1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 06

Elaborate Notes

Maratha Administration

• Territorial Division: Swarajya and Samrajya: The Maratha dominion was conceptually divided into two distinct zones.

  • Swarajya: This was the core territory, often referred to as ‘Mulk-i-qadim’ or old dominions. It primarily comprised the Marathi-speaking regions of the Deccan. This area was under the direct administration of the Chhatrapati, and later, the Peshwa. The revenue systems and administrative structures were most developed here. Historian Stewart Gordon in “The Marathas 1600-1818” (1993) notes that this was the heartland from which Maratha power emanated and was governed with a sense of ownership.
  • Samrajya (or Mughlai): These were the territories outside the Swarajya that were brought under Maratha influence, primarily through military conquest and the imposition of tribute. These regions were largely controlled by powerful Maratha Sardars (chiefs) like the Scindias of Gwalior, the Holkars of Indore, the Gaekwads of Baroda, and the Bhonsles of Nagpur. The administration here was less direct and often focused on the extraction of revenue, specifically Chauth and Sardeshmukhi, rather than establishing a deeply rooted civil administration.

• The Rise of the Peshwa: The office of the Peshwa (Prime Minister) gained prominence under Balaji Vishwanath, but its power was consolidated under his successors. Chhatrapati Shahu (reigned 1708-1749), having spent his formative years in Mughal captivity, delegated significant authority to his able Peshwa, Balaji Vishwanath. This trend continued, and by the end of Shahu’s reign, the Peshwa had become the de facto ruler.

  • The Sangola Agreement of 1750, following Shahu’s death, formally recognized the Peshwa’s supreme authority. This treaty effectively transferred all executive power of the state to the Peshwa, making the Chhatrapati a titular head confined to Satara.
  • The Peshwa’s capital was shifted from Satara to Poona (Pune), which became the nerve centre of Maratha politics. The central secretariat in Pune was known as the Hazur Daftar, a meticulously maintained record office that managed revenue accounts, diplomatic correspondence, and administrative orders.

• Administrative Structure under the Peshwas:

  • Central Administration: The Peshwa was assisted by a council of ministers, which was a modified version of Shivaji’s Ashtapradhan. The Peshwa’s secretariat, the Hazur Daftar, was the core of this system.
  • Provincial Administration (Swarajya): The Swarajya was divided into provinces called Sarkars or Subahs. A key, and ultimately detrimental, feature was the practice of auctioning the office of the governor (Sarsubahdar). The highest bidder would secure the right to collect revenue, a practice which often led to extortion and oppression of the peasantry to recoup the investment.
  • Checks and Balances: A system of dual reporting existed to maintain central oversight. The hereditary revenue collectors, the Deshmukhs (head of a pargana) and Deshpandes, had to report not only to the provincial governor but also directly to the Hazur Daftar in Pune. This allowed the Peshwa’s office to cross-verify the accounts submitted by the governors, acting as a check on their power and potential corruption.
  • Village Administration: The village remained the basic unit of administration. The Patil was the village headman, a hereditary office with Vatan (hereditary land grant) rights. The Patil was responsible for a wide range of functions: executive (implementing orders), police (maintaining law and order through the village watchman, Chowkidar), judicial (acting as the primary adjudicator in local disputes), and revenue (collecting and remitting the village’s revenue). This concentration of power made the Patil a powerful local figure. The Kulkarni was the village accountant who maintained land records.

• Revenue System:

  • The primary source was land revenue, typically assessed at one-third to two-fifths of the gross produce.
  • In the Samrajya, two major taxes were levied:
    • Chauth: Literally meaning one-fourth, it was a tribute amounting to 25% of the standard revenue of a region, exacted in return for a promise not to plunder that area.
    • Sardeshmukhi: An additional levy of 10% claimed by the Maratha king as the hereditary Sardeshmukh (chief headman) of the Deccan.
  • Other sources included taxes on trade (Mohoturfa), license fees for various professions, and judicial proceeds in the form of Nazrana (gifts from the victorious party) and Jurmana (fines from the losing party).
  • The Peshwas undertook public works to promote agriculture, such as building dams and canals. They also provided agricultural loans (taccavi) at low interest rates to help peasants recover from famines or wars.

