History of the Maratha nation

05-14-2006, 01:42 AM

True

Jats are the original inhabitants of this land and their presence in other countries is due to their west ward migration that might have happened long long ago.

Reason being If we see right from Indus valley civilization we find no reason to believe the influx of such a huge population that become almost single major group of north west India.

There is no breakage line observed in craniometric analysis during the supposed influx of these supposedly shakas.

The material culture of indus valley is just the culture of even modern day jats of nortwest.

The skeltel analysis shows that these indus valley people were just similar to present day people a majority of which is again jats.

The shell ornaments bullock carts and animals as water buffalow are the same and are assosiated with jats mainly.

It seems most probable that the indus script changed to telgu and kannar towards south and they (jats) spoke parakrit language with a definite dravidian base.

Again I would like to know how one get the idea that saka were related to jats .The term sythian was used in the same sence as maratha or punjabi and denoted many groups of course jats too were termed sythian by greeks as evident from the use of this term for jats of indus area in Periplus of E sea as well as jats or jatae of jaxartes area by Herodotus.

If we see the recent genetic findings under Polarity and temporality of Y-chrmosomal distribution identifying both endogenous and exogenous .E..

Than it clearly disapproves Austro asiatic theory of michael witzel for people of indus valey civilization.

It disapproves dravidian theory of Asko Parpola and Mahadevan by placing their origin in deep paninsula.

Than who others could be the inhabitants of this civilization except north Indians living today and groups as jats bania and other casts excuding certain groups as gujjar huns meds and other with a clear record of arrival from outside India.

With various genetic studies giving vedic groups a pamir origin and conferming IE genes although very small, who could be the inhabitants of Indus Civilization except jats and other north indian groups as bania sc bc and others.

Now another important point why jats seek their ancestory in sythian or sakas.

This is due to a basic fault in accessing Indian history via some foreign historians as cunnigham todd and others who after finding their mention in central asian records could never think that these jats could have moved from India as they belived this most fertile land to be left to aryans who were to come and start the history of India.

Again a deliberate skipping of their history by leftists (due to resistance offered to muslims) and Indian Historians (why God knows)had made them to disbelive and have a short of apathy for its writers.

Just think while muslims write their history right from muhammad times Indians history writers could think of Surjmal.What about jat sikh kings,what about jat rulers of sindh before chach what about Indo parthians who always called them jats,what about maurya kings ,while the guy like raja Nahar singh who captured delhi for Bahadur saha was never mentioned pages were written on other players of lesser contribution.jats who fought ghori ,attacked ghazani when he was returning from raids on somanath never find a mention, what one find is they were robbers of highways,story is endeless but in nutshell they doubt history as taught in indian books and are searching their past from other sources.It wil take some time to know them that they were Indian always and more Indian than many so called ancient kshtriya a fake term.

Please see this and ponder a little about unjustice to jat history.

Indian and many international scientist are burning midnight oil over who were the inhabitants of Indus valley Civilization,after many theories they made a great discovery of a language bruhei with a dravidian base still spoken in pakistani and belochistani areas adjecent to indus valley civilization and concluded that its inhabitants were dravidians ,every body wondered why they did not ask who were these bruhies to pinpoint who exactly were these indus valley people but they never did till today I too belived that there might not be any data about these bruhie people till one day when I read this book on the cast and tribe of north west india where Rose the british historian says these numbruhei people inhabiting laki mountanis are jats of johya and other clans.

When we Indians will give them their right place in history.

05-14-2006, 02:13 AM

How can we invent history just by imagining it.

Qutoe.
The ancient Kshatriya groups came to exist from specialisation, as did the other 3 varnas. They eventually became endogamous, probably to pass on teachings (made sense, if one views them as guilds) and eating habits, etc.
I also know that other than these ancient endogamous Kshatriya groups, later, entire communities were gained Kshatriya position. A bit of like being recognised for valour in extreme circumstances and to bring the numbers of Kshatriyas (dwindled after Islamic wars) back up. In the South there are many such communities, Reddy, Menon,...

Is it not entirly an imagination?

First of all the term Kashtriya stand for brave who were good in fighting.
Writers used these terms in the same sense that forefathers of that king were kshatriya.

If they could have become an endogamous group than certainly we should observe a group kshatriya in Indian history a distinct endogamous group but do we find any such group any where except the khatris punjabis of north.

