Forgotten Indian history: The brutal Maratha invasions of Bengal

[Shankranthi]

Agreed..Their focus was simply on collecting Chauth instead of building the framework for an empire.
I don't recall the Marathas patronizing arts, sciences, architecture at all...Mughals took a whole different route to the same and had their tentacles entrenched deep within the Indian society and economy.

The federal structure is probably a HUGE reason for their downfall..the bickering between tribal chiefs even lead to the fall of Panipat.

That is not completely true. The maratha empire was always in fire fighting mode. It had an existential threat that never went away. They were surrounded by muslim kingdoms who wanted to destroy them, and it was also a time when the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese were also making strong military bases in India.

So most of the infrastructure they built were stuff like Forts (many of them they built from scratch) since that was the need of the hour, and for social integration Temples. In fact most of the beautiful steps you see on the banks of the Ganga in Varanasi were built by the Marathas.

Mughals were able to have a more stable empire due to the strategy of Akbar who had 300 Wives most of who were princesses of various Hindu kingdoms held as hostage (not to mention his 1000's of concubines). This continued for most mughal kings. The Maratha king / peshwa never had more than 1 or 2 wives for most times.

The Value systems of the Hindu kings were of a much higher standards but it was a pity that the value systems were not backed by military and political strength.

Also the Federal structure had its own strength, but what it could not provide was leadership that could bind them irrevocably together. Their failure was to build a strong central command structure and framework.

Another area of serious weakness was their version of "secularism". The Maratha army had all kinds of men. Arabs, Sikhs, Rajputs, Sindhis, Rohillas and Pathans. However there was disparity in pay. An Arab soldier was paid Rs 18 per month, a Christain one Rs 15 and a Maratha Rs 7. You can very well guess the end result.

On a separate note:
Isn't it Ironic that during partition, the Muslim league wanted the exact decentralized federal structure that the Marathas had set up. Pakistan did end up becoming a federal union and we can see that they are facing the same governing issues and hurdles that the Marathas faced. Glad India learnt from its history.

India too has a Federal structure. In fact Federalism is the core of our Constitution.

But what we also have is a very clear definition of roles and responsibilities between the Centre and states. We also have institutions that ensures this command and control. However it is fair to say we did learn from history.

 

[Peshwa]

That is not completely true. The maratha empire was always in fire fighting mode. It had an existential threat that never went away. They were surrounded by muslim kingdoms who wanted to destroy them, and it was also a time when the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese were also making strong military bases in India.

The Marathas didn't spare the Hindu kingdoms either...and many a times, I would say that they made more enemies as a result of their actions than friends.
One of the glaring reasons for the defeat at Panipat was the lack of allies and supply chain fighting thousands of miles away from home.

Mughals were able to have a more stable empire due to the strategy of Akbar who had 300 Wives most of who were princesses of various Hindu kingdoms held as hostage (not to mention his 1000's of concubines). This continued for most mughal kings. The Maratha king / peshwa never had more than 1 or 2 wives for most times.

Agreed and I had included this as a short coming..

The Value systems of the Hindu kings were of a much higher standards but it was a pity that the value systems were not backed by military and political strength.

I have mixed feelings about this comment. Ill let you explain this further before I respond.

Also the Federal structure had its own strength, but what it could not provide was leadership that could bind them irrevocably together. Their failure was to build a strong central command structure and framework.

Federal autonomy has its benefits and downsides...
In a country like Pak, the ethno-linguistic divide plays a huge role in the breakdown of the system. everyone thinks that the other region is benefitiing more and everyone wants their own "rights"

In the case of the marathas, it was too many power centres, who controlled their own army and had to unite (if needed) to fend off invaders. This meant that many a times local rulers like the Shindes (Scindia) would just back out of their agreements and create new alliances..Made a unified defence a nightmare.

Another area of serious weakness was their version of "secularism". The Maratha army had all kinds of men. Arabs, Sikhs, Rajputs, Sindhis, Rohillas and Pathans. However there was disparity in pay. An Arab soldier was paid Rs 18 per month, a Christain one Rs 15 and a Maratha Rs 6. You can very well guess the end result.

I haven't read about this, esp the pay grade part. So any further info would be nice. Where did you get this from?

India too has a Federal structure. In fact Federalism is the core of our Constitution.

To a certain extent. We have a very strong central government.

But what we also have is a very clear definition of roles and responsibilities between the Centre and states. We also have institutions that ensures this command and control. However it is fair to say we did learn from history.

Agreed.

 

[Shankranthi]

The Marathas didn't spare the Hindu kingdoms either...and many a times, I would say that they made more enemies as a result of their actions than friends.
One of the glaring reasons for the defeat at Panipat was the lack of allies and supply chain fighting thousands of miles away from home.

That too was from a misplaced sense of honouring one's word.

Maharaj Sahu promised Aurangzeb not to attack delhi as part of the negotiations while his mother was held hostage by the Mughals.

So when Baji rao was about to capture delhi, Maharaj Sahu asked him to to honour the agreement made to the now dead Aurangzeb and pull back forces. A move that could have made Shau the Emperor of all India and Bajirao the peshwa of all India. That is why the Mughal king could still rule delhi but as a representative of the Peshwa.

This meant that the maratha empire could take chauth only from Non Mughal sources. If the Peshwa had captured Delhi, the Jats and the Rajputs would have had no problem accepting them. But since they did not rule Delhi directly, they resented the Peshwa and felt more close to the Mughal kings due to their older family relationships (remember the few hundred wives of mughal kings).

This rejection of Real Polik in exchange for "principles" is what made the Maratha's loose support of willing allies.

Federal autonomy has its benefits and downsides...
In a country like Pak, the ethno-linguistic divide plays a huge role in the breakdown of the system. everyone thinks that the other region is benefitiing more and everyone wants their own "rights"

In the case of the marathas, it was too many power centres, who controlled their own army and had to unite (if needed) to fend off invaders. This meant that many a times local rulers like the Shindes (Scindia) would just back out of their agreements and create new alliances..Made a unified defence a nightmare.

That was because the maratha's had an internal power struggle between Maharaj Sahu and Tarabai and her son Shivaji II. This is what fractured the unity. After the defeat of Tarabai, everybody accepted Sahu's overlorship, but relationships were tense. But there is a failure here to unite the forces by hook or by crook.

I haven't read about this, esp the pay grade part. So any further info would be nice. Where did you get this from?

https://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/list07.php

 

[Bombermanx1]

Marathas were no hindu warriors fighting against muslims.. its just a hindutva interpretations..

And we should make you a Professor as to who are Hindu warriors fighting against Muslims or not.
JAA NA CHAL BE! Phoot Iddhar se.

The Ditchers of Bengal was already posted by @Joe Shearer here,he was glad that Mahrattas didnt win against british, While the british Colonel himself thought, what if these people threw stones at us victorious troops coming in streets instead of flowers.We would be decimated.
That is what happens to someone under Slavery for a long,they lose their self esteem and think their oppressors are their saviors. This is called STOCKHOLM SYNDROME!
Get out of your Inferiority complex, i can understand,some Mixed Mullatos,mulatos and Anglo-Indians have love for their genealogy from UK not here,therefore they will always claim Hindus as something bad or to be shunned. What is this agenda?Bharat has always been Sanatana Dharmic,Dharma(Hindu) as you named us as per Greek terms.

Why is this Hindutva, is bad for Bharat? while your Abrahamic Religions have 150 CHRISTIAN NATIONS AND 50 ISLAMIC NATIONS! WHY SHOULDNT WE HINDUS HAVE ONE HINDU NATION? What is your Butthurt to MAKE US SECULAR? WHEN YOU ARE NOT!?

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

One Of The More Sensible Comments From Indians On This Forum




We Ruled India for A Thousand Years,It Took Hardly 30 Years For A Hindu King(Pushyamitra Sunga) To Wipe Out Buddhism,If We Really Wanted To Do That We Would Have Done it And Hinduism Would No Longer Exist Let Alone Have The 1 Billion Strong Following It Has Today.

Yes You Are Too Egoistic To Admit it But It Was Not Some Illusionary 'Hindu National Resistance' But Muslims Policy of Compassion and Inclusion

Not only you. Many Pakistanis here boasting "We" ruled for 800-1000 years. The question is, who is "we"? "You"?

They were Turkic Arabic Persians and later Afghans chiefs who rules "us". Not you. Most of the forced conversion started from 14th century and continued till 18th century until the Marathas put an pull stop to all of that nonsense.

None of the people from present day Pakistan managed to rule over significant part of territory, even before Islam came to that region. These "foreign" rulers did not even consider "native Muslims" to be worth considering for important posts. One or two native people used for "politics" doesnt count.

You and your people were most likely part of people resigned to the fact that there is going to be no alternative or an girl forcefully married to an foreign soldier for conversion. Voluntary conversion did take place, mostly after 17th century.

So All the best for an alternative history.

 

[Bombermanx1]

Not only you. Many Pakistanis here boasting "We" ruled for 800-1000 years. The question is, who is "we"? "You"?

They were Turkic Arabic Persians and later Afghans chiefs who rules "us". Not you. Most of the forced conversion started from 14th century and continued till 18th century until the Marathas put an pull stop to all of that nonsense.

None of the people from present day Pakistan managed to rule over significant part of territory, even before Islam came to that region. These "foreign" rulers did not even consider "native Muslims" to be worth considering for important posts. One or two native people used for "politics" doesnt count.

You and your people were most likely part of people resigned to the fact that there is going to be no alternative or an girl forcefully married to an foreign soldier for conversion. Voluntary conversion did take place, mostly after 17th century.

So All the best for an alternative history.

Yep, that is why i say when these Pakistanis claim we ruled you,I laugh at them,You(Pakistanis now) were ruled.

 

[Samlee]

Not only you. Many Pakistanis here boasting "We" ruled for 800-1000 years. The question is, who is "we"? "You"?

They were Turkic Arabic Persians and later Afghans chiefs who rules "us". Not you. Most of the forced conversion started from 14th century and continued till 18th century until the Marathas put an pull stop to all of that nonsense.

None of the people from present day Pakistan managed to rule over significant part of territory, even before Islam came to that region. These "foreign" rulers did not even consider "native Muslims" to be worth considering for important posts. One or two native people used for "politics" doesnt count.

You and your people were most likely part of people resigned to the fact that there is going to be no alternative or an girl forcefully married to an foreign soldier for conversion. Voluntary conversion did take place, mostly after 17th century.

So All the best for an alternative history.

I Am Sorry Could You Please Repeat That Because All I Could Hear Was You Choking On Your Own Vomit

Yep, that is why i say when these Pakistanis claim we ruled you,I laugh at them,You(Pakistanis now) were ruled.

Yes Keep Blabbering That If It Gives You A Good Nights Sleep.

 

[vayuputhra]

And spared those Muslims who allied with them. Basically, religion didn't matter - it was all about political/military goals. ; )

that's true, they did not harm common Muslims, they hated aristocratic muslim rulers and their bad rule, the best artillery commander of Marathas was
A former bahmani artillary Commander who was a Muslim and he did not like northern moghuls, he was instrumental in destroying a lot of moghul artillary, Marathas were ruthless with their enemies who ever they were.

And spared those Muslims who allied with them. Basically, religion didn't matter - it was all about political/military goals. ; )

that's true, they did not harm common Muslims, they hated aristocratic muslim rulers and their bad rule, the best artillery commander of Marathas was
A former bahmani artillary Commander who was a Muslim and he did not like northern moghuls, he was instrumental in destroying a lot of moghul artillary, Marathas were ruthless with their enemies who ever they were.

 

[utraash]

Some sickular folks are desperate to draw the parallel between atrocity perpetrated by Marathas & Muslim Invaders .....

@Levina

 

[Levina]

Some sickular folks are desperate to draw the parallel between atrocity perpetrated by Marathas & Muslim Invaders .....

@Levina

The greatness of Indian civilisation lies in the fact that whoever stepped on the subcontinent wanted to be a part of it. I associate the word "sour grapes" with the few who came to India only to plunder, and could not capture India.
Muslim invaders were definitely not from the subcontinent and ergo their invasions were filled carnage.
But then to some, understanding this simple fact is as good as rocket science.

 

[ashdoc]

recently i was reading the book 'panipat 1761' on the third battle of panipat between afghans and marathas by t s shejwalkar . in this shejwalkar recounts an incident that occurred in the 1950s in nagpur . now nagpur was the capital of the bhosales who invaded bengal in the 18th century . in the 1950s there was an all india teachers conference in nagpur to which teachers from west bengal had come too . after the conference , some of these teachers started searching for any descendant of the bhosales still remaining in nagpur two centuries after the maratha invasions . after prolonged search , they were directed to an aged descendant of the bhosales living on the outskirts of nagpur . they reached his house and surrounded him and started excitedly talking to him . there were many of them and the old bhosale descendant at first could not make out what they wanted to say in all the din since he was hard of hearing . the old man was totally flabbergasted and asked them as to what was the problem and why had they come all the way from bengal to harangue him . they then calmed down and said that they were history teachers from west bengal . they then asked the aged descendant of the bhosales as to why the bhosale maratha army had stopped in west bengal and not attacked east bengal in the 18th century ?? when asked by the old man as to why they were asking this question , they said '' the whole of bengal would have been with india had the maratha army attacked even the east !! '' the old bhosale descendant was not an history expert and said that he had no answer to this question . so off the teachers went back without getting an answer .

it must be remembered in the context of this that only that part of bengal that was invaded by the marathas remains part of india . rest became east pakistan / bangladesh . the marathas loosened the grip of the nawab's islamic rule in the western part of bengal and conversions to islam became less frequent in west bengal . west bengal remained hindu majority and went to india....

---ashdoc

 

[baajey]

that is interesting for me, though i am not a fan of military history.

kahaan they bhai itney din ?