• Judicial and Police System:

  • The judiciary followed a clear hierarchy. At the lowest level was the village Panchayat, whose decisions were generally respected. Above it were the courts of the Mamlatdar, the Sarsubahdar, and finally, the Peshwa’s court, known as the Huzur Hazir Majlis, which was the highest court of appeal.
  • The legal system was not codified in the modern sense but was based on ancient Hindu legal texts like the Dharmashastras and local customs.
  • Historians note the emphasis on the rule of law, with records showing that even powerful individuals and wealthy merchants could be punished.
  • The police system, particularly in urban centres like Pune, was remarkably efficient. There was a well-organized network of informants and watchmen, and the city’s Kotwal (police chief) was responsible for maintaining order.

• Military System:

  • The strength of the Maratha army was its light cavalry. This force was ideal for guerrilla warfare tactics (ganimi kava), which involved swift raids, surprise attacks, and retreating quickly before the enemy could mount a concerted defence. This created shock and disruption among larger, slower-moving armies like the Mughals.
  • Under the later Peshwas and powerful sardars like Mahadji Scindia, there was a move towards modernization. Scindia, for instance, raised a modern European-style infantry and artillery corps trained by French officers like Benoît de Boigne.
  • The Marathas also developed a navy, initiated by Shivaji. Under the Peshwas, it was further modernized with some assistance from the French, driven by both commercial interests and the Anglo-French rivalry.

• Reasons for the Inability to Establish an All-India Empire:

  • Internal Factionalism: The shift of power from the Chhatrapati to the Peshwa created a constitutional weakness. Powerful Maratha sardars, who owed nominal allegiance to the Chhatrapati, felt less bound to the authority of the Peshwa. This led to the Maratha ‘empire’ functioning more as a confederacy of autonomous chiefs than a centralized state.
  • The Third Battle of Panipat (1761): This catastrophic defeat against Ahmad Shah Abdali had devastating consequences. The Marathas lost a generation of their finest military leaders, including Sadashivrao Bhau and Vishwasrao. As historian Jadunath Sarkar argued in “Fall of the Mughal Empire” (1932-50), the battle shattered the myth of Maratha invincibility and critically weakened the central authority of the Peshwa. This allowed regional sardars to assert greater independence and fueled internal power struggles.
  • Succession Disputes: The period after Panipat was marked by intense infighting. The assassination of Peshwa Narayan Rao in 1773, allegedly orchestrated by his uncle Raghunath Rao, plunged the state into civil war. This led to the “Barbhai Conspiracy,” a council of twelve regents led by the astute minister Nana Fadnavis, who ousted Raghunath Rao and installed the infant Madhavrao II as Peshwa.
  • Invitation to British Interference: The deep-seated factionalism provided the English East India Company with opportunities to intervene.
    • The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-1782) was a direct result of Raghunath Rao seeking British help to claim the Peshwaship.
    • The Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-1805) began after Peshwa Baji Rao II, defeated by Yashwantrao Holkar, fled to the British and signed the Treaty of Bassein (1802), a subsidiary alliance that effectively surrendered Maratha sovereignty.
  • Lack of a Cohesive Vision: As argued by historian Satish Chandra in “Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court” (1959), the Marathas failed to evolve a viable imperial alternative to the Mughal system. Their focus in the Samrajya often remained limited to revenue extraction (Chauth and Sardeshmukhi) rather than building a stable, pan-Indian administrative structure that could win the allegiance of diverse populations. The confederate structure, while allowing for rapid expansion, prevented the consolidation of a truly centralized empire.