Were these people the ancient kshatriyas of ancient india?

or Rajputs and than their clans as Huns bargujjar mehers (meds) were ancient kshtriya.

If some groups out of total clan as huns changed to kashtriya than why they didn't remain kashtriya for some point of time.

Are redday and menon call them kashtriya not reddy or menons?

Actually imagining such history give rise to AGE OF PROPOGANDA.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2006, 12:57 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEWhen we Indians will give them their right place in history.If it were up to me, all the wronged and ignored communities in India would be given their right place. But the communists and their allies are the ones in charge and even when Hindus get into power, the communists & co. decide what goes in our history textbooks. It's better for those Jatts who have been lured into thinking they're Shakas to boycott the communists and other propaganda-pushers, as their own contributions in India's history can't be undone by denial anyway. All that the communist whitewashers can do is to obscure the facts for a while.

QUOTEAre redday and menon call them kashtriya not reddy or menons?No. They are communities with a high status, but they were only of the kshatriya position for several centuries and probably not all of the people quit their former position even when many changed to Kshatriya. Their community name of Menon and Reddy gives them a longer-standing identification.

Kshatriya is not a surname, though. Yadavas were Kshatriyas but the community itself is named Yadava. Khatri is a later shortened (non-Sanskrit, possibly Punjabi, Hindi or Kashmiri) evolution from the term Kshatriya. It used to be a positional title that evolved into a surname. It's like how Sharma, Shastri, Pandit are used as surnames in the North today. In the South, we did not have a surname or even family name tradition. Back then, the Brahmanas still used to go by the titles Sharma, Shastri, Acharya as well as community names. Not anymore though.
Bhima, Rama etc. were born into the Kshatriya class at their time, but they did not bear a surname or family name called Kshatriya. They used it only to identify their positions (profession).

Likewise Brahmana is not a surname either. In Tamil Nadu for instance, the main kinds of Brahmana are of the Iyer and Iyengar communities. Those are the community names, based on their adherence to Shaivite-Shankaracharya or Vaishnava teachings. However, within these, one can find subprofessions: Sharma, Shastri, Acharya, etc. These are, as stated above, not real surnames. At one point they were hereditary subpositional titles. If your father was a Shastri (scholar on Shastras) then chances were very high you would learn to become one too.

It is known from an edict that the Reddy's who were once of professions of a different Varna became Kshatriyas. A 1345 inscription of Reddy kings states "With the death of the Kshatriyas (by the Muslims - I think the word used to describe the invaders in the edict was Mlecchas), the duty of defending cows and Brahmins fell to Shudras". The Reddys then bravely fought off the Muslims.
The position and duty of "defending cows and brahmins" is a basically a summary statement well understood by Hindus. It is a summary of everything entailed in the duty of defending Hindu Dharma, which of course is far more than defending cows and brahmins that are merely tokens symbolising the whole of what they are defending. And this implied duty is that of the Kshatriya (Kshatriya Dharma). Essentially, what they're saying is, with the death of the Kshatriyas, they realised they need to take up the vacant position and deal with the threat.

QUOTEAgain I would like to know how one get the idea that saka were related to jats . That's a question for wackypedia, Paki sites and sites of the type of jattworld. They're the ones who first brought it to my attention, until which time, I never heard of Jats being Shakas. All I know is that Scythian referred to Shakas and that they were Iranian-speakers. But because ethnicity was not described in most cases, I always believed Shakas/Scythians to be a collective name for all people occupying the regions around Central Asia sometime prior to and during the Shaka Invasion into India.

Bharatvarsh · 05-14-2006, 04:34 AM

QUOTEIt is known from an edict that the Reddy's who were once of professions of a different Varna became Kshatriyas. A 1345 inscription of Reddi kings read, "With the death of the Kshatriyas (by the Muslims - I think the word used to describe the invaders in the edict was Mlecchas), the duty of defending cows and Brahmins fell to Shudras". The Reddys then bravely fought off the Muslims. 
True, I think you are referring to Vema Reddy, he along with Prolaya Nayaka and Kapaya Nayaka liberated many parts of Andhra Pradesh from Muslims and his inscriptions talk in a similar vein of what you said, for example one of them says:
QUOTEIn 1325 the responsibility of organizing defense of the dharma was taken up by the valiant shudra warrior Prolaya Vema Reddy. Son of local warlord, he describes himself "as one of the 4th varNa that emerged from the feet of mahAviShNu" who decided to rid the land of the wicked Turks after kshatriyas had all been killed for the protection of the agrahAras and brAhmaNas.

http://manollasa.blogspot.com/2004/03/vema-reddy.html

Husky · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2006, 05:35 AM by Husky.)

