safeguarding their interests*

Fatjbehsinqrao Gaikwad, in his letter to Haripant Fadke#

'f ■
expressed his feeling that Shinde and Holkar were intent m

his destruction*^®^ Shinf^e and Holkar, he complained,

imprisoned his men and b a n k e r s * S i m i l a r l y Fat^hsingrao

had to camp on the river Mahi to threaten Chandrarao Pawar,

X06 *
who had created distlrbances in Oujrat*

Shinde and Holkar called each other sobati meaning

C
partners'^especially upto the days of f^hadaji Shinde and

Ahilyabai Holkar/ 107 yet there was mutual Jealousy and conflil
108
leading to battles amc»ig them*

The Maratha sardars had conflicts within their family*

109
There was dispute between Ahilyabai and Tukoji ; in these

conflicts Mahadji intervened to suqoest that Tukoji should

 50

<*>ey the orders of Ahilyabal

«r

In 1780# ubhayata sardar* meaning both the «ardars, a

teriD used for Shlnde and Holkar, promised cm oath to

Fattehsingrao Oalkwad that they would remain on friendly terms

with him and would help him in every way in case he cane in

conflict with the English; they also promised him all the

, support# should any changes be made by the P e s h w a . P a w a g a d #

a fort near Baroda# was xinder the authority of Shinde* The

' Gaikwads# upcm the request from agreed to help Shinde's

officials at Pawagad with men and miuiitions against the

112
Mewasis. Anandrao Gaikwad# in 1802# wrote a letter to

Doulatrao Shinde in affectionate and persuasive language, to

protect Anandrao Pawar of Dhar against the attack of

Yashwantrao Holkar^^^# who intended to attack ^Sandavgad under

114
the control of Anandrao Pawar • Anandrao Pawar# here# was

intended to be protected by Anandrao Gaikwad as the former was

the nephew (sister's son) of the latter* The family relations#

thus# rather than any ofticial and overall policy determined

the acticxis of the Waratha Sardars* After the death of Anandrao

Pawar in 1807# both Shinde and Holkar showed their selfishness

and lack of ccMnmon policy and chivalry in attacking Dhar under

the widow of Anandrao Pawar*

Mahadji Shinde# in 17$5# helped Ahilyabai Holkar in

Khichiwada in prant Malwa. Ingale on behalf of Holkar had

 51 •

j c ^ i r e d th« wahal of Ouq^r^^^ihhada in Khlchiwada which was

formerly under the control of Ba^bhadraj^ng on the ground

that arrears fran the mahal were not palld* Ballbhadr^slngh,

theireme* regained the mahal by forcey,Mahadji Shinde, there­

fore, a«it a force of 10#000 strong and regained the mahals

and besieged the fort of Raghoga<jl»

Mahadji Shinde, thus« helped Ahilyabai in her d ifficul­

ties* by sending his troops* He also asked Ahilyabai to send

her troops for his work* Mahadji Shinde, in 1787, wrote to

Ahilyabai to send one thousand swars and ten thousand

p ^dharis* Ahilyabai was prepared to send 5/10 thousand swars

in place of cme thousand swars asked for by Mahadji* She was,

however* not prepared to send the P^ndharis* '

