Maratha Emperor Shahuji has a legitimate son.

Well I did never mention Chhatrapati Shivaji as a Hindu nationalist, I am also unfavourable to his portrayal as such.

My statement that he was outright against Jagirs, must have been typed by me in a frenzy (well that happens when you idolize someone ). I agree that no large scale abolition of Jagirs took place and the deshmukhs were retained as the local administrators. But examples were surely made of those that disregarded central authority.

Shivaji didn't form a state within Bijapur he was in open rebellion against them. And about the Mughals, yeah he did try to gain support of the Mughals by making promises to join them. That was basically because at that time he made this offer to the Mughals, his father Shahaji Bhonsle was imprisoned in Bijapur under the suspicion that maybe the father was inciting his son to rebel, to secure his release was of utmost importance to him. As by accepting Mughal service, he would gain Mughal support to secure the release of his father; which he did gain when the Mughals sent a letter to the Adilshah to that effect.

Shivaji accepting Mansabdari was because due to the stipulations of the treaty of Purandar (you surely must be knowing that ). He never accepted it of his own accord. You may criticize me if I am wrong anywhere.

I understand that war makes a ruler make difficult decisions. Well what you speak about Jagirs is technically true, but usually those Jagirs became hereditary and started accumulating military power as such that happened with the Moreys of Javali, a prominent example among those who fought Shivaji.

And I never said anything amounting to that the Marathas were strong enough to smash the Mughals outright. The Maratha triumphs in the later stages of the 27 year war wet basically the result of the Mughal mishandling of the war. That doesn't mean that the Marathas were so weak that anyone could conquer them. They had the strength to maintain their independence as a strong force.

Well the Marathas functioning within the Mughal system is true to a significant extent. I would not dispute that right now . Also I right now know not much about the true extent to which the Marathas were part of the Mughal system. I will speak about that when I have some valid points to speak about.

Interesting, so is it possible to claim they were working as a system within a system, with the obvious tensions that would create?
 
It's.... complicated. If you're saying did they answer to the Mughal Emperor in de facto terms, no they did not always- indeed during the Scindia's rime as Amir ul Amara, the Mughal answered to him. If you're talking in de jure terms, they did. Simultaneously, the Chhatrapati was in a similar position for the most part. A 'strong' Chhatrapati won't fix things, because they were still struggling for legitimacy at the point of Rajaram's reign. In all practical terms, Shivaji was a rebellious chief from a lower caste- he had to fabricate an upper caste ceremony to claim greater legitimacy. Moreover, jagirs weren't a problem for establishing powerbases- they're usually an impediment to that as they're temporary in nature. The Marathas, however, always had hereditary landowning practices that they inherited from Ahmadnagar and Bijapur- Shivaji was himself from a deshmukh family. In many ways what you're asking for would be comparable to having Humayun be replaced by a 'stronger' ruler in the wake of his father's death; a time where the Mughals were literally in the process of establishing themselves.

Factionalism is literally a problem in every state, but that 'political necessity' you spoke of was maintained, and that's important in understanding the legal basis of the spread of British rule as well as why the Marathas were never really a strong unitary state. There was always a parallel authority to appeal to in the Mughal Emperor. Moreover, the Maratha state was always under siege in its early years, so where is this magical strong ruler coming from? There needed to be incentives to be given to the main families in order to placate them, especially as the main Mughal Army was putting pressure in Maharashtra and had Gingee under siege. In the period after Shivaji's death, you have to understand, the Mughals controlled most of the major forts of Maharashtra, and the deshmukh families were more or less playing a balancing act between supporting the Mughals, or the Marathas. Some individuals literally signed up for service on both sides to get as much as possible: Nagoji Mane went to Rajaram, got two villages in perpetuity, then went right back to Aurangzeb and pushed for jagir rights, which were given to him, from Berar. This is what I mean by 'state within a state'- if your government is reliant on noble families who vacillate between your sovereignty and another state's, it is safe to say that you do not have completely defined borders; especially when this is in your nominal heartland.

Quite frankly, the 'Maratha Empire' really only became a strong power after the rise of the Peshwas, and by that time it had already slid into Confederation. In this way India was more like the Holy Roman Empire in the 1700s than anything else.

The Mughal Emperor in Delhi was nothing more than the puppet of the Marathas there is no question of the Marathas answering to him. And pray let me knowhow what I am speaking is comparable to replacing Humayun by a stronger ruler, he didn't have even a state of his own to rule after his father's death.

