What's new

Forgotten Indian history: The brutal Maratha invasions of Bengal

Excellent read. Thanks for posting!

Those who view the modern world with a distorted historical perspective are doing great disservice to themselves and to others. Excessive pride and animosity borne out of events that are not well understood and have little relevance today has prevented us from moving on.

One Of The More Sensible Comments From Indians On This Forum

We stopped , fought and repelled Islamic invasion. If it wasn't us India would be Muslim majority.


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
 
.
Forgotten Indian history: The brutal Maratha invasions of Bengal
For medieval India history, incidents that don't fit into an overarching Hindu versus Muslim narrative tend to be removed from popular discourse. The 1741 Maratha invasion of Bengal is one such example.
Shoaib Daniyal · Today · 10:30 am
4bee443c-8d5e-41e6-a252-71f79b77bf26.jpg

Road names often have a story to tell. In Calcutta, given its long continuous history, even more so. One of those is the curiously named Marhatta Ditch Lane in Baghbazar in North Calcutta.

The lane refers to an actual ditch built in the 1740s along what was then the northern extremity of Calcutta. Its purpose? To stop the marauding bands of Maratha cavalry who were pillaging Bengal at the time.

In 1741, the cavalry of Raghoji Bhosle, the Maratha ruler of Nagpur, started to pillage western Bengal under the command of Bhaskar Pandit. Bengalis called these Marathas “Bargis” which is a corruption of the Marathi word, "bargir" (etymology: Persian) which means “light cavalry”. Malik Ambar, the celebrated Prime Minister of the Ahmadnagar Sultanate, had instituted the Deccan practice of guerrilla warfare, which at that time took the name bargir-giri. These swift hit-and-run guerrilla tactics became a part of the military heritage of the Deccan, being used to great effect by Shivaji and, eventually, by the Marathas against the hapless residents of Bengal.

Bargir-giri

In the 1740s, the bargir-giri of Bhosle’s army confounded the forces of Nawab Alivardi Khan, the ruler of Bengal. While the Bengali army tried its best and even defeated the Marathas in the few times they fought head-to-head, most of the time, the Maratha cavalry would simply skirt the Khan’s slow-moving infantry, being interested only in looting.

In the 10 years that they plundered Bengal, their effect was devastating, causing great human hardship as well as economic privation. In the Maharashtra Purana, a poem in Bengali written by Gangaram, the poet describes the destruction caused by the raiders in great detail:
This time none escaped,
Brahmanas, and Vaisnavas, Sannyasis, and householders,
all had the same fate, and cows were massacred along with men.
So great was the terror of the Bargi that, in a Gabbar-esque twist, lullabies were composed in which mothers would use the fear of a Maratha raid to get their children to go to sleep. These poems are popular amongst Bengalis even today. One of them went something like this:
Chhele ghumalo, paada judaalo bargi elo deshe
Bulbulite dhaan kheyechhe, khaajnaa debo kishe?
Dhaan phurolo, paan phurolo, khaajnaar opay ki?
Aar kotaa din shobur koro, roshoon boonechhi

A very inelegant translation:

When the children fall asleep, silence sets in, the Bargis come to our country
Birds have eaten the grain, how shall I pay the tax (to the Bargi)?
All our food and drink is over, how shall I pay the tax?
Wait for a few days, I have sown garlic.

Not only did the Bargis loot the countryside, but in a sign of their effectiveness, managed to raid the capital of Bengal, Murshidabad and even sack the house of one of the richest Indians at the time, the Marwari banker, Jagat Seth.

The ditchers of Calcutta

In spite of this, the Marathas never did attack Calcutta, in all probability being paid off by the British. The ditch, though, did serve to provide citizens with a nickname: ditchers, i.e everyone who lived south of the ditch, in "proper" Calcutta. Eventually the ditch was filled up and was made into what is now Upper Circular Road. A concrete architectural record of British efforts to guard against Bargi raids, though, remains in the existence of semaphore towers which dot the countryside of Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand. A system of communication which predated the telegraph, it consisted of towers which basically sent out smoke signals to the next tower and so on and served to warn of an impending Bargi raid.

After a decade of pillage, the Marathas eventually stopped their raids after the harried Nawab, accepting defeat, handed over Orissa to Raghoji Bhosle.

Past through the lens of the present

Of course, as Aakar Patel points out in hiscolumn, this history of the Marathas is usually never given popular currency. The Marathas are often portrayed as a proto-national force, acting as agents of either India or Hindu nationalism. This is a common tendency and modern nations oftenconstructmyths where they extend themselves back into time. Many Pakistanis imagine that its Islamic nationalism existed during the time of Qutb-ud-din Aibak and many Indians think that a Hindu nationalism was furthered by the Marathas looking to set up a – to use Vinayak Savarkar's term – "Hindu Pad Padshahi".

Ironically, the very phrase "Hindu Pad Padshahi" is taken entirely from the Persian language, showing how seamless the transition was from the so-called Muslim Deccan sultanates and the Mughals to the so-called Hindu Marathas. And, of course, such a simplistic view of history must also leave out pillaging bands of Marathas attacking a predominantly "Hindu" West Bengal even as a "Muslim" Nawab struggles to push them out. Today's India is so caught up with the binaries of "Hindu" and "Muslim" that it tends to see the past in those terms as well. But the past is a different country.
It was all about Dharma...:enjoy:
 
.
It was all about Dharma...:enjoy:

Removing barbaric islamic rule is very much the protection of Dharma :azn:

Looting Hindus living as Dhimmis under a muslim king and preventing them from paying taxes to teh king is very much an act that will weaken the muslim kingdom brining the people closer to freedom.
 
.
Okay, Bargis were real, so are we the Bengalis supposed to hate present day Marathas now and beat up any 'Bhosle' that we find, maybe boycot Asha Bhosle's songs, for the actions of some 'Bhosle' many generations ago? Does the writer think that the present day tensions between the Muslims and other communities in India is because of the actions of some Ghaznavi, Babar or Aurangzeb? Or is it because of the more recent history of last 100 years or so, especially from 1940 onward?

A major portion of Muslims and other communities couldn't integrate with each other, that resulted into Muslim League and its power struggle with Congress represented by all others including some Muslims, then partition of undivided India into two separate countries; one for Muslims and one for all others including some Muslims, the partition itself was soaked in the blood of millions, and resulted into millions of homeless people, then the wars with Muslim Pakistan and internally thousands of riots every year, then the Kashmir issue and exodus of Pandits from there, and now a section of people indulging in terrorism and waging war against the state and killing its people....a major portion of the Muslims of Indian subcontinent became 'other' by creating a separate country Pakistan, and later Bangladesh, and a section of the remaining Muslim population in India chose to remain 'other', thus the tension between the Muslims and other communities continued till date.......that Bargi Marathas don't matter now, Aurangzeb doesn't matter now, what matters is the more recent past and present. If today people of the subcontinent shed their differences and hatred that arise due to their religious identities, and integrate in a single society and start living peacefully, both internally and externally (relating to Pakistan and Bangladesh), then this animosity and communal tension will be forgotten in two generations max.
 
.
Okay, Bargis were real, so are we the Bengalis supposed to hate present day Marathas now and beat up any 'Bhosle' that we find, maybe boycot Asha Bhosle's songs, for the actions of some 'Bhosle' many generations ago? Does the writer think that the present day tensions between the Muslims and other communities in India is because of the actions of some Ghaznavi, Babar or Aurangzeb? Or is it because of the more recent history of last 100 years or so, especially from 1940 onward?

A major portion of Muslims and other communities couldn't integrate with each other, that resulted into Muslim League and its power struggle with Congress represented by all others including some Muslims, then partition of undivided India into two separate countries; one for Muslims and one for all others including some Muslims, the partition itself was soaked in the blood of millions, and resulted into millions of homeless people, then the wars with Muslim Pakistan and internally thousands of riots every year, then the Kashmir issue and exodus of Pandits from there, and now a section of people indulging in terrorism and waging war against the state and killing its people....a major portion of the Muslims of Indian subcontinent became 'other' by creating a separate country Pakistan, and later Bangladesh, and a section of the remaining Muslim population in India chose to remain 'other', thus the tension between the Muslims and other communities continued till date.......that Bargi Marathas don't matter now, Aurangzeb doesn't matter now, what matters is the more recent past and present. If today people of the subcontinent shed their differences and hatred that arise due to their religious identities, and integrate in a single society and start living peacefully, both internally and externally (relating to Pakistan and Bangladesh), then this animosity and communal tension will be forgotten in two generations max.

Correction. The Muslim elite CHOSE not to integrate with the Hindus. Its not that they "Could not".

History does matter, but you have to view history in the correct perspective.

The Bargi Maratha's choose to loot the people being ruled under a tyrannous islamic rule. This resulted in drop in tax revenue to those kingdom. If the muslim king forced the tax, they population would then rise against him, or at least hate him. It was a Win-Win for the Marathas. They took back a lot of money that was used to fight the war for Swaraj.

It was not like they attacked the Bongs because they hated them. It was a purely strategic move.

The muslims invaders however chose to destroy Hindu temple, culture, way of life etc. out of pure malevolence.

The difference is pretty stark.
 
.
Removing barbaric islamic rule is very much the protection of Dharma :azn:

Looting Hindus living as Dhimmis under a muslim king and preventing them from paying taxes to teh king is very much an act that will weaken the muslim kingdom brining the people closer to freedom.


:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

Correction. The Muslim elite CHOSE not to integrate with the Hindus. Its not that they "Could not".

.

Idiot Muslims and Hindus Are Fundamentally Different People,It Is Possible to Co Exist But We Cannot Integrate

The Bargi Maratha's choose to loot the people being ruled under a tyrannous islamic rule. This resulted in drop in tax revenue to those kingdom. If the muslim king forced the tax, they population would then rise against him, or at least hate him. It was a Win-Win for the Marathas. They took back a lot of money that was used to fight the war for Swaraj.

It was not like they attacked the Bongs because they hated them. It was a purely strategic move.

The muslims invaders however chose to destroy Hindu temple, culture, way of life etc. out of pure malevolence.

The difference is pretty stark.



Wow!!!!! Marathas Looting People But Muslims Are Tyranical Because Of This As Well.I Have Come Across Many Jokers On This Forum But You Seem To Beat Everyone Hands Down


And How Do You Explain This





Shivaji & the Surat loot: ‘Modi-fied’ historical facts to woo Marathis?
Is the goof-up intentional, ask historians who differ from chief minister Modi’s version of Shivaji’s Surat invasion



Modi during a function at the Raigad fort organised by Sangli-based foundation Shiv Pratishthan, on Sunday. PTI





Ahmedabad: No sooner does chief minister Narendra Modi make a historical reference, almost everybody invariably reaches out for the history books. And not without reason too. For, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate’s gaffes on historical facts, particularly at a last few rallies, have hit the headlines once too often.

In this latest instance, Modi has given Maratha warrior king, Chhatrapati Shivaji, a ‘clean chit’ calling him an excellent administrator rather than just a warrior who had looted Surat. “Saying that Shivaji Maharaj looted Surat would be an insult to the Maratha warrior. He looted Aurangazeb’s treasure with the help of local people which was used for welfare of the common man,” Modi thundered at a public rally at Raigadh in Maharashtra on Sunday.

While the political pundits may sweep the ‘slip’ under the carpet on the pretext that the distortion may have been politically motivated, aggrieved historians have, however, roared back with equal ferocity. They claim history does not agree with the CM’s statement. Besides several modern day historians, a number of published accounts of the 17th century as well maintain that Shivaji had plundered Surat, the richest port of India at the time — and “had not targeted just Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s treasure” as Modi depicts.

According to historical records, Shivaji ransacked Surat twice – first in January 1664 and the second time in October 1670. A number of accounts of the time suggest that Shivaji’s army had plundered Surat.

“The Marathas plundered the town at their leisure. Shivaji looted the town for four days, and the booty was stupendous. The wealth obtained in this raid is said to have amounted to a sum of one crore of rupees,” author HS Sardesai, says in the book, Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 2. “On October 3, 1670, Shivaji repeