Why did the Marathas succeed in their mission but Vijayanagar didnt?

Oct 2015
1,061
India
#71
I have seen such maps. They only show the marauding range of the Marathas across India, after the collapse of the Mughal empire. . . . .As I noted earlier, when it comes to defeating the Muslim conquerors and rulers of India, there is an absence of victors from the Hindu side. .... It is an effort, in vain, to make heroes out of those who were not heroes, like the Marathas and Rajputs, simply because they are Hindus. It doesn't look good on Hindus or Hinduism.
Dear Kandal,


Thanks, noted your views.


It is true that Marathas took to extracting revenues because Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb slowly but consistently divested them of all their forts. He died in 1707.



It is also true that credit for subduing the disintegrated pieces of Mughal Empire, “Muslims” as you say, belongs to British. This involved defeating Siraj-ud-daula in c. 1857 and then Tipu Sultan in c. 1799. In fact more, the credit for defeating the disintegrated Maratha Confederacy (c. 1818) as well as that for subduing Sikh Empire after death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (c. 1851) also goes to British.



However, there are 111 years in the interregnum from 1707 to 1818, which period almost equal to 127 years of British dominance in India (1820-1947). The 111 years were eventful just like the 127 (1857 rebellion, two World Wars). One needs to go into details of what happened in these 111 years to arrive at conclusions you are trying to give.


Issue is not primarily to to make heroes out of someone (Marathas / Hindus / Muslims / British / Pakistanis). It is about exact course of events which only a detailed study of 111 years reveals.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#72
Again....bargi raids was transient phenomenon and certainly didn't affect Maratha administered authority. As far as the regions like Bengal are considered once again British were much more barbaric than any bargi raids in devastating Bengal. And while bargi raids lasted only for ~10 years, monstrosity of British bandits continued for more than 100 years.
 
Nov 2012
3,851
#73
I still fail to understand why did Marathas attack and destroy the Hindu principality of Bishnupur in Bengal rather than focussing on Muslim Nawabs and either allying or just asking the rulers of Bishnupur to rule on Maratha behalf and pay a small tribute. These kind of anomalies and exceptions kind of hurt their Hindu unification. Despite their heroics they did not seek Hindu friends at the same level. Its a sad truth. I am not saying that they did not think of it but they should have given it more importance. Intermarring a Rajput princess alone would have established immediate credibility.
 
Oct 2015
1,061
India
#74
There were islands of good governance in some pockets of the Maratha confederacy as pointed out above, but overall it was a lawless place. For example, Maratha rulers used to employ thuggish peoples called Pindaris to wreak havoc among the general population.

"The Pendharis were dispersed throughout the Maratha states and were countenanced and protected by the Maratha chiefs to whom they acted as agents for supplying all the commissariat required by their armies. They were composed of different tribes who congregated solely for purposes of plunder. They came into existence during the 18th century when the Mughal Empire was breaking up. The Pindaris were loosely organized under self-chosen leaders, and each group was usually attached to one or other of the Maratha leaders. Their main characteristic was that they received no pay, but rather purchased the privilege of plundering on their own account."

British came to the rescue of the people living under such terror under the Marathas.

"East India Company, decided to exterminate and eliminate the Pindaris. The approval was received in September 1816 and Hastings put into place a plan by the end of 1817. To begin with, he entered into an understanding with several other powers active in India, and then commenced precise military planning and preparations to encircle and eliminate all the Pindaris. This organized campaign, known as the Pindari War, became the Third Anglo-Maratha War."

With this war the lawless Maratha rulers and their Pindari buddies were finally defeated by the British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pindari
Dear Kandal,

Pindaris predated Marathas and were an invention of Muslims. You have copy-pasted lines from Wikipedia. I give below some lines from Encyclopedia Britannica which is at least as good an authority:

Quote: “Pindari, historically, an irregular horseman, plunderer, or forager attached to a Muslim army in India who was allowed to plunder in lieu of pay.” [1]
Quote: “The majority of their [Pindari’s] leaders were Muslims, but they recruited from all classes.”

In circa 1685 Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (the Goliath) marched from Delhi to Deccan to annihilate the Marathas (poor David). The war went on for 26 years and Aurangzeb could never return to Delhi in his lifetime.

Marathas, against all odds, managed to keep their resistance alive for 26 years & more against the richest empire in the world at that time. They raided Mughal territory to extract 25% of the tax as their due share. After Aurangzeb’s death Marathas conquered more than 50% of the land-area in Indian subcontinent [2]. Maratha kings were installed. In this period the Pindaris changed sides from Mughal to Marathas. Pindaris were not natural allies of Marathas because most of their leaders were Muslims.

Quote: “The Pindaris followed the Maratha bands who raided Mughal territory from the late 17th century. With the collapse of the Mughal Empire in the 18th century, these camp followers organized themselves into groups, each usually attached to one of the leading Maratha chiefs.” [1]

By circa 1800 Marathas became weak due to constant wars and specially wars with British, so Pindaris became independent bands of looters and naturally Maratha had been encouraging them to loot in British territories.

Quote: “After the regular forces of the Marathas had been broken up by the British in the campaigns of 1803–04 (see Maratha Wars), the Pindaris made their headquarters in Malwa, under the tacit protection of the [Maratha] rulers of Gwalior and Indore. They usually assembled in November to set forth over British-held territory in search of plunder. In one such raid on the Masulipatam coast, they plundered 339 villages, killing and wounding 682 persons, torturing 3,600 others, and carrying off much valuable property. In 1808–09 they plundered Gujarat, and in 1812, Mirzapur. In 1814 they numbered between 25,000 and 30,000 horsemen, half of them well armed.” [1]

British colonization of India was morally wrong and any means to evict or trouble them was morally correct – my view at least. They were rapacious and economically exploited India to the maximum extent. They did not colonize India for benefit of Indians, they too looted India but with more sophistication. So turning the Pindaris against British was morally correct for every method had to be adopted to fight a strong enemy (the British from first Anglo-Maratha War, circa 1775-1782).

British then mobilized an army of 120,000 against the 25 to 30,000 Pindaris and annihilated them from face of the earth (circa 1817-1818).

Some words in your post suggest to me that British colonization of India was ‘lawful’ because the Marathas were “lawless”: “East India Company, decided to exterminate and eliminate the Pindaris. The approval was received in September 1816 and Hastings put into place a plan by the end of 1817.”

The other side of coin is that extermination of British, were it possible, could considered equally lawful because there was not “law” which gave them the right to colonize except “Might is Right”.

I guess as an American you may recall that British had no right to be in India because the Americans themselves had, around that time (1775-1783), driven out the British from America in a war rightly remembered as “American War of Independence”.

regards

Rajeev

[1] Pindari | Indian history | Britannica.com
[2] Keay John, India, 2010, Harper Collins, London, pp xxii-xxiii.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#75
I still fail to understand why did Marathas attack and destroy the Hindu principality of Bishnupur in Bengal rather than focussing on Muslim Nawabs and either allying or just asking the rulers of Bishnupur to rule on Maratha behalf and pay a small tribute. These kind of anomalies and exceptions kind of hurt their Hindu unification. Despite their heroics they did not seek Hindu friends at the same level. Its a sad truth. I am not saying that they did not think of it but they should have given it more importance. Intermarring a Rajput princess alone would have established immediate credibility.
History isn't perfect and You will never find the answer that you are seeking, no matter how many times you repeat the same thing. Marathas had very impeccable record when it comes to the patronage and revival of Hinduism. In such a situation exception like this can't be taken as a norm. (even Christians supposedly embarked on the crusade to save Christianity, looted Constantinople). Infact if authorities of Sringeri Matha were praising Tipu then, they were the one to behave in unusual manner and not the Marathas. Also marriage in Rajput princess wouldn't have changed anything. (Mahadji Scindhia himself was a half Rajput anyway and yet he and Rajputs never get along very well). Even without such marriage they had very bright chance in Rajputana due to the family feuds in which almost every major Rajput house was entangled and Marathas got the chance to play the role of kingmaker. They would have retained loyalty of the proxy rulers they they set up on thrones of Rajputana had they not indulged in the bullying behaviour.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,669
USA
#76
Dear Kandal,

Pindaris predated Marathas and were an invention of Muslims. You have copy-pasted lines from Wikipedia. I give below some lines from Encyclopedia Britannica which is at least as good an authority:

Quote: “Pindari, historically, an irregular horseman, plunderer, or forager attached to a Muslim army in India who was allowed to plunder in lieu of pay.” [1]
Quote: “The majority of their [Pindari’s] leaders were Muslims, but they recruited from all classes.”
---------------------------------------
Some words in your post suggest to me that British colonization of India was ‘lawful’ because the Marathas were “lawless”: “East India Company, decided to exterminate and eliminate the Pindaris. The approval was received in September 1816 and Hastings put into place a plan by the end of 1817.”

The other side of coin is that extermination of British, were it possible, could considered equally lawful because there was not “law” which gave them the right to colonize except “Might is Right”.