Sikh State

• Origins and Militarization:

  • The Sikh Panth was founded in the 16th century by Guru Nanak Dev Ji, a contemporary of the Mughal emperor Babur. It began as a peaceful, monotheistic religious movement.
  • Conflict with the Mughal state began during the reign of Jahangir with the execution of the 5th Guru, Arjan Dev, in 1606. This event marked the beginning of the militarization of the Sikh community under the 6th Guru, Hargobind.
  • The desire for political autonomy grew stronger over time. The execution of the 9th Guru, Teg Bahadur, in Delhi in 1675 under Aurangzeb’s orders, was a pivotal moment. The Sikhs sought to establish a sovereign state in the Shivalik foothills around Anandpur.
  • In 1699, the 10th Guru, Gobind Singh, created the Khalsa (the ‘pure’), a disciplined military brotherhood, to defend the Sikh faith and fight for political independence. The initiation ceremony (Amrit Sanchar) and the adoption of the ‘Five Ks’ created a distinct and unified identity.

• Social Composition and Leadership Transition:

  • The Sikh community comprised two dominant social groups. The Khatris, a mercantile caste from which all the Gurus hailed, formed the traditional leadership. The Jats, an agrarian and martial community, formed the backbone of the Khalsa army.
  • The growing influence of the Jats within the Khalsa created a potential for social friction. To prevent a schism and ensure parity, Guru Gobind Singh declared that there would be no 11th human Guru. After him, the spiritual authority would vest in the holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, and temporal authority in the collective community, the Khalsa Panth.

• Banda Bahadur and the First Sikh State:

  • After Guru Gobind Singh’s assassination in 1708, his disciple Banda Singh Bahadur continued the struggle. He rallied the Sikhs and established the first sovereign Sikh state, albeit short-lived, with its capital at Lohgarh, near present-day Patiala. He struck coins and issued orders in the name of the Gurus.
  • His rule was brought down by 1715 due to a combination of factors:
    • Mughal military pressure: The Mughal emperors Bahadur Shah and Farrukhsiyar marshalled their full force against him.
    • Internal divisions: Some Khatri traders, whose commercial interests were harmed by the constant warfare, turned against him. Mughal rulers employed a ‘divide and rule’ policy by offering mansabs (ranks) and lucrative Izaradari (revenue farming) contracts to influential Khatris.
    • Lack of support from other groups: Some powerful Hindu Jat zamindars, like Churaman of Bharatpur, allied with the Mughals against Banda.
  • Banda Bahadur was captured in 1715 and brutally executed in Delhi in 1716.

• The Age of Misls (c. 1716-1799):

  • Despite Banda’s defeat, the Sikh spirit of independence was not crushed. The weakening of the Mughal empire and the frequent invasions from Afghanistan by Ahmad Shah Abdali created a power vacuum in Punjab.
  • In this period, Sikh power became decentralized and was organized into various kinship-based military-political units known as Misls. Each Misl was headed by a chief and controlled a specific territory.
  • By the 1770s, there were around 12 major Misls. This structure was a confederation. Twice a year, the chiefs of the Misls would gather at Amritsar for a collective assembly called the Sarbat Khalsa, where collective decisions (Gurmata) were made on matters of common interest, particularly defence.
  • This confederate system proved effective in resisting external threats, such as the multiple invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali.

• The Rise of Maharaja Ranjit Singh:

  • Out of the Misl confederacy rose Ranjit Singh of the Sukerchakia Misl. A brilliant military strategist and statesman, he systematically subdued the other Misls and unified Punjab under his command.
  • Key milestones in his rise include the capture of Lahore in 1799, which he made his political capital, and being proclaimed ‘Maharaja of Punjab’ in 1801.
  • Through a series of campaigns, he expanded his empire to include the five doabs of Punjab, Multan, Kashmir, and Peshawar, driving out the Afghans.
  • The Treaty of Amritsar (1809) with the British East India Company established the Sutlej River as the boundary between the two powers. This treaty, while limiting his expansion southwards, also provided him with a secure eastern frontier, allowing him to consolidate his rule in the north and west.