Post 24:
QUOTEIn 1325 the responsibility of organizing defense of the dharma was taken up by the valiant shudra warrior Prolaya Vema Reddy. Son of local warlord, he describes himself "as one of the 4th varNa that emerged from the feet of mahAviShNu" who decided to rid the land of the wicked Turks after kshatriyas had all been killed for the protection of the agrahAras and brAhmaNas. That appears to be the one I was talking about. I thought I read somewhere that mlecchas was mentioned (in clear referrence to the Muslims), no matter. Thanks.
India was full of such heroes. No wonder communists and the others would love nothing better than to ignore all of this in history class. Anything but allowing a sense of pride in Hindus and admitting to the gravity of what Islam did to Indians.

If Agraharas means cattle (I don't know that it does, this is also part of the question), then is this where the similar sounding part of the word agriculture came from?

05-14-2006, 05:39 AM

Post 1:
QUOTEThe cognate of clan is Kul or cul, cognate of shatriya is shah(Iranian),Another remark on this.
There is no shatriya. The 'k' is not silent in Sanskrit Kshatriya, as opposed to its silence in English kneed, knight, know,... Indian languages have no redundant characters. Ours are perfectly phonetic and logically sound languages.
Yet more proof that it must be some western or other person ignorant of Indian and Iranian languages who wrote the wackypedia entry.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 07-28-2006, 11:06 AM by Husky.)

I've found some electronic confirmation of a few of the things I'd summarised about the Shakas above, in Microsoft Encarta 1996 [MicrosoftÂ® EncartaÂ® Encyclopedia 1996. Â© 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
I know that this counts as material from the Age of Propaganda, but the following does not appear to impact on the AIT (other than a mention of the IE language family).

1. Scythia:QUOTEScythia, name given by the ancient Greeks after about 800 BC to the homeland of the Scythians in the southeast part of Europe, eastward from the Carpathian Mountains to the Don River; this region was seized by the Sarmatians in the 4th century BC and became known as Sarmatia. The name Scythia was sometimes applied by ancient geographers to the greater part of southeastern Europe and Central Asia, from the Danube River to the mountains of Turkestan.
2. Scythians:QUOTEScythians, name given by ancient Greek writers to a number of nomadic tribes of southeastern Europe and Asia. The name was used either for the Scythians proper, or Scolots, dwelling north of the Black Sea, between the Carpathian Mountains and the Don River, in what is now Moldova, Ukraine, and eastern Russia; or for all the nomad tribes who inhabited the steppes eastward from what is now Hungary to the mountains of Turkestan. The tribes are believed to have migrated to these areas from the region of the Altai Mountains, on the border of China, during the 8th century BC. Their speech was a form of Iranian, one of the branches of the Indo-European languages. Scythians kept herds of horses, cattle, and sheep, lived in tent-covered wagons, and fought with bows and arrows on horseback. They developed a rich culture characterized by opulent tombs, fine metalwork, and a brilliant art style.
In the early 7th century BC the Scythians advanced south of the Caspian Sea and invaded the kingdom of Media, but they were expelled in 625 by Cyaxares, king of Media. Shortly after the middle of the 4th century BC the Scythians of southeastern Europe were subdued and largely exterminated by the Sarmatians, who then gave their name to the region. The Scythian tribes in Asia, however, invaded the Parthian Empire, southeast of the Caspian Sea, in the 2nd century BC. About 130 BC they advanced eastward into the kingdom of Bactria, in the region of present-day Afghanistan, and in the 1st century BC they invaded western and northern India, where they remained powerful for five centuries.
- Scythia: upto Turkestan in the East. Scythian tribes included those upto Turkestan
- therefore, only language, not ethnicity is confirmed: Iranian language(s) are what they spoke
- invaded Iranian (prob. Zoroastrian) kingdom of Parthia as well invading Media which was Iranian going by the king's name
- Invaded India only as late as 1st century bce

