SHIVAJI AND PESHWAS

I. The Political, Social, and Ideological Background to the Rise of the Marathas under Shivaji

The emergence of the Marathas as a significant political force in 17th-century India was not a
spontaneous phenomenon but the outcome of a complex interplay of political disintegration, social
reorganization, religious consciousness, and regional aspiration. At the heart of this movement stood
Shivaji Bhonsle, whose personal leadership transformed a fragmented Deccan into a consolidated
Maratha state. However, understanding this transformation requires examining the multilayered
context in which the Maratha power emerged.

1. Political Background: A Landscape of Opportunity and Decline

The political environment of the Deccan in the early 17th century was marked by the gradual
fragmentation of the Deccan Sultanates—Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, and Golconda. While Mughal
pressure from the north grew, internal power struggles among the Sultanates created vacuums of
authority. Shahji Bhonsle, father of Shivaji, capitalized on this instability. Initially serving under
Ahmadnagar, Shahji shifted loyalties to the Mughals and eventually to Bijapur, securing mōkāsā
grants for Pune and Supa that would later form the foundation of Shivaji’s kingdom.

Shivaji’s grandfather, Maloji Bhonsle, had risen from obscurity under the Jadhavs and Malik Ambar
of Ahmadnagar. His son Shahji became a power broker in the fading Nizam Shahi dynasty. After the
1636 Mughal-Bijapur treaty, Shahji was transferred far from Mughal borders, giving young Shivaji the
opportunity to operate in the Pune region relatively independently.

Historians agree that the rise of the Marathas was not sudden, but a product of sustained
developments. The political disarray among established powers, combined with Maratha service in
Sultanate militaries, created both the means and ambitions for local actors like the Bhonsles to rise.

2. Social Background: Caste Mobility, Peasant Aspirations, and Elite Consolidation

The Maratha society from which Shivaji emerged was deeply fragmented and decentralized, yet it
was also fluid, allowing certain communities upward mobility. Satish Chandra describes the
Marathas as a landed peasant-warrior caste, aspiring for higher social recognition. While Brahmins
traditionally held land and status, communities like the Kumbis and Kolis, often marginalized, formed
the backbone of Shivaji’s army and administration.

Shivaji’s approach toward deshmukhs and zamindars was strategic. While he destroyed forts and
asserted authority over rebellious landed intermediaries, he also co-opted powerful Maratha
families through marriage alliances, reflecting a dual policy of coercion and accommodation.
Sardesai observed that Shivaji fostered alliances among prominent families, reflecting his desire to
integrate rather than alienate elite support.

Shivaji's cadre was not built merely through aristocratic recruitment; it also included newly mobile
groups who saw service under Shivaji as a path to wealth and prestige. The agrarian crisis of 1630,
marked by severe famine, further pushed many peasants toward military service. Irfan Habib and
Athar Ali view this migration as indicative of an agrarian rebellion, where Shivaji’s movement gained
support from marginalized peasants looking for relief and opportunity.
3. Ideological and Cultural Context: Bhakti, Vernacular Unity, and Religious Flexibility

The Bhakti movement was central to the cultural and ideological environment in which Shivaji
operated. Though not directly political, it promoted social egalitarianism, challenged caste
boundaries, and emphasized personal devotion over ritualism. Saints like Namdev, Tukaram, and
Dnyaneshwar wrote in Marathi, helping forge a regional cultural identity.

The Cambridge History of India emphasizes that Bhakti saints—both Hindu and Muslim—preached
shared spiritual values, often in defiance of Brahminical orthodoxy. Poet-saints like Shah Muntoji
Bahmani and Husain Ambarkhan, both Muslim, were part of this devotional environment, which
encouraged syncretism and moral introspection.

Bhakti's critique of caste and religious dogma paralleled Shivaji's attempts to curtail Brahmin
authority, especially during his coronation when he asserted Kshatriya status. The emphasis on
vernacular unity helped in crafting a Marathi regional identity, which provided the emotional and
cultural glue for Shivaji’s political ambitions.