The understanding and cooperatioi between Shinde and

:iolkar continued during the days of Ahilyabai Holkar* ruleoji

Golkar stayed at ^tine for a long time and consequfflitly came

under the influence of Nana Fadnis. Both Tukoji and the Poona

Ministry adopted policy which was opposed to Mahadji Shinde*

There are letters to prove that the Poona Ministry was Jealous

of Mahadji's p o w e r * T u k o j i Holkar was also jealous of

Shinde*s p o w e r * B o t h Nana Fadnis^^° and Tukoji Holkar^^^

were hostile to Mahadji Shinde*

This change of policy on the part of Nana Fadnis and

 no

Holkar towards ^'lahadJi Shinde is clearly reflected in the

developments occuring during the expeditlcm of Ali Bahadar*

^sahadji Shinde* according to the private intelligence of good

authority of W. Palmer# was both ‘’disappointed and deceived

by the minister# v^om he has reproached with duplicity in

secret by ^couraging his rivals in Indostan to oppose him

122
whilst he gave him assurances to the ccmtrary*** The results

of this myopic divisive policy Initiated frcsm Poona were

immediately seen and were reported in a letter written by

123
reorao Kiahadeo*

After the return of Mahadaji from the north to PocMia

there occurred great dispute between Nana and >^ahadaji*

Battles were fought between Shinde and Holkar during the period*

All these developments, in turn, were responsible for the

loss of mcmey# life and prestige for the Marathas*

Mahadji and Nana patching up their differences sent

Deorao Mahadeo to Ahilyabai to settle the differences* She

agreed to peace and decided to send Tukoji Holkar to Gujrat*

rukoji# addicted to alcohol, was not in a position to leave#

though Kashiba Holkar had ir*ade some preparations* Before these

peace parleys could bear any fruit and within a maith of the
124
despatch of the letter by Deorao Mahadeo # Mahadji Shinde

expired*
 rf•"*

There was dispute among the Pawars about the continua­

tion of saranjam to Tukojl Pawar adoptive son of Krlshnajl

Pawar.^^^ In this conflict both Ahllyabal Holkar and Mahadji

Shlnde played an important role* While Mahadji Shinde gave

strong warning to Anandrao Pawar to create no difficulties

for the continuation of saranjam in the name of rukoji

1 26
Pa%«ar, Ahllyabal Holkar wrote to Nana Fadnis and Haripant

Fadke to continue the sardarl of KrishnaJi Fawar who, in his

137
lifetime, had adopted T'likoji, a son of his brother*

The main features of the saranjam system of the Marathaa

indicate the incapacity of the Peshwa and the Fadnis* While

the Peshwa could not make any changes in the saranjam of the

sardare given by the Chhatrapati, he was also equally

helpless in officially confiscating the saranjam of his sardars*

It was easy to pass orders of confiscation; the executicxi depend*

ed upon the comparative military strength* The Maratha sardars

looked upon the saranjam as patrimony# as soroething to be

inherited and even partitioned*

The Maratha sardars# moreover# had love-and-hate

relati cmship; they joined hands when the mutual interests

weire involved even against the wishes of the Peshwa; they

battled among themselves when their interests were in jeopardy*

The so called central qoverntnent# represented by the Peshwa or

'Jthe Fadnis# had very little role in regulating their relaticms*

 54

NOTES

AI»S, I, pp» 123»124 f*n»

Athar All# The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb#

(Asia Publlshlnc House; 1968) p» 175•

Athar All has given among others# names of thirteen

Maratha mansabdars under Aurangzeb*

P.V* Kane, History of ^harmaeastra. Vol. Ill

(Poonai Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1 9 4 6 ),p .139.

i b i d .. Vol. I I , Part I I , pp. 355, 361, 369, 853, 979.

P- 863

Ib id *» pp. 861*863*

Ifeil., p. 863*

8 P.V. Kane, Op.c it. , Vol. Il l , p. 152.

9 I$2id.

10 R.S. Sharma, "Early Indian Feudalism C* A.D. 400-1299",

t roblems of Historical Writing in India (New Delhi*

India International Centre; 1963), pp. 70-75*

11 Ibid. , p. 74.

12 I.H . Cureshi. Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi

(Karachi; 1958), p. 122.

V
 55

13 R.P* Trlpathl/ Some Aspects of Muslim Admlnistratl<»,

(Allahabad* rhe Indian Press Ltd, 1936), p. 239.

14 Elliot and Dowson, I I I , p. 107*

rarikh-i-Firoz Shahi by 2iau-d-Din Baiml.

15

16 P* 108.

17 Elliot and Dowson, I I I , p. 179«

rarikh-i.Firoz Shahi by Ziau-d-din Barni*

18 PP« 179* 180.

19 Ib4<?«# PP* 181-182.

20 I .H . Qureshi, Op.cit«, p« 122*

See also Elliot and Dowscki, I I , p. 259 for

rabakat-i-Nasiri by Minhaju-s-SiraJ.