Also from same source, entry on Sarmations (who seized Scythian regions E of Carpathian mountains):QUOTESarmatians, ancient nomadic and pastoral people, speaking an Indo-Iranian language, who in the 5th century BC, according to accounts by the contemporary Greek historian Herodotus, lived between the Caspian Sea, the Don River, and the Sea of Azov (an area that is now part of Russia). By the 3rd century BC, they had subdued the Scythians of the great plains north of the Black Sea and their territory extended from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and from the Vistula River to the Volga River. They remained dominant in this area until they were overpowered by the Goths from the west in the 3rd century AD and by the Huns from Asia in the 4th century. Among the Sarmatian tribes were the Alans, Roxolani, and Iazyges.Mark well, according to this article:
- the Sarmatians, who had settled in what is now a land of Slavonic speakers, spoke an Indo-Iranian language. That is either Indian or Iranian (or the unattested Indo-Iranian parent language). Not a European language.
- They were already living in that area in the 5th century bce, when they arrived there is not noted. They were 'overpowered' by the Germanic-speaking Goths and the Huns and were undoubtedly sent packing.
- Alans being a Sarmatian tribe means they also spoke 'Indo-Iranian', not Celtic or any other European language even as per IE family categorisation.

Bharatvarsh · 08-18-2006, 06:33 PM

QUOTEGovindrao Kale, Peshwaâs envoy at the court of Nizam wrote to Nana Fadnavis in 1793, â This land from beyond Attock (near Rawalpindi) to the seas in the south (Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean) is land of Hindus and NOT of Turks. [ Hindunche sthan, not Turukstahan ]â [Ref -Hindutva by Veer Savarkar pp 68/69]

http://www.partitionofindia.com/_disk1/0000057e.htm
QUOTEAll territory from the river Attock to the Indian Ocean was to be freed from the hands of the Muslims. The goal of the Hindus was the same as that of Shivaji: Re-acquire territories, rehabilitate religion, preserve Vedas and Shastras, protect cows and Brahmins, establishment of suzerainty and diffusion of Hindu fame and glory. These were the sentiments expressed in a letter Govindrao Kale wrote to Nana Fadnavis, which for Savarkar was the truest expression of Hindu history.

http://www.india-seminar.com/2004/533/533%...aya%20sarma.htm

**acharya** · 08-23-2006, 11:35 AM

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-01-2006, 05:23 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

The reason's for the Maratha struggle (for 27 years) with Aurangzeb after Shivaji's death are laid down here:
QUOTE6. The Maratha aims.âThe aims of the Maratha gov-
ernment in prosecuting the arduous struggle against the
Mughals are repeatedly stated in clear terms in the orders and
charters issued by their rulers during this period of war.
Hanumant Rav Ghorpade and his relation Krishnaji are de-
finitely told on 4 June 1691 that," " Having clearly grasped your
readiness to quit the Mughal service and return to the king's
for defending the Maharashtra Dharma, i.e., the cherished desire
of the Maratha nation, we are assigning to you for your own
personal expenses and those of your troops, an annuity of six
lacs Hons (Rs, Twenty-five lacs) the first half of which, viz.
three lacs is to be paid as soon as you establish possession over
(1) the Raigad district, (2) the district of Bijapur, (3) the dis-
trict of Bhaganagar (Haiderabad) and (4) the district of
Aurangabad, at the rate of f of a lac for each of these items.
The other half of the annuity, viz., three lacs more, will be paid
as soon as you capture Delhi. You must loyally execute our
commands, and our government will then continue their favour
towards you." This is a typical instance out of many, which
sets down the Maratha aims as a crusade of a religious chara-
cter and of an abnormal magnitude. It was a severe and direct
attack upon the Maharashtra religion, that their Chhatrapati
was put to a cruel death and not allowed even the usual funer-
al rites. It should be noted that these aims included even the
conquest of Delhi, so as to make the whole sub-continent of
India safe for the Hindu religion, and no more destruction of
temples and idols was to be tolerated. Aurangzeb's armies were
mostly composed of Hindus, that is, the northern Rajputs and
the southern Marathas: it wras certainly his duty to respect the
sentiments of those who served him. Rajaram's Government
deliberately weaned away many Maratha Chiefs who had ac-
cepted Mughal service. Aurangzeb profusely offered lands, tit-
les and rewards as inducements to Maratha leaders to renounce
their king and accept his service. By way of counteraction the
Maratha Government adopted the same methods. This religious
motive of the present war appears to have been continued as
a national demand throughout the later Maratha expansion
directed by the Peshwas.