4. Shivaji's Coronation and the Question of Legitimacy

In 1674, Shivaji’s coronation at Raigad marked a crucial assertion of sovereignty. By adopting the
title ‘haindava dharmoddaraka’ (protector of Hindu dharma), he positioned himself as the legitimate
ruler not merely by conquest but by ritual sanction. Sabhasad, a contemporary writer, described
Shivaji as an incarnation of Mahadev, reflecting the blend of Bhakti and royal ideology.

However, this coronation also had realpolitik dimensions. It solved Shivaji’s internal legitimacy
problems—especially controlling Brahmins and powerful Deshmukhs—by elevating his ritual status.
The act was less about religious revivalism and more about establishing authority in a rigidly
hierarchical society.

Historians such as Satish Chandra and Stewart Gordon argue against nationalist interpretations of
this event. They maintain that Shivaji’s religious imagery served political purposes, and that Shivaji
never espoused sectarian policies. He employed Muslims in his army and administration, protected
Sufi shrines, and maintained diplomatic relations with Islamic powers. Thus, his ideology was
inclusive, pragmatic, and contextually adaptive.

5. Historiographical Debates on Shivaji and Maratha Origins

Interpretations of Shivaji's rise differ significantly across historical schools:

 Colonial historians like Grant Duff viewed the Marathas as opportunistic plunderers,
dismissing their rise as accidental and driven by loot. He attributed their success to the
decline of the Deccan Sultanates and referred to them as “freebooters,” minimizing their
political sophistication.

 Nationalist historians such as R.C. Majumdar and M.G. Ranade saw Shivaji’s emergence as a
reaction to Aurangzeb’s religious bigotry. They framed the Maratha movement as proto-
nationalist and anti-foreign, though this view is problematic, since the Mughals were no
more “foreign” than the Deccan Sultanates that the Marathas earlier served.
  Satish Chandra critiqued the nationalist model, arguing that early Mughal-Maratha tensions
began during the reigns of Shah Jahan and Jahangir—periods of religious tolerance. He
emphasized socio-political factors, such as caste assertion, agrarian distress, and elite
realignment, as more significant than religious conflict.

 Marxist historians like Irfan Habib interpreted the rise as a zamindari-cum-peasant

movement, arising from agrarian contradictions. For Habib, Shivaji’s support came from
sections of society disillusioned by Sultanate exploitation and the Mughal-imposed jagirdari
system.

 Recent subaltern and Dalit scholars, especially post-independence, reframe Shivaji as a

social reformer who resisted not just Mughal rule but also Brahminical hegemony. His
efforts to limit Brahmin dominance in administration and ritual are seen as an early
assertion of non-Brahmin political agency.

6. Military Innovation and State Formation

A final but critical aspect was Shivaji’s military innovation, which reflected the terrain and resource
constraints of the Deccan. His reliance on guerilla warfare (bargir-giri), hill forts, and small mobile
cavalry enabled him to resist larger Mughal armies effectively. Shivaji also used fortresses not just
defensively but as administrative and logistical centers, distributing command among loyal officers
while avoiding over-centralization.

The military and administrative units he developed—havaldar, deshmukh, sarkar—were drawn from
Deccani precedent, showing that his state was not a rupture but an adaptive continuation of
previous systems, made more efficient and localized.

Conclusion

The rise of the Marathas under Shivaji was the result of a confluence of political disintegration,
social aspiration, ideological innovation, and strategic leadership. While Shivaji provided the
direction and vision, he was building upon foundations laid by earlier Maratha chiefs, social currents
shaped by Bhakti egalitarianism, and opportunities presented by Deccan power vacuums.

Shivaji's success lay not only in resisting dominant powers but also in forging a distinctive identity for
the Marathas—one that balanced local culture, military strategy, political pragmatism, and
symbolic legitimacy. His reign marked the first successful assertion of indigenous sovereignty in the
Deccan since the decline of the Yadavas, setting the stage for the Maratha expansion under the
Peshwas.