• Features of Ranjit Singh’s Rule:

  • Secular and Inclusive State: As historian J.S. Grewal notes in “The Sikhs of the Punjab” (1990), Ranjit Singh’s state was not a theocracy but a Punjabi state. He was a devout Sikh but his administration was secular. High offices were open to men of talent regardless of their religion; his court included Hindus (e.g., Prime Minister Dhian Singh Dogra), Muslims (e.g., Foreign Minister Fakir Azizuddin), and European Christians (e.g., Generals Ventura and Allard).
  • Strong and Centralized Finances: He established a strong financial base. Around 60% of the land was declared Khalsa land (royal land), with revenue directly flowing to the state treasury. This reduced dependence on intermediary landlords.
  • Maintenance of Power Balance: He masterfully balanced the various powerful factions at his court, including the old Misl chiefs, the Khalsa army leadership, the influential Dogra brothers from Jammu, and the Khatri administrators.
  • Respect for Local Autonomy: While his rule was centralized, he did not unduly interfere in the internal affairs of the villages, allowing the traditional Panchayats to function. This ensured stability at the grassroots level.

Prelims Pointers

• Swarajya: The core Maratha homeland under direct rule.
• Samrajya: Territories outside Swarajya, primarily for tribute collection.
• Peshwa: The de facto head of the Maratha state after Chhatrapati Shahu.
• Hazur Daftar: The central secretariat of the Peshwas located in Poona (Pune).
• Sangola Agreement (1750): Formally made the Peshwa the executive head of the Maratha confederacy.
• Sarkar: A province in the Maratha administrative system.
• Vatan: Hereditary land grants for service (e.g., for Patils, Deshmukhs).
• Patil: The village headman with executive, police, judicial, and revenue functions.
• Chauth: A tribute of 1/4th of the revenue demanded by Marathas.
• Sardeshmukhi: An additional levy of 10% claimed by the Maratha king.
• Barbhai Conspiracy: A council of 12 ministers led by Nana Fadnavis that governed in the name of the infant Peshwa Madhavrao II.
• Treaty of Bassein (1802): A subsidiary alliance treaty signed by Peshwa Baji Rao II with the British.
• Khalsa: The military brotherhood of Sikhs, founded by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699.
• Guru Granth Sahib: The holy scripture of the Sikhs, considered the eternal living Guru.
• Banda Singh Bahadur: Led the Sikh rebellion after Guru Gobind Singh and established the first Sikh state.
• Misls: Kinship-based military-political units that governed Punjab in the 18th century.
• Sarbat Khalsa: The biannual collective assembly of Misl chiefs at Amritsar.
• Gurmata: A resolution or decision passed by the Sarbat Khalsa.
• Sukerchakia Misl: The Misl to which Maharaja Ranjit Singh belonged.
• Treaty of Amritsar (1809): Signed between Ranjit Singh and the British, fixing the River Sutlej as the boundary.
• Fakir Azizuddin: Muslim Foreign Minister of Ranjit Singh.
• Dhian Singh Dogra: Hindu Prime Minister of Ranjit Singh.

Mains Insights

Maratha State and Administration

• Nature of the Maratha State: Confederacy vs. Empire:

  1. Confederate Character: The Maratha state in the 18th century is best described as a confederacy. The Peshwa’s authority, especially after the Battle of Panipat (1761), was often challenged by powerful, quasi-independent Maratha sardars (Scindia, Holkar, etc.). They managed their territories autonomously, maintained their own armies, and engaged in their own diplomatic manoeuvres, weakening the central authority.
  2. Failure to Consolidate: Unlike the Mughals, the Marathas failed to create a pan-Indian administrative and political structure. Their rule in North India was often seen as predatory, focused on extracting Chauth and Sardeshmukhi rather than providing stable governance. This alienated local populations and rulers (like Rajputs and Jats), who might have otherwise been allies.
  3. Historiographical Debate:
     • Jadunath Sarkar viewed the Maratha movement as a “Hindu reaction” against Mughal oppression, but criticized its later leaders for losing this vision and resorting to plunder.
     • Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib argue against the “Hindu reaction” theory, portraying the Maratha uprising as a regional manifestation of the general crisis of the Mughal Empire, driven by the ambitions of local landed elites (zamindars) for a greater share of the surplus.