21 I.H . Qureshi, O p .c it*, p. 122.

22

23 R.P* Tripathi, Some Aspects of Husliin Administration, p .239.

24 S .B .P . Niaam, Nobility under the Sultans of □slhl

(Delhi, 1968), p. 182.

25 I.H . Qureshi, O p.cit*, p. 122*

26 Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court

(Aligarhs Aligarh Muslim University;1959), p. xv ii.
 56

27 Satlsh Chandra, r-artles and Politics at the l^qhal Court

(Aligarh I Aligarh Musliin University; 1959), p. xxi»

28 Ibid*

29 Athar All, O p .c it*, pp. 38-40.

30 Ibid*, pp* 40»43*

31 MIS, XVI, 2 ,3 ,4 ,1 9 1 MIS,XV, 279; PSS, I, 515;

PSS, I I I , 2448, 2593.

32 M IS ,V III, 21*

33 MIS, XX, 10, 23; MIS, XXI, 2 ,3 ; SCS, I, 39; SCS, I I I , 584.

34 SCS, III, 426; MIS,V II I, 30; MIS, XV, 270.

35 MIS, XVII, 9 ,1 0 ,1 7 ; PSS, I I I , 2739.

36 StD, XXXI, 38.

37 MIS, XXI, 3 1 TKK, I I I , 10 and 89.

-- ^ 1 I r^cu~U 11 e\r\^ m cT o?-1( M | -- -

fTZ. rZ \ =^TiT>ir1' --- —

38 V .S . Vakasdar (e d .), Sabhaaad Bakhar (Poona, 1962), pp.29-30.

39 Ajnapatra, piiblithed in Vividha-dnyanvistar Magazine, V, VI

by K.N. Sane (Bombay*. 1923)« Ch. V II, pp. 25-26.

40 Ibid. . Ch. VI, pp. 23-25.

41 SCS, I I I , 438.

42 TKK, I, Nos. 3 0 ,3 1 ,3 2 ,4 1 ,4 3 to 50. 5 2 ,5 3 ,6 4 ,6 5 ,7 6 ,7 7

and 80; MIS, XV, 349; MIS, XVI, 28, SPD, XXXI, 55-64.
 57

43 Al, 1, pp. 1 .2 dated 2 2 .3 .1 6 9 0 .

44 Molesworth, p* 80; Aitlhaslk Shabdakosh, 1, p> 106*

45 SCS, V, 767.

46 Sanadapatre/ pp* 166*167, dt. 11*4«1791*

47 SCS, V, 845.

48 SCS, V, 846.

49 SPD, XXXI, 67A dated 1.10.1 696.

50 MIS, XV, 286 dated 25 August 1697.

51 AXiS, I, pp. 123.124, £*n.

52 Molesworth, p. 387*

53 Hail.

54 PDNK, I I , Yadl No. 20, pp. 72-73; 763-64.

55 PD, I, No. 157; RL, AC, Dhar Daftar, No. 22 dated 15.9*1729.

56 tune Archives, ShahuDaftar, No. A45394.

57 Molesworth, p. 557.

58 D.B . Parasnis, Prachin Marath« Sardar, p. 11.

59 Ifeid*

60 PD, I I I , 10 dated 16.11.1743.

61 IfeM.

62 PD, I I I , 45 dated 16.10.1756.

 5H

63 Fune Archives, Shahu Daftar, A 45387*

64 Pune Archives, Shahu Daftar, A 46797*

65 Ibid. . A 44847.

66 BISMQ XXVII (ASS, V I l ), No. 12 dated 27 July 1750.

67 BISMQ XXVII (ASS, V I I ), No. 16 dated 10 December 1750.

68 PD, I I I , 61 dated 4 Oct., 1752*

69 PDNK, I, Yadi No. 12, p. 61 undated.

70 ALS, I, pp. 158-160, 211-216.

71 PDNK, II , Yadi No. 8, p. 60 dated 4 March 1768.

72 PDSM, pp. 185-186.

73 Ibid.

74 PGIS, 147.

75 RL,«=, Dhar Daftar, No. 33 dated 6 .8 .1 7 3 6 .

76 IfeM-

77 RL, AC, Dhar Daftar dated 30.10.1761;

DPIS, 70, dated 7 .2 .1 7 6 1 . The date given in the earlier

source is correct, as the letter bears the seal of

Peshwa Madhavrao I, which was made after the death of

Peshwa Balaji Bajirao in July 1761.