This statement of the Maratha aims is not confined to a
few rare documents, but runs through most of the writings de-
tailing the political transactions of the Maratha Government
of that period. On 22 March 1690 Riajararr from Jinji as-
sures Baji Sarzarav Jedhe Deshmukh of Kari of his support,
and inspires him how they should exert themselves in their
national cause. ft We have enlisted on arrival in the Karnatak
forty thousand cavalry and a lac and a quarter of infantry. The
local Palegars and fighting elements are fast rallying to the
Maratha standard. Our raj now has a peculiar message for
the people, and you as one of them already suffer the agonies
of the wrongs inflicted upon it by the Mughals. You must
now put forth the sacrifice required on behalf of our religion.
We have despatched Keso Trimal Pingle to Maharashtra with
a treasure of a lac of Hons, guarded by an escort of forty thou-
sand armed men with Santaji and Dhanaji at their head. As
soon as this party arrives in your part of the country, you
must join it with your following with the utjnost expedition, in
order to overcome the common enemy. In fact the enemy is
nothing of himself : it is people like you who have raised him
into that importance. If our Marathas had not joined him, he
would have been nowhere. You alone possess the nerve to
overcome this Aurangzeb. He has wronged you by threatening
to convert you to his religion. He has already converted Netaji
and Sabaji Ghatge and Janoji Raje, in addition to several
Brahmans also. He also entertains further deep-rooted motives
of a sinister nature against our nation, of which you must
beware. The Nimbalkars and the Manes have already deserted
him and his ranks are being rapidly thinned. God is helping
us. We are sure to succeed." This letter only one among
many is in the handwriting of Khando Ballal, Riajartam's Chit-
nis and shows the depths to which the heart of the Maratha
nation was stirred in this heroic crusade.

new history of the marathas volume I shivaji and his line 1600 1707, govind sakharam sardesai, Pg 338-340.

http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020050057066

09-01-2006, 09:17 AM

Google -Download version
A History of the MahrattasBy James Grant Duff -1826

ramana · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2006, 07:00 AM by ramana.)

Google down load version

Madhu Rao Sindhia and Hindu Reconquest of India

The importance of this book is that the Maratthas under Madho Rao Scindia had rolled back the entire Mughal empire. The Mughal Emperor was confined to the precincts of Delhi and was an ineffectual power. The British had succeded the Marattha power and not the Mughal power. This is the crucial point to understand.

The myth of British overthowing the Mughals is a later creation for the H&D of the Muslims and came in the late 1800s.

Even in later period in Punjab, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the paramount power who was replaced by the British after the Sikh wars.

So the British replaced Marattha and Sikh power at an all India level. Locally they replaced some Muslim rulers along with the others. But at macro level it was the Marattha and Sikh paramountcy that was replaced.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2006, 06:58 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEGoogle down load version

Madhu Rao Sindhia and Hindu Reconquest of India
ramana not working, this looks like an interesting book but I can't find it online. Mahadji can be considered the last great Maratha statesman and warrior, although he lacked the talents of Baji Rao I or Shivaji he still made Hindus the virtual rulers of India after the disaster of Panipat.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-04-2006, 07:27 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

Another instance of Hindu short sightedness that had terrible costs:
QUOTEGuerilla tactics triumphed over artillery. It should, however, be clearly noted by those who carelessly accuse the Peshwa of inability or neglect to uproot the Nizam finally from the Deccan, that Shahu was mainly responsible for preserving the Haidarabad State. He thus writes to Bajirao, t4 You must on no account inflict any loss upon Nizam-ul-mulk or injure his susceptibilities. We enjoin this on you as a sacred obligation to the memory of your revered father." At the same time Shahu allowed his Peshwa to exercise full control over the Maratha government and the State.15

new history of the marathas volume II the expansion of the maratha power 1707 1772, govind sakharam sardesai, Pg 118.

http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020050057179
This was after the Palkhed campaign, the campaign in which Baji Rao I thoroughly outwitted the Nizam and could have massacred or could have starved them to death at will but all he did was to make the Nizam sign the same worn out treaty that the emperor had already signed during the time of the Saiyid brothers. This Nizam was an ungrateful bast*rd and would oppose Baji Rao all his life, it is this suicidal policy of pardoning traitors that has screwed Hindus thoroughly, we still haven't learned the lesson and handed back all the Pakis who surrendered in 1971 for nothing instead of putting them in slave camps till their death for killing Hindus.