I guess as an American you may recall that British had no right to be in India because the Americans themselves had, around that time (1775-1783), driven out the British from America in a war rightly remembered as “American War of Independence”.---------.
If Pindaris were the creation of Muslim rulers, and led by Muslims, it is even more reprehensible for the Hindu Marathas to use them to ravage the Indians. It proves even more that Marathas were predatory marauders as historians most often state in their books.

Take a look at the modern day rebirth of the Marathas? It is the Shiva Sena in Maharashtra, a Hindu chauvinist group that terrorizes anyone in the state who is not a Maratha. It is just as anti-Indian now as it was in the 18th century. So I just don't understand why Hindus adore this lawless people.

British conquest, unification and creation of a nation called India was lawful, because otherwise ones like you would not even be claiming yourself as an Indian today. It is what the Marathas did that was wrong, including their modern reincarnation Shiva Sena. British might have been wrong with America, but they did it right in India. Hindus should express gratitude to the British for finally creating and delivering a vast nation that they themselves could not create.

There are only two peoples who did lasting damage to India and the Indians: Muslims invaders with their religious intolerance, and the Aryans invaders with their caste ridden Vedic Hinduism.
 
Last edited:

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#77
It proves even more that Marathas were predatory marauders as historians most often state in their books.
I wonder how can some one stoop to such a low level. Your vulgar shameless lie of extremely low quality have already been dis-proven in previous pages. Anyway what else one can expect but such lies when the person doesn't even know the basic difference between terms like "Maratha" and "Marathi"!!!!

http://historum.com/asian-history/96880-why-did-marathas-succeed-their-mission-but-vijayanagar-didnt-6.html#post2357909?postcount=56

http://historum.com/asian-history/96880-why-did-marathas-succeed-their-mission-but-vijayanagar-didnt-6.html#post2358010?postcount=60

http://historum.com/asian-history/96880-why-did-marathas-succeed-their-mission-but-vijayanagar-didnt-7.html#post2358011?postcount=61

http://historum.com/asian-history/96880-why-did-marathas-succeed-their-mission-but-vijayanagar-didnt-7.html#post2358896?postcount=64
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,669
USA
#78
I wonder how can some one stoop to such a low level. Your vulgar shameless lie of extremely low quality have already been dis-proven in previous pages. Anyway what else one can expect but such lies when the person doesn't even know the basic difference between terms like "Maratha" and "Marathi"!!!!
------------------
From the book 'The men who ruled India' - by Philip Mason
The Maratha state was in its essence predatory; outside the Maratha homeland, there was no administration but simply tribute. The ruler had to pay the Marathas a fourth of what he collected. So as long as there were fresh conquests every few years, the confederation hung together, but as soon as expansion ended, it was in danger.

Within Maharashtra, the home country of the Maratha people, the administration suited the people. ------- But by the end of the eighteenth century, none of these was forthcoming, and the five Maratha states were fighting each other as often as against any prince outside the confederacy.
The word 'predatory' comes up again in describing the Marathas. Modern Shiva Sena is the product of Maharatra state, the home of the Marathas. (p70)
 
Last edited:

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#79
From the book 'The men who ruled India' - by Philip Mason
The book is rather old. Its views are outdated. If one wants one can cite even James Duff himself. However as I have already mentioned such views are discarded in the wake of new documentary evidence that became available to scholars of Maratha history only after Independence. If you have indeed read "recent" works on Maratha history, rather than random googling you would have known that. Anyway I am not sure why the views given in the book specifically addressing Maratha history, penned down by the author specialized in Maratha history and published by Cambridge should be discarded over some old book.
 
Jan 2015
981
Here and there
#80
I still fail to understand why did Marathas attack and destroy the Hindu principality of Bishnupur in Bengal rather than focussing on Muslim Nawabs and either allying or just asking the rulers of Bishnupur to rule on Maratha behalf and pay a small tribute. These kind of anomalies and exceptions kind of hurt their Hindu unification. Despite their heroics they did not seek Hindu friends at the same level. Its a sad truth. I am not saying that they did not think of it but they should have given it more importance. Intermarring a Rajput princess alone would have established immediate credibility.
I agree with Jinit. Seriously let it go. Saying that Marathas shouldve done this or shouldnt have done that is only due to hindsight. The Marathas did the best they considering the cards they had been dealt,sometimes they were a royal flush and other times-jokers. It took the Mughals nearly 150 years to complete their conquest of entire India which the Marathas reversed pretty much everything in a 100!

Keep in mind as per the Mahabharat , even Krishna and Arjuna despite all their powers and abilities were severely restricted by more mundane concerns at excercizing their power!
 

Similar History Discussions