11-07-2007, 06:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-"ramana"+-->QUOTE("ramana")<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Link
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Failure of Marathas
Renowned historian Shejwalkar has made an excellent, abridged analysis of the decline of India over the past 2000 years. History of Marathas being his specialization, he has a lot to say on this subject. This account is more or less based on his observations.
<b>The main reason why this empire saw the beginning of its end </b>in less than 100 years since it was established <b>is the fact that none of the Peshwas could fully realise the principles laid down by Shivaji. It was his explicit intention to destroy the Muslim powers and establish a centralised power of the natives which was to be governed by 8 ministers under the control of the sovereign Chhatrapati. If a part of land was to be given to noble warriors it were done so in special cases and even then the state had the right to its produce. </b>He breathed last as Aurangzeb arrived with his full force to wipe out Marathas once and for all. After 9 years of continuous war, he had Sambhaji captured and killed. Shivaji's younger son Rajaram fled to fort Janjira which stood against the Moghuls for 5 years. Aurangzeb began to lure away Maratha nobles with land offers.
As a final measure to avoid the total extiction of his empire, <b>Rajaram issued a statement calling for his people to fight and destroy Mughal empire in whichever way it seemed suitable to them and keep the land earned for themselves. Here onwards, a Maratha warrior would deem it his right to own land for himself and his poterity if he had served the state.</b> Maratha empire expanded in a decentralised manner without any underlying sense of purpose as was amply demonstrated by<b> rivalries within such as the one between Shinde and Holkar which grew to absurd proportions.</b> The nobles raised by Shivaji opposed the unrestrained authority wielded by the Peshwa because in the original scheme, he was just one of the eight ministers. Bajirao I had raised his own generals. He had a towering stature and could have gone against Rajaram's statement to go back to Shivaji's principles. But, he made no attempt in that direction and apart from Madhavrao, the posterity did not produce a first rate statesman.
Moreover, Shahu was raised by the Mughals and hence had a soft corner for them. <b>With him on the throne, Marathas adopted, to the end, the policy of plundering the Mughal Empire but keeping it alive. In the process, they hurt Rajputs and Jats unnecessarily. The expansion had taken place so thoughtlessly that they didn't have a single sympathetic ally up north who would bail them out in their hour of need.</b> This was made abundantly clear at Panipat when Hindu princes of North India, forgetting the humiliation they had suffered with each Muslim invasion in the past, chose to side with Abdalli or remain neutral in battle explicitly declared by Najeeb Khan to be the holy war to uphold Islam in India. Isolated and half starved, Marathas took on Abdalli on 14th Jan 1761 and on that day flower of its army perished.
<b>They also failed to check the British in time. Since the days of Shivaji, the British were warned to stick to their trade and there had been occasional battles.</b> Lord Cornwallis has noted on more than one occasion the enemocity and jealosy they had for the Company. But, apparently, the full force of the British intentions was not realised even as Bengal fell prey to the British in 1757. The British triumphed over French in the Seven Years War (actually 3 years war in India) but this had been dwarfed by the pre-1761 achievements of Marathas.
<b> The impending invasion which was to prove worse than those of Mahmud Gazani and Timar Lane for India, seems to have been first registered on the Nawab of Oudh as he learnt of the defeat of Angre fleet (@1756) on his death bed.</b> Marathas were never to regain control of sea. But even then they had not grasped the full significance of the defeat. <b>The contemporary British reports remark derisively that "..the Mahrattas behave as if they own the Deccan without once understanding what that means..." </b>They, however, realised the peril in 1765 when they sought to consolidate their position up north. <b>In the words of Madhavrao, the British had put a ring around India and were pressing it from all sides. The British were gaining in strength silently by putting one local power against the other. The shortsightedness of the 18th century rulers didn't help the matters either.</b> Indeed even in the 19th century, the famed Rani of Zansi would not help Peshwa and Tope, who were seeking help from all corners of India to drive the British away. The Queen attacked the British only when her personal interests were put to harm by them. But that is a digression. The death of Mahadaji Shinde in 1792 removed the last great obstacle for the Company rule in North. Nana Phadanavis's heydays were over by 1796 and he was forced to hand over power to Baji Rao II, the son of Raghunath Rao, and disappear from political scene. With Baji Rao II signing treaty with the British in 1802, Peshwai was all but gone.
The Shivshahi and Peshwai had a combined life of 128 years only. Never in its existence did the Maratha Empire have whole of India (as of then and hence as of now also) in its grip. Most of its energy went in consolidating its military position. It made no significant educational, literary or artistic contribution. <b>As has been mentioned earlier, untimely deaths of its most productive men was partly responsible for it apart from the technological superiority of the scavengers and the deep rooted treachery so characteristic of India. It stood out from the rest of the powers on the basis of its principles. It alone could identify with the concept of the whole of India as a single nation and fight for it. The spirit of national pride spurred Marathas to the forefront of the unsuccessful war of 1857 and soon after that they were to produce men who started sociopolitic agitations. Shejvalkar has remarked that it is not a coincidence that in the subcontinent only the land trodden by Maratha horsemen has survived as the modern India.</b>
Towards the end, the Peshwa's reign had been characterised by narrow regional influences. It had become a pro Chitpavan Brahmin system with utter disregard for the welfare of the subjects and had lost its appeal to the common man. <b>It had lost touch with its roots and hence its fall was doomed</b> (Nyayamurti M.G. Ranade). ....
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something to reflect on and see why does the history repeat itself. It comes to group dynamics. People divided in groups are unable to build links with other groups and see the national interests.