II. How the Nature of Maratha Polity under the Peshwas was Fundamentally Different from that
under Shivaji

II. How the Nature of Maratha Polity under the Peshwas was Fundamentally Different from that
under Shivaji
The transformation of Maratha polity from the era of Shivaji to that of the Peshwas is one of the
most important shifts in Indian political history. This transformation involved major changes in
political authority, military structure, administrative institutions, revenue practices, and even
ideological frameworks. While Shivaji created a centralized and autocratic monarchy rooted in his
personal authority and charisma, the Peshwas developed a more complex, bureaucratized, and
decentralized political structure.

1. Central Authority: From Chhatrapati to Peshwa

Shivaji’s state was a centralized monarchy with the Chhatrapati at its apex. He ruled with the support
of the Ashtapradhan (Council of Eight Ministers), who were personally appointed and remained non-
hereditary. The king was the central figure, not only in matters of war and administration but also in
religion and diplomacy.

Under the Peshwas, especially from Balaji Vishwanath's appointment in 1713, power began to shift
significantly. The Peshwa became the de facto ruler, while the Chhatrapati was reduced to a nominal
or symbolic sovereign — a ‘flag king’. Balaji Vishwanath’s successors, notably Bajirao I and Balaji
Bajirao, further entrenched Peshwa dominance. The office of Peshwa became hereditary, and the
Chhatrapati retained only ceremonial importance.

This change was not merely titular. The Peshwas centralized power in the Huzur Daftar (Poona
Secretariat), from where all major decisions regarding civil, military, and revenue administration were
taken. The Peshwa arbitrated religious and social issues such as widow remarriage, dowry practices,
and inheritance, highlighting his growing role in social governance.

2. From a Unified Monarchy to a Decentralized Confederacy

Shivaji’s kingdom was territorially compact and closely administered, though he too depended on the
cooperation of local deshmukhs and military commanders. His hold over the administrative
apparatus was personal, with loyalty directed squarely toward the king.

Under the Peshwas, the Maratha Empire expanded rapidly across India, but this expansion was
accompanied by increasing decentralization. Leading Maratha commanders such as the Holkars,
Scindhias, Gaekwads, and Bhonsles of Nagpur were granted revenue rights in the regions they
conquered. These grants, known as saranjams, became hereditary and created a class of semi-
autonomous rulers who acknowledged Peshwa authority only in name.

Historians often refer to this structure as the “Maratha Confederacy.” However, Stewart Gordon
critiques this term, arguing that there was no collective decision-making or unified political ideology
— merely a series of personalized loyalties and revenue-based alliances. He calls it a fluid,
transactional polity with shifting centers of authority.

3. Revenue System: From Survey-Based Control to Tribute and Complexity

Shivaji based his revenue system on Malik Amber’s system of land assessment. Revenue collection
was grounded in direct contact with cultivators, avoiding middlemen where possible. The
administration maintained some control over measurement, classification, and assessment of land,
aiming to balance state needs with agrarian prosperity.
In contrast, the Peshwas institutionalized chauth (25% of revenue) and sardeshmukhi (an additional
10%) as tribute mechanisms collected from non-Maratha territories. While initially meant to be
supplementary, these became the backbone of Peshwa finances. Bajirao’s 1719 agreement with the
Mughal emperor for rights to these levies over Malwa and Gujarat shows how tribute became
formalized.

Revenue collection became complex. Grants were intentionally scattered and interwoven to prevent
regional warlords from amassing too much control in one area. The administrative setup encouraged
deliberate complexity — revenue settlements were designed to keep local sardars and administrators
dependent on the Peshwa’s arbitration.

Banking systems also came under Peshwa control. Officials had to borrow advances from Poona
bankers to pay the state and recover dues later. This practice linked administration with merchant-
financier networks, creating a state indebted to urban Brahmin banking elites.

4. Military Structure: From Guerrilla Raids to Standing Armies

Shivaji’s military relied on fast-moving cavalry, terrain advantages, and surprise tactics. His command
structure was tightly centralized, with few standing armies and minimal reliance on feudal levies. This
allowed for flexibility, discipline, and loyalty.

Under the Peshwas, especially Bajirao I, the army grew both in size and diversity. Campaigns into
North India demanded larger standing armies, increased logistical capabilities, and artillery use. The
Maratha army became ethnically diverse — including Rajputs, Muslims, and even European gunners
— and less ideologically unified.