• Causes of Maratha Decline:

  1. Inherent Structural Weakness: The confederate structure was a fundamental flaw. Internal jealousies and constant infighting prevented a united front against the British.
  2. Military and Diplomatic Inferiority: While their guerrilla tactics were effective initially, they proved inadequate against the disciplined infantry, superior artillery, and organized logistics of the British. Maratha diplomacy was often shortsighted, failing to unite against a common foreign enemy.
  3. Economic Weakness: The Marathas failed to develop a robust system for promoting trade, commerce, and modern finance. Their economy remained predominantly agrarian and dependent on revenue extraction, which was insufficient to sustain a modern military-industrial complex compared to the British East India Company.

Sikh State and Ranjit Singh’s Rule

• Transition from Panth to State:

  1. Cause and Effect: The transition of the Sikh community from a peaceful religious panth to a political and military force was a direct consequence of Mughal persecution. The executions of Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Teg Bahadur were turning points that necessitated the development of a self-defence mechanism, which culminated in the creation of the Khalsa.
  2. Role of External Threats: The power vacuum created by the decline of the Mughal Empire and the repeated invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali provided the political space for the Sikh Misls to consolidate their power and eventually form a sovereign state.

• Nature of Ranjit Singh’s State: A Punjabi State, not a Sikh Theocracy:

  1. Secularism in Practice: Ranjit Singh’s statecraft was pragmatic and inclusive. His administration and army were a mosaic of communities—Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims. This policy was crucial for governing a diverse region like Punjab and stands in contrast to the more exclusionary policies of many contemporaries.
  2. Balancing Act: His success lay in his ability to create a new, non-tribal elite loyal to him while simultaneously balancing the interests of the established power groups (Khalsa chiefs, Dogras, etc.).
  3. Legacy and Weakness: The major weakness of his system was its over-reliance on his personal charisma and political genius. He failed to create institutions that could outlive him. After his death in 1839, the carefully constructed balance of power collapsed, leading to court intrigues, army indiscipline, and ultimately, defeat in the Anglo-Sikh Wars.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

1. With reference to the history of India, consider the following pairs: (UPSC Prelims 2020)

   1. Aurang - In-charge of treasury of the State
   2. Banian - Indian agent of the East India Company
   3. Mirasidar - Designated revenue payer to the State Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

   Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only

   • Explanation: ‘Aurang’ is a Persian term for a warehouse or a place where goods are collected before export. ‘Banian’ was the term for an Indian agent or broker employed by the EIC. ‘Mirasidar’ in South India referred to a person with hereditary rights to land, making them a designated revenue payer. While not directly about Marathas, ‘Mirasidar’ relates to land tenure systems prevalent in regions including those under Maratha influence.

2. After the Santhal Uprising subsided, what was/were the measure/measures taken by the colonial government? (UPSC Prelims 2018)

   1. The territories called ‘Santhal Parganas’ were created.
   2. It became illegal for a Santhal to transfer land to a non-Santhal. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

   Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2

   • Explanation: While this question is not directly on the topic, it illustrates the type of administrative and region-specific questions asked, similar to how one might be asked about Maratha or Sikh administrative terms or territories.

3. Consider the following statements: (UPSC Prelims 2021)

   1. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 recommended granting voting rights to all women above the age of 21.
   2. The Government of India Act of 1935 gave women reserved seats in legislature. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

   Answer: (b) 2 only

   • Explanation: Again, this question is not from the 18th century but shows the pattern of asking about specific provisions of treaties or acts. A similar question could be framed on the provisions of the Treaty of Amritsar (1809) or the Treaty of Bassein (1802).

4. Who among the following rulers established embassies in foreign countries on modern lines? (UPSC Prelims 2021) (a) Haider Ali (b) Mir Qasim (c) Shah Alam II (d) Tipu Sultan

   Answer: (d) Tipu Sultan

   • Explanation: This question is about regional kingdoms contemporary to the later Marathas and Sikhs. It tests knowledge about modernization efforts by Indian rulers. Ranjit Singh also employed Europeans in his army, which is a related theme of modernization.