Doesnt the ring look similar to the containment strategy of modern times?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Failure of Marathas
Renowned historian Shejwalkar has made an excellent, abridged analysis of the decline of India over the past 2000 years. History of Marathas being his specialization, he has a lot to say on this subject. This account is more or less based on his observations.
<b>The main reason why this empire saw the beginning of its end </b>in less than 100 years since it was established <b>is the fact that none of the Peshwas could fully realise the principles laid down by Shivaji. It was his explicit intention to destroy the Muslim powers and establish a centralised power of the natives which was to be governed by 8 ministers under the control of the sovereign Chhatrapati. If a part of land was to be given to noble warriors it were done so in special cases and even then the state had the right to its produce. </b>He breathed last as Aurangzeb arrived with his full force to wipe out Marathas once and for all. After 9 years of continuous war, he had Sambhaji captured and killed. Shivaji's younger son Rajaram fled to fort Janjira which stood against the Moghuls for 5 years. Aurangzeb began to lure away Maratha nobles with land offers.
As a final measure to avoid the total extiction of his empire, <b>Rajaram issued a statement calling for his people to fight and destroy Mughal empire in whichever way it seemed suitable to them and keep the land earned for themselves. Here onwards, a Maratha warrior would deem it his right to own land for himself and his poterity if he had served the state.</b> Maratha empire expanded in a decentralised manner without any underlying sense of purpose as was amply demonstrated by<b> rivalries within such as the one between Shinde and Holkar which grew to absurd proportions.</b> The nobles raised by Shivaji opposed the unrestrained authority wielded by the Peshwa because in the original scheme, he was just one of the eight ministers. Bajirao I had raised his own generals. He had a towering stature and could have gone against Rajaram's statement to go back to Shivaji's principles. But, he made no attempt in that direction and apart from Madhavrao, the posterity did not produce a first rate statesman.
Moreover, Shahu was raised by the Mughals and hence had a soft corner for them. <b>With him on the throne, Marathas adopted, to the end, the policy of plundering the Mughal Empire but keeping it alive. In the process, they hurt Rajputs and Jats unnecessarily. The expansion had taken place so thoughtlessly that they didn't have a single sympathetic ally up north who would bail them out in their hour of need.</b> This was made abundantly clear at Panipat when Hindu princes of North India, forgetting the humiliation they had suffered with each Muslim invasion in the past, chose to side with Abdalli or remain neutral in battle explicitly declared by Najeeb Khan to be the holy war to uphold Islam in India. Isolated and half starved, Marathas took on Abdalli on 14th Jan 1761 and on that day flower of its army perished.
<b>They also failed to check the British in time. Since the days of Shivaji, the British were warned to stick to their trade and there had been occasional battles.</b> Lord Cornwallis has noted on more than one occasion the enemocity and jealosy they had for the Company. But, apparently, the full force of the British intentions was not realised even as Bengal fell prey to the British in 1757. The British triumphed over French in the Seven Years War (actually 3 years war in India) but this had been dwarfed by the pre-1761 achievements of Marathas.
<b> The impending invasion which was to prove worse than those of Mahmud Gazani and Timar Lane for India, seems to have been first registered on the Nawab of Oudh as he learnt of the defeat of Angre fleet (@1756) on his death bed.</b> Marathas were never to regain control of sea. But even then they had not grasped the full significance of the defeat. <b>The contemporary British reports remark derisively that "..the Mahrattas behave as if they own the Deccan without once understanding what that means..." </b>They, however, realised the peril in 1765 when they sought to consolidate their position up north. <b>In the words of Madhavrao, the British had put a ring around India and were pressing it from all sides. The British were gaining in strength silently by putting one local power against the other. The shortsightedness of the 18th century rulers didn't help the matters either.</b> Indeed even in the 19th century, the famed Rani of Zansi would not help Peshwa and Tope, who were seeking help from all corners of India to drive the British away. The Queen attacked the British only when her personal interests were put to harm by them. But that is a digression. The death of Mahadaji Shinde in 1792 removed the last great obstacle for the Company rule in North. Nana Phadanavis's heydays were over by 1796 and he was forced to hand over power to Baji Rao II, the son of Raghunath Rao, and disappear from political scene. With Baji Rao II signing treaty with the British in 1802, Peshwai was all but gone.
The Shivshahi and Peshwai had a combined life of 128 years only. Never in its existence did the Maratha Empire have whole of India (as of then and hence as of now also) in its grip. Most of its energy went in consolidating its military position. It made no significant educational, literary or artistic contribution. <b>As has been mentioned earlier, untimely deaths of its most productive men was partly responsible for it apart from the technological superiority of the scavengers and the deep rooted treachery so characteristic of India. It stood out from the rest of the powers on the basis of its principles. It alone could identify with the concept of the whole of India as a single nation and fight for it. The spirit of national pride spurred Marathas to the forefront of the unsuccessful war of 1857 and soon after that they were to produce men who started sociopolitic agitations. Shejvalkar has remarked that it is not a coincidence that in the subcontinent only the land trodden by Maratha horsemen has survived as the modern India.</b>
Towards the end, the Peshwa's reign had been characterised by narrow regional influences. It had become a pro Chitpavan Brahmin system with utter disregard for the welfare of the subjects and had lost its appeal to the common man. <b>It had lost touch with its roots and hence its fall was doomed</b> (Nyayamurti M.G. Ranade). ....
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something to reflect on and see why does the history repeat itself. It comes to group dynamics. People divided in groups are unable to build links with other groups and see the national interests.
Doesnt the ring look similar to the containment strategy of modern times?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->