The Hyderabad state would later on go committ anti Hindu atrocities at every turn until the Indian army took control, it's the same story with Tipu Sultan, the Marathas left him to rule on payment of Chauth instead of putting him to death.

Bharatvarsh · 09-04-2006, 07:31 AM

Shahu's (son of Shambhaji) letter to Sambhaji (son of Rajaram through his wife Rajasbai) who set up a rival court at Kolhapur making claims that he was the rightful emperor of the Marathas:
QUOTEShahu did his best all along to conciliate his royal cousin. When he openly revolted and sought the shelter of Nizam-ul-mulk in 1727 Shahu addressed the following letter to him, which deserves to be quoted in full as it sets forth the ideals which Shahu as the Maratha king was pursuing and the method he employed in dealing with his antagonists :

44 This kingdom is a gift from God. How can you hope to win success by seeking the protection of a Muslim ? If you wanted to have a separate kingdom of your own, you could have communicated your desire to us. We possess men of pre-eminent capacity some of whom would have accompanied you and procured for you a kingdom of your own ; or you should have acquired one by your own prowess. We are at present acquiring fresh territories to add to our kingdom out of those seized by the Mughals. You could have followed a similar course and made your own mark. But to ask a share out of what we have gained is not right. Your revered father the late Rajaram Maharaj went as far as Jinji and eventually obtained a kingdom through great personal effort. He then returned to his home in Maharashtra, plundered rich and renowned cities and made a name for himself. You must be well aware what a keen interest he took in our welfare, and what efforts he made to get us released from the imperial confinement. Knowing all this, your seeking the protection of a Muslim governor was not at all proper. You should at once quit the Mughals and come back to us. We will ourselves grant you whatever you need most willingly. But to claim a share in a kingdom has no religious sanction. You must give up this evil course. Chandrasen Jadhav's conduct in proving faithless to us and accepting service under a Mughal government, is most reprehensible ; coming as he does from the Jadhav family of Ramdev Rao of Devgiri, he openly acted against the Maharashtra Dharma, i.e., the sacred policy enjoined by our religion. It was the height of folly on your part to have acted upon the advice of such a renegade and served the Muslim ends."

new history of the marathas volume II the expansion of the maratha power 1707 1772, govind sakharam sardesai, Pg 134.

http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020050057179

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-05-2006, 07:16 PM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEDr. Dighe in his special study of " Bajirao and Maratha Expansion " gives a penetrating and accurate analysis of that Peshwa's relations with his master. He writes, " the methods of the Sovereign and the Minister were different but their objective was the same. Shahu looked not to supplant the Mughal Emperor ; he would rather be the Emperor's friend and mentor, would lend his sword arm to his support and thus acquire control over the imperial policy. The reverence felt by him for the throne of the Chagtais expressed not the senility of a subordinate to his superior but the sympathy which a man of culture a noble soulâfeels for an ancient relic, for a fallen cause. In the hands of Bajirao this attitude was rightly transformed into an attempt at political hegemony in the north : the sword arm of the Maratha State was wielded so ably by his Peshwa as to fulfil the wildest dream of the monarch. The Peshwa never forgot that his authority emanated from the crown and had its roots in the confidence placed in him by the Sovereign. Some of the lesser chiefs resented the power thus acquired and failed to realize that what gave the Peshwa his preponderance in the royal council was the military strength acquired by him through years of successful warfare. It was equally open to them to raise armies and lead them to foreign conquests, but, like their master, they loved the repose of the Court and in consequence slowly faded into insignificance. Even the Raja on occasions felt the overgrown power of his Minister and expressed his displeasure in sharp reprimands."

Bajirao had to wage an implacable war against Nizam-ul-mulk, the first rebel "to succeed against the Mughal Empire. The Emperor never trusted Nizam. The mischievous part he played during Nadir Shah's invasion is clear. Saadat Khan called him a cheat. He well realized his weakness before Bajirao and avoided an open conflict with him. Chhatrapati Shahu, however, respected Nizam-ul-mulk as the last representative of Aurangzeb's rule and never entertained the thought of removing him from his position. On the contrary he severely checked Bajirao whenever the latter was found to commit the least aggression against Nizam-ul-mulk, and as a set off against Bajirao employed the Sumant and the Prati-nidhi to keep the Nizam at ease of mind. This situation of the Peshwas should be clearly borne in mind by those who ask why the Nizam was allowed to remain a permanent factor of disturbance in the Deccan.