5. Which one of the following statements does not apply to the system of Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wellesley? (UPSC Prelims 2018) (a) To maintain a large standing army at others’ expense (b) To keep India safe from Napoleonic danger (c) To secure a fixed income for the Company (d) To establish British paramountcy over the Indian States

   Answer: (c) To secure a fixed income for the Company

   • Explanation: The Subsidiary Alliance was a key tool used against the Marathas (e.g., Treaty of Bassein with Peshwa Baji Rao II). The main aims were strategic and political (maintaining an army, countering rivals like France, establishing paramountcy), not securing a direct fixed income in the manner of revenue collection.

Mains

1. Clarify how mid-eighteenth century India was beset with the spectre of a fragmented polity. (UPSC Mains 2017 - Slightly older but highly relevant)

   Answer: The mid-eighteenth century in India was characterized by a profound political fragmentation following the terminal decline of the Mughal Empire. This fragmentation can be clarified through the following points:

   • Decline of Central Authority: The authority of the Mughal emperor had become nominal after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. Later Mughals were puppets in the hands of powerful nobles, and the empire contracted to a small area around Delhi.
   • Rise of Successor States: In the erstwhile Mughal provinces, powerful governors established virtually independent dynasties. These included the Nizam-ul-Mulk in the Deccan (Hyderabad), Saadat Khan and Safdar Jang in Awadh, and Alivardi Khan in Bengal. While they often maintained a symbolic allegiance to the Mughal emperor, they operated as autonomous rulers.
   • Emergence of New ‘Warrior’ States: States founded by rebellions against Mughal rule grew powerful. The Maratha Confederacy was the most formidable, controlling vast swathes of Central and Western India and raiding deep into the north and east. The Sikh Misls consolidated their hold over Punjab after repelling Afghan invasions. Jat kingdoms like Bharatpur emerged in the vicinity of Delhi and Agra.
   • Foreign Invasions: The weakened state of the polity invited devastating foreign invasions. Nadir Shah’s sack of Delhi in 1739 exposed the hollowness of Mughal power. This was followed by the repeated invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali, culminating in the Third Battle of Panipat (1761), which was a contest between two non-Mughal powers (Marathas and Afghans) on Mughal territory.
   • Ascendancy of European Companies: The political vacuum and constant warfare among Indian powers allowed European trading companies, particularly the British East India Company, to transform their commercial role into a political and military one. They exploited internal rivalries, as seen in the Carnatic Wars and their later interventions in Bengal and against the Marathas.

   In essence, mid-18th century India was a complex chessboard of competing regional powers—successor states, warrior states, and foreign invaders—all vying for supremacy in the absence of a unifying central authority.

2. Why did the armies of the Indian rulers lose to the British in the 18th century? Critically examine the factors responsible.

   Answer: The defeat of the armies of Indian rulers by the British in the 18th century was not due to a single factor but a combination of military, strategic, economic, and political weaknesses on the Indian side and corresponding strengths on the British side.

   • Military Superiority of the British:

     • Discipline and Training: The British East India Company’s army, composed of both European soldiers and Indian sepoys, was characterized by rigorous discipline, regular drills, and standardized training. Indian armies were often feudal levies, loyal to individual chiefs rather than a central command, leading to a lack of cohesion.
     • Superior Artillery: British artillery was lighter, more mobile, and had a faster rate of fire, giving them a decisive advantage in pitched battles.
     • Infantry Tactics: The British effectively used infantry squares and volley firing, which proved devastating against the cavalry-centric charges of many Indian armies.

   • Economic and Logistical Strength:

     • Financial Resources: The EIC, backed by the burgeoning industrial economy of Britain and its profits from Bengal’s revenues after 1757, had a vast and regular supply of funds. This allowed them to pay their troops regularly, maintain a large standing army, and invest in modern weaponry.
     • Logistics: The British had a superior system for supplying their armies in the field, a crucial factor that Indian rulers often neglected.