 59

78 SPD, XXXI, 149 Jaraav Rumal No. 1770;

PGIS, 136 letter from Krishnajl to Madhavrao dated

9 January 1763 •

79 IfeM.

80 PDSM, pp. 196-197.

81 Ib M *

82 RL« GO« 1, No* 253. Letter in the naine of Janakoji Shende

to Lalaji Ballal dated 25 March 1766.

83 RL, GD, I I , p. 85 dated 16 April 1767. The seal of

Janakojit

84 RL, GD, I I , p. 89 dt. 10.6 .1 7 6 7 . The seal of Mahadajl.

85 PDSM, P. 209 dated 12*8.1766.

86 iD, V II, No. 157, 158, 162; HIS, I, No* 181.

87 SPD, XXIX, 176.

88 Ibid. , 57.

89 Ibid.# 180; SPD, New Series, 105.

90 SPD, XIX, 47; SPD, XXIX, 180; SPD, XXXIX, 84;

PD, V II, 175, 176 and PDSM, p. 210*

91 SPD, XXIX, 180.

 60

92 rD, V II, 175.

93 A.N. Bhagwat (e d .), Holkarshahlchya Itlhasachl Sadhanc,

Patravyavahar iurvardha. Vol. 1 (Indorei Dandekar Brothers;

1924), pp. 19-20.

94

95 Included in an article, Malharrao HolkarVa Relationa with

Ralputs by Dr. S .K . Bhatt, read In the Maratha History

Seminar at Kolhapur In May 1970*

96 Ib id .

97 Shlvnarayan Yadav "Holkar RajyaKeKuchha Aprakashlt

Dharmlk latra” , Ahllya Sitarlka, 1972, pp. 14*22.

98 A.N. Bhagwat (e d .), Op.clt. , pp. 110-120.

99 Ibid. . p. 121, dated 18 July, 1800.

100 IfeM*

101 Ib id . . p. 122 dated 11.3.1801.

102 Ib id ., p. 123 dated 22.12.1801.

103. Ibid.

104 V*S. Bendre (e d .), Maharashtretihasachi Sadhane,

Vol. Il l , No. 723.

105 IJaM*

106 V .S . Bendre (e d .), O p .c lt ., 726.

 6X

107 CD. I I , 13.

108 PRC, I, 108, 114, 201, 246.251.

109 V .S . Bendre (e d .), O g . c ^ . , 724, 725.

110 Ibid.

111 MIS, X, 256, HSBSR, I I , 122.

112 HSBSR, VI, 5 dt. about March 1794.

113 HSBSR, IV, 27 dt. 9 .1 .1 8 0 2 .

114 HSBSR, IV, 35 dt. 1 6 .3.1 802.

115 ASN, I, pp. 18-24.

116 MDB, I I , 94 dated 13.6.1785*

117 MDB, I I , 148 dt. 18.8.1787.

118 PRC, I, 249, 252, 255 and 256.

119 PRC, I, 246-251.

120 PRC, I, 279-281.

121 PRC, I, 108, 114, 201, 279 and 280.

122 PRC, I, 279 dt. 2 9 .9.1 792.

Letter from w. Palmer at Ujjain to Governor General

Earl Cornwallis.

123 ASS, I I I , 267 dt. 13.12.1793.

124 ASS, I I I , 267 dt. 13.12.1793.

125 PGIS, 216 dt. 3 0 .7 .1 7 8 9 .
126 PGIS, 212 dt. 28 May 1789.
127 PGIS, 214, 215.