Sir Richard Temple, a wise student of history and politics, has rightly assessed the greatness of Bajirao in a passage breathing exceeding enthusiasm. He remarks : 4t Bajirao was hardly to be surpassed as a rider and was ever forward in action eager to expose himself under fire if the affair was arduous. He was inured to fatigue and prided himself on enduring the same hardships as his soldiers and sharing their scanty iare. He was moved by an ardour for success in national undertakings by a patriotic confidence in the Hindu cause as against its old enemies the Muhammadans and its new rivals the Europeans then rising above the political horizon. He lived to see the Marathas spread terror over the Indian continent from the Arabian sea to the Bay of Bengal. He died as he lived in camp under canvas among his men and he is remembered among the Marathas as the fighting Peshwa, as the incarnation of Hindu energy."9

A contemporary, Marathi letter thus speaks of Bajirao's achievement : " Along with his father's blessing Bajirao inherited from him the great task of regeneration that he had undertaken and he spent his life's effort in accomplishing it, viz., to bring peace and prosperity to the country, north of the Narmada as had been done to the territories south of that river.

Bajirao tried to restore the Hindu religion to its former grandeur. It was his ambition to rebuild the great shrine of Kashivishveshwar at Benares. In these efforts he outshone his father in a far higher degree. He possessed uncommon valour and his fame spread widely as a re-creator of his nation."30

new history of the marathas volume II the expansion of the maratha power 1707 1772, govind sakharam sardesai, Pg 200-202.

http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020050057179

ramana · 09-05-2006, 07:39 PM

I think the Hindu leaders were using game theory before its time to induce cooperation. This repeated forgiveness is a constant tactic from Prithviraj to Mahatma Gandhi when dealing with Islamic hordes. The game is always the repeated Prisoners Dilemma where one of the players has an opportunity to benefit by deceiveing the the other. As Ackerman has shown for repeated Prisoner's Dilemma the best strategy is "tit-for Tat'. One player does what the other adversarial player does tit-for tat. The mass simulation converges to induce cooperation in three tries.

Bharatvarsh · 09-06-2006, 08:43 PM

QUOTEWhile the Mughal affairs were thus in a state of turmoil
and utmost confusion, there appeared on the Maratha side a
soldier and a statesman of rare insight, enterprise and courage,
Bajirao, son of Balaji Vishwanath, who had been called to the
premiership in April 1720. With a prophetic vision the young
Peshwa saw that the empire against which his people had been
buffeting for half a century was tottering to its foundations
and the moment had arrived to give it its final blow. The
race of the Mughals had run out and the Marathas would grasp
supreme power from their palsied hands and dominate the
empire. His state appeared weak and disorganised, but the
nation or the people were strong and full of the confidence
born of success. The struggle with Alamgir had transformed
the nation into a vast military camp. To the energies of his
people that were being wasted in civil war and internecine
struggle, he would find new outlets and direct them towards
foreign conquests. The path had been shown by the father
and the son would now traverse it. In an eloquent speech
he urged his views on the Maharajah ; " The Mughal power
is lying prostrate ; it is nearing its end ; it is torn by factions
and internecine feuds ; the Padishah desires to bolster up his
throne with our support. You speak of the Nizam breaking
the treaty and commencing hostilities. But he is of no ac-
count. Aurangzeb when a prince reduced the subah of Auran-
gabad and resided there. Undeterred by his presence in the
Deccan the great Shivaji attacked the Adil Shahi and Qutb
Shahi kingdoms and laid them under tribute. After him Sam-
bhaji lost everything, his forts, his kingdom and, his life. The
Padishah remained in the Deccan with a formidable army to
round off his conquests. Undaunted Rajaram carried on the
struggle from Jinji. After a time even that citadel was lost
to the enemy and the Padishah was still here with his innumer-
able hordes. Despite these heavy odds Rajaram marched on
Aurangabad, ravaged the enemy's country, wrested his forts
and recovered the entire kingdom from the Mughal. (Now
the situation has changed in our favour). You (a monarch
of great qualities) occupy the throne and are assisted by able
counsellors. Our aid is sought by the Mughal and by its
means Kings are made and unmade. Is not this the moment
when we should attempt to seize supreme political power?
I undertake to hold the Nizam in check as well as effect a
northward drive. You speak of reducing (South) Karnatak
as more urgent, but hardly any opposition is to be countered
in that quarter. The old Adil Shahi and Qutb Shahi no longer
exist. The reduction of Karnatak is as good as a domestic
affair and can be easily effected by the Huzarat troops. The
Pratinidhi will manage it. The Great Shivaji's dream of a
Hindu domination has remained unfulfilled to this date.
Balaji Pant Nana has prepared the ground work establishing
friendly relations with the Hindu Rajas. This is the time to
strike the blow/'36

peshwa bajirao I and maratha expansion, dinge v g, Pg 106-107.

http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020050057258

ramana · (This post was last modified: 09-06-2006, 09:21 PM by ramana.)

Bharat, Do we have more info on Shivaji's vision? The reason why I am asking is it is important to dispell the 'modern' version put out by JNU historians that he was just a bandit chief.
I know J.N. Sarkar wrote a book on Shivaji.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-06-2006, 09:56 PM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEBharat, Do we have more info on Shivaji's vision? The reason why I am asking is it is important to dispell the 'modern' version put out by JNU historians that he was just a bandit chief.
I know J.N. Sarkar wrote a book on Shivaji. 
Yes there is a lot of info but I am still in the process of reading the different books available online and am posting interesting extracts when I come across them, the best way to know Shivaji's ambitions is to go through the original contemporary Hindu sources and every one of them confirms that Shivaji's vision was Hindavi Swarajya (a state independent of foreign domination over Hindus).

This by the way is not just confined to Maratha sources, one of Shivaji's most ardent admirers was Kaviraj Bhushan, Bhushan was not Maratha, he came from Bundelkhand and was Hindi speaking but he was the one who wrote the famous lines:

"Kasihki Kala Gayee, Mathura Masid Bhaee; Gar Shivaji Na Hoto, To Sunati Hot Sabaki!" [Kashi has lost its splendour, Mathura has become a mosque; If Shivaji had not been, All would have been circumcised (converted)].

We also read about Shivaji's vision in his own letters and proclamations and treaties, for example in his own letter to Dadaji Naras Prabhu he refers to the oath they took at Rohideswar about founding a Hindavi Swarajya, also he was the only Raja I know who was so devtoted to the Hindu cause that he couldn't even tolerate the excessive use of foreign words by Hindus in everyday language, so here is what he did:
QUOTEBut while such local knowledge and identity could be valuable to the head of a small principality, a subconti-nental imperial system could benefit from a high lan-guage that favored no specific ethnicity â the role played by Persian in the Mughal Empire. In later years, Sivaji and his son and successor Sambhaji seem to have con-sidered the possibility of Sanskrit playing such a role. Thus the Rajavyavaharakosa â a thesaurus of official us-age â was prepared shortly after Sivaji's coronation as Chatrapati. This has sometimes been presented as an effort at the triumphant return of Sanskrit with the end of Muslim rule. S. B. Varnekar, for example, claims that the author was commissioned to write this text in order to save the language of the gods (devabhasa).34 The text itself is much more modest: âHaving completely up-rooted the barbarians (mleccha), by the best of kings a learned man was appointed ... to replace the overvalued Yavana words (atyartham yavanavacanair) with educated speech (vibudhabhasam).â35 There is, for a period, a sig-nificant change in register in official documents, with a new prominence given to Sanskritic terminology, even though Marathi remained the official language. I shall return to this theme later in this essay.

http://www.cssaame.ilstu.edu/issues/24-2/guha.doc
The above article writer Guha is by no means a Hindutva writer, infact he is a blue blooded secularist but atleast he is honest enough to quote original sources sometimes. No other Hindu king took such measures towards everyday language, not even the Peshwas.

Also if you read the treaty agreed upon between Shivaji and his cousin brother Vyankoji (founder of the Maratha line at Tanjore), one of the clauses quite explicitly states that no enemy of the Hindu religion should get shelter in the kingdom, it was only after this agreement was signed that Shivaji returned back most of the territory he conquered to Vyankoji.

The commies will have no chance in an open debate, that is why they never come out and debate whether Shivaji was a bandit or not besides making these allegations in their books, the tons of native source material and Shivaji's own letters quite explicitly refute this view, by the way even the contemporary English factory sources recognise Shivaji as the captain of the Hindu forces and comment upon the fact that Aurangzeb's religious bigotry was bringing the downfall of the empire.

As for Jadunath Sarkar's book, I haven't read it but it is titled "House of Shivaji", but Sarkar is always overly reliant on foreign sources (Persian and English) and I suspect it's no different in that book either.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?