And about the legitimacy of the Chhatrapatis, well he was from a lower caste. Specifically "Kunbi". Well that doesn't mean that the other Maratha rulers Brahmin or always of some higher caste. They just considered themselves superior because they were hereditary rulers of their fiefdoms and believed that qualified them for royal pedigree.

And well the coronation ceremony wasn't "fabricated " to gain legitimacy or something like that. Every state needs an official recognition of its existence as a sovereign state and a coronation ceremony is the most feasible way to get that. Because that's when the state gets recognition by other states when their envoys attend marking the beginning of diplomatic relations with that state, which is tantamount to the recognition of an independent state.

Well at anytime during that period the Chhatrapati never struggled for legitimacy and was widely accepted and respected as a sovereign throughout his lands. Well their are always some defections in any war especially from the side which appears to be losing, which was the same situation the Marathas were in at the beginning of the 27 year war.

The legitimacy problem of the Maratha Chhatrapatis in Satara, the true "legitimate " rulers of the Maratha Empire was primarily faked by the British to be in fact. Mainly the British and some clique of large number of Brahmins raised this imaginary concept out of thin air, with their rhetoric supporting this theory far from the realm of fact and truth. The British tried in vain to undermine the legitimacy of the true Maratha state by recognizing the Chhatrapatis of Kolhapur; a splinter state formed after the brief civil war following Shahu's release from Mughal custody, which always tried to project itself as legitimate but basically nothing more than a splinter state.

This theory of legitimacy problems was supported by some traitors (like the clique of Brahmins) just to emphasize the superiority of their caste and their importance (which according to me only served to undermine the Marathas from within ) and gain positions of power in the British administration that followed or just to be in the good books of the British. Well this action is widely condemned throughout Maharashtra by the Brahmins themselves and more so by the populace. If you are an Indian and especially a Maharashtrian you would have known some facts that are rarely found in books written by some foreign author no matter how knowledgeable that author might be about the Marathas.

Well I think that the British mainly formulated this theory to emphasize that they just dethroned illegitimate rulers and restored the legitimate rulers (just the British themselves as the actual de jure rulers ). Well I am not much fond of the British but I will not let it cloud my true opinions.

Also I kindly request you to share your sources from where you came to the conclusion that the Maratha Chhatrapatis struggled for legitimacy. I would also like to know the rhetoric behind this argument. Well if I am wrong, I will still be happy to gain more in depth knowledge as I am basically no history expert but merely an extreme enthusiast about history who knows some facts and likes to share them with others.
 
Last edited:
The Mughal Emperor in Delhi was nothing more than the puppet of the Marathas there is no question of the Marathas answering to him. And pray let me knowhow what I am speaking is comparable to replacing Humayun by a stronger ruler, he didn't have even a state of his own to rule after his father's death.

And about the legitimacy of the Chhatrapatis, well he was from a lower caste. Specifically "Kunbi". Well that doesn't mean that the other Maratha rulers Brahmin or always of some higher caste. They just considered themselves superior because they were hereditary rulers of their fiefdoms and believed that qualified them for royal pedigree.

And well the coronation ceremony wasn't "fabricated " to gain legitimacy or something like that. Every state needs an official recognition of its existence as a sovereign state and a coronation ceremony is the most feasible way to get that. Because that's when the state gets recognition by other states when their envoys attend marking the beginning of diplomatic relations with that state, which is tantamount to the recognition of an independent state.

Well at anytime during that period the Chhatrapati never struggled for legitimacy and was widely accepted and respected as a sovereign throughout his lands. Well their are always some defections in any war especially from the side which appears to be losing, which was the same situation the Marathas were in at the beginning of the 27 year war.

The legitimacy problem of the Maratha Chhatrapatis in Satara, the true "legitimate " rulers of the Maratha Empire was primarily faked by the British to be in fact. Mainly the British and some clique of large number of Brahmins raised this imaginary concept out of thin air, with their rhetoric supporting this theory far from the realm of fact and truth. The British tried in vain to undermine the legitimacy of the true Maratha state by recognizing the Chhatrapatis of Kolhapur; a splinter state formed after the brief civil war following Shahu's release from Mughal custody, which always tried to project itself as legitimate but basically nothing more than a splinter state.

This theory of legitimacy problems was supported by some traitors (like the clique of Brahmins) just to emphasize the superiority of their caste and their importance (which according to me only served to undermine the Marathas from within ) and gain positions of power in the British administration that followed or just to be in the good books of the British. Well this action is widely condemned throughout Maharashtra by the Brahmins themselves and more so by the populace. If you are an Indian and especially a Maharashtrian you would have known some facts that are rarely found in books written by some foreign author no matter how knowledgeable that author might be about the Marathas.

Well I think that the British mainly formulated this theory to emphasize that they just dethroned illegitimate rulers and restored the legitimate rulers (just the British themselves as the actual de jure rulers ). Well I am not much fond of the British but I will not let it cloud my true opinions.

Also I kindly request you to share your sources from where you came to the conclusion that the Maratha Chhatrapatis struggled for legitimacy. I would also like to know the rhetoric behind this argument. Well if I am wrong, I will still be happy to gain more in depth knowledge as I am basically no history expert but merely an extreme enthusiast about history who knows some facts and likes to share them with others.

That does sound like something the British would do, we always were a sneaky lot.
 
.

Factionalism is literally a problem in every state, but that 'political necessity' you spoke of was maintained, and that's important in understanding the legal basis of the spread of British rule as well as why the Marathas were never really a strong unitary state. There was always a parallel authority to appeal to in the Mughal Emperor. Moreover, the Maratha state was always under siege in its early years, so where is this magical strong ruler coming from? There needed to be incentives to be given to the main families in order to placate them, especially as the main Mughal Army was putting pressure in Maharashtra and had Gingee under siege. In the period after Shivaji's death, you have to understand, the Mughals controlled most of the major forts of Maharashtra, and the deshmukh families were more or less playing a balancing act between supporting the Mughals, or the Marathas. Some individuals literally signed up for service on both sides to get as much as possible: Nagoji Mane went to Rajaram, got two villages in perpetuity, then went right back to Aurangzeb and pushed for jagir rights, which were given to him, from Berar. This is what I mean by 'state within a state'- if your government is reliant on noble families who vacillate between your sovereignty and another state's, it is safe to say that you do not have completely defined borders; especially when this is in your nominal heartland.

Quite frankly, the 'Maratha Empire' really only became a strong power after the rise of the Peshwas, and by that time it had already slid into Confederation. In this way India was more like the Holy Roman Empire in the 1700s than anything else.

And yes whatever you were talking that after the death of Shivaji most of the forts in Maharashtra were in the possession of the Mughals would be an overstatement. The Mughals had taken a handful of forts in the Sahyadris and that too after gruelling sieges. The Maratha capital of Raigad only fell due to the treachery of Suryaji Pusal after having resisted for 6-7 years. And many of the forts were captured due to sheer momentum of the Mughal force s and nothing else. Even Jinji fell after 7 years of siege which forced the Mughals invest a large force which proved to be the undoing of the Mughals.

When Aurangzeb had asked the Portuguese for supplies, Chhatrapati Sambhaji nearly succeded in uprooting the Portuguese from Goa had it not the Viceroy of Alwar who managed to stop the Maratha advance which had to be redirected to face sudden Mughal encroachment elsewhere. Even when Shah Alam infiltrated Konkan through Karnataka his forces were constantly harassed and their supply lines cut, which forced him to retreat. And the most of the Maratha strongholds in the Sahyadris were maintained unviolated by Ramchandrapant Amatya and Shankaraji Niraji with some exceptions. The Mughal forces were even defeated two times in the field.

In fact Chhatrapati Sambhaji had ably led the Maratha forces during his tenure and his death gave further impetus to the fight for freedom. And well what you are mentioning about Nagoji Mane and such minor Sardars who were merely followers of Dhanaji Jadhav and Santaji Ghorpade who were some of the main generals in the Maratha army at that time, is much of inconsequence and such minor Sardars always were self-serving and tried to achieve more higher standing by playing petty games like the one you mentioned.


Not all deshmukhs were fickle minded as you tend to propose and all of them did not go to the Mughals asking for Jagirs. By what you said before you appear to tend to downplay the Marathas ability to defend themselves and that the Marathas were like a Confedracy of sorts right from the start. However you fail to acknowledge the amount of centralization in the Maratha state under Chhatrapatis Shivaji, Sambhaji and for a time under Rajaram and under his wife Maharani Tarabai.

And about the last point about the Maratha state resembling the Holy Roman Empire, well it did to a certain extent I am not denying that outright, but essentially the Marathas though divided in five power blocs largely cooperated (grudgingly though it may be ) till at least for some part of the reign of Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao especially through the machinations of Nana Phadnavis, the administrator of the Peshwas. And the situation didn't escalate into fighting till that time on a large scale amounting to wars like it usually did in the Holy Roman Empire split into hundreds of minor and major states which warred on a full scale with each other.

Expecting a reply from you. Hope you would elaborate more clearly on your friends if I you feel that I have misunderstood something.
 
Top