The army was no longer under centralized command. Various sardars maintained private armies
funded by their saranjams. The Peshwas did maintain some regiments under direct control, but the
feudalization of military service was clear. Coordination failures — especially evident in the 1761
Battle of Panipat — reflected this disjointed military structure.

5. Bureaucracy and Social Change

Under Shivaji, the Ashtapradhan was an efficient but personalized council. Administrative offices
were not hereditary, and the Chhatrapati exercised considerable oversight.

The Peshwa era witnessed the rise of a formal, hierarchical bureaucracy dominated by Chitpavan
Brahmins. As Gordon notes, these Brahmins took over not only civil administration but also military
and financial sectors. The Huzur Daftar was divided into departments with specialized functions:
revenue, military pay, judicial affairs, etc..

Socially, the era marked a shift toward Brahminical orthodoxy. While Shivaji's state had employed
Muslims and kept caste hierarchies flexible, the Peshwas centralized power among Brahmins and
emphasized ritual status. This sparked later anti-Brahmin movements in Maharashtra and
contributed to the politicization of caste identities.

6. Judiciary, Policing, and Village Administration

The judicial system under the Peshwas remained rudimentary. Civil and criminal cases were
adjudicated by local customs and smriti-based principles, with the Patil (village headman) as the
primary judicial officer. In cities, the Kotwal oversaw policing, price control, and censuses.

While the broader state fragmented, the village community continued as the core unit of
administration. The Patil and Kulkarni remained crucial for revenue collection and record-keeping.
Twelve traditional service groups (Balutas) catered to village needs in return for grain shares. The
Peshwa’s government maintained this structure, recognizing its efficiency and self-sufficiency.

7. Ideological and Cultural Differences

Shivaji’s statecraft was marked by religious inclusivity and political flexibility. While he patronized
Hindu temples and saints like Ramdas, he also respected Muslim Sufi shrines, employed Muslim
generals, and refrained from religious persecution. His ideology was pragmatic, aimed at creating
legitimacy among diverse Deccan populations.

The Peshwas promoted a more explicitly Hindu polity. They patronized temples, enforced caste
norms, and encouraged Sanskrit learning. Balaji Baji Rao’s court was dominated by Brahminical
values. Yet, this also created tensions within the Maratha ruling class, with non-Brahmin Marathas
feeling excluded from power.

The expansion of the Maratha state under the Peshwas was justified through religious rhetoric —
e.g., the idea of defending Hindu dharma — but it was often motivated more by revenue needs and
political ambition than any unified ideological vision.

8. Historiographical Interpretations

The shift from Shivaji to the Peshwa polity has generated intense debate:

 Jadunath Sarkar viewed Shivaji’s state as a centralized military monarchy and regarded the
Peshwa period as one of bureaucratic decline and moral decay.

 Vincent Smith labeled the Peshwa regime a "robber state," criticizing its extractive practices
and instability.

 Irfan Habib and Athar Ali viewed the Maratha polity as a zamindari-based, decentralized
formation, lacking the administrative sophistication of the Mughals.

 Stewart Gordon rejects both the "confederacy" and "empire" labels. He sees the Peshwa
polity as a successor to Deccan Sultanates, based on shifting personal loyalties, overlapping
revenue claims, and a fluid center-periphery relationship.

Gordon’s nuanced model highlights that the Maratha state did not fail due to lack of ideology or
administration, but because of its inability to maintain cohesion among its powerful nobles. The shift
from central monarchy to personalized confederacy produced impressive expansion but at the cost
of long-term unity.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the transformation of the Maratha polity under the Peshwas was profound. Shivaji’s
polity was centralized, ideologically inclusive, and militarily flexible. The Peshwas expanded Maratha
power dramatically, but in doing so introduced bureaucratic hierarchy, fiscal decentralization, and
social exclusivity.

While Shivaji laid the foundations of Maratha sovereignty through charisma, military genius, and
political acumen, the Peshwas institutionalized this sovereignty in a vast and often unwieldy
structure. The decline of the central authority, rise of feudatories, and bureaucratization of caste
created a different political landscape — one which ultimately could not withstand the pressures of
internal dissent and British imperialism.