   • Strategic and Political Factors:

     • Lack of Unity: The most significant weakness was the disunity among Indian rulers. They frequently sought British help against their rivals, as seen in the Anglo-Maratha and Anglo-Mysore wars. They failed to form a united front against a common foreign enemy.
     • Effective Leadership and Espionage: The British produced a series of able and often ruthless leaders like Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, and Lord Wellesley. They also possessed a superior intelligence network, allowing them to exploit divisions within Indian courts.
     • Weak Command Structure: In many Indian armies, the commander was not necessarily the most able general but the one with the highest social standing. The British system was more meritocratic in promoting military leadership.

   In conclusion, while Indian armies were not lacking in personal courage or numbers, they were defeated by a combination of British military discipline, technological superiority, immense financial backing, and astute political maneuvering that expertly exploited the fragmented and mutually distrustful nature of the 18th-century Indian polity.

3. The Third Battle of Panipat was a watershed moment in the history of 18th-century India. Discuss.

   Answer: The Third Battle of Panipat, fought on January 14, 1761, between the Maratha Confederacy and the invading Afghan army of Ahmad Shah Abdali, was a pivotal event that had far-reaching consequences for the Indian subcontinent. It can be considered a watershed moment for the following reasons:

   • Decimation of Maratha Power: The battle resulted in a catastrophic defeat for the Marathas. They lost a generation of their most capable military and political leaders, including Sadashivrao Bhau, Vishwasrao (the Peshwa’s son), and Jankoji Scindia. This created a leadership vacuum and severely damaged their military strength and prestige.
   • Halt of Maratha Imperial Ambition: The defeat shattered the Maratha ambition of establishing a pan-Indian empire by replacing the Mughals. While they recovered some of their influence in the North under leaders like Mahadji Scindia, they never regained the momentum they had before 1761. The dream of a ‘Hindu-pad-padshahi’ was effectively ended.
   • Weakening of Central Maratha Authority: The disaster at Panipat critically weakened the authority of the Peshwa. This accelerated the process of the Maratha state becoming a loose confederacy, with powerful regional chiefs like the Scindias, Holkars, Gaekwads, and Bhonsles acting with greater autonomy and often pursuing their own interests.
   • Creation of a Power Vacuum: The battle created a power vacuum in North India. The Marathas, the only indigenous power capable of filling the void left by the Mughals, were forced to retreat from the North for a decade. The victor, Ahmad Shah Abdali, also could not consolidate his rule and soon returned to Afghanistan.
   • Paving the Way for the British: This power vacuum was ultimately filled by the British East India Company. With the Marathas weakened and North India fragmented, the British faced no single, formidable rival. This allowed them to consolidate their hold over Bengal (won in 1757) and gradually expand their influence across India, culminating in their victory in the Anglo-Maratha wars a few decades later.

   Therefore, the Third Battle of Panipat was not merely a military defeat; it was a strategic turning point that crippled the foremost Indian power, deepened political fragmentation, and inadvertently cleared the path for the rise of British colonial rule.

4. Assess the nature of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s state. Was it a ‘Sikh state’ or a ‘Punjabi state’?

   Answer: The state established by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in Punjab (1799-1839) is a subject of historical debate regarding its nature. While founded by a Sikh ruler and rooted in the rise of Sikh power, its character was more akin to a ‘Punjabi state’ than a ‘Sikh theocracy’.

   Arguments for it being a ‘Punjabi State’:

   • Secular and Inclusive Administration: The most compelling evidence is the secular nature of his government. Ranjit Singh was a devout Sikh, yet he did not impose Sikhism as the state religion. Key positions were awarded based on merit, not faith.
     • His Prime Minister was Dhian Singh Dogra, a Hindu.
     • His Foreign Minister was Fakir Azizuddin, a Muslim.
     • His Finance Minister was Diwan Bhawani Das, a Hindu Khatri.
     • His army was commanded by a diverse group of generals, including Europeans like Ventura and Allard.
   • Respect for all Faiths: He patronized and gave grants to Hindu temples and Muslim mosques, alongside Sikh gurdwaras. He famously offered to donate the gold-plating for the Kashi Vishwanath Temple’s spire. This policy of religious tolerance was crucial for maintaining stability in the multi-religious society of Punjab.
   • Continuity in Administrative Practices: His land revenue and administrative systems were not based on Sikh religious texts but were a continuation and refinement of the pre-existing Mughal system, which was familiar to the populace.

   Arguments for a ‘Sikh’ Character:

   • Symbolism and Legitimacy: Ranjit Singh derived his legitimacy from his Sikh identity. He ruled in the name of the ‘Sarkar-i-Khalsa’ (Government of the Khalsa) and struck coins called ‘Nanakshahi’ in the name of the Sikh Gurus, not himself.
   • Primacy of the Khalsa Army: The backbone of his state was the Khalsa army, which was predominantly Sikh. The identity and morale of the army were deeply intertwined with Sikh martial traditions.
   • Personal Faith: His personal devotion to Sikhism was unquestionable, and he was revered as the leader of the Sikh community.

   Conclusion: While the state’s foundation was built on the rise of Sikh military power and its symbolism was distinctly Sikh, its functional nature was that of a Punjabi state. Ranjit Singh’s genius lay in his pragmatic ability to create a powerful, secular kingdom based on Punjabi identity, where people of all faiths could coexist and contribute. He forged a state loyal to his person and the idea of Punjab, rather than a state exclusively for the Sikhs.

5. What were the causes for the First Anglo-Maratha War? How did it conclude and what was its significance?

   Answer: The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-1782) was a major conflict that highlighted the growing ambition of the British East India Company and the internal weaknesses of the Maratha Confederacy.

   Causes of the War:

   1. Maratha Succession Struggle: The primary cause was the internal power struggle in Pune. After the assassination of Peshwa Narayan Rao in 1773, his uncle Raghunath Rao (Raghoba) laid claim to the Peshwaship. However, a powerful council of ministers, led by Nana Fadnavis, known as the ‘Barbhai Council’, opposed him and installed Narayan Rao’s posthumous infant son, Sawai Madhavrao, as the new Peshwa.
   2. Raghunath Rao’s Appeal to the British: Thwarted in his ambition, Raghunath Rao fled to the British in Bombay and signed the Treaty of Surat (1775). In this treaty, he promised to cede the territories of Salsette and Bassein to the British in exchange for military assistance to install him as the Peshwa.
   3. British Ambition: The Bombay presidency of the EIC was eager to expand its influence and acquire the commercially and strategically important territories of Salsette and Bassein. They saw the Maratha infighting as a golden opportunity to intervene and achieve their objectives.

   Conclusion of the War: The war was a long and arduous affair. Initially, the British suffered a humiliating defeat at Wadgaon (1779). However, under the leadership of Governor-General Warren Hastings, they regrouped and achieved successes elsewhere. The war ended in a stalemate with neither side achieving a decisive victory. The conflict was formally concluded by the Treaty of Salbai (1782). Its key terms were:

   • The British recognized Sawai Madhavrao as the Peshwa and renounced the cause of Raghunath Rao, who was pensioned off.
   • The British retained control of the island of Salsette.
   • The Marathas guaranteed that they would not grant any territorial concessions to the French.
   • There was a mutual restoration of all other conquered territories.

   Significance of the War:

   • Status Quo and Peace: The treaty established peace between the two powers for the next twenty years, a period of relative stability.
   • British Strategic Gains: While they did not succeed in placing their puppet on the throne, the British emerged with significant gains. They secured Salsette and, more importantly, neutralized French influence in the Maratha court.
   • Insight into Maratha Weakness: The war exposed the deep internal divisions within the Maratha Confederacy. The British gained valuable experience fighting the Marathas and a deep understanding of their political weaknesses, which they would exploit decisively in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars.
   • Rise of Mahadji Scindia: The treaty elevated the status of Mahadji Scindia, who acted as the guarantor of the treaty, making him a key power broker in North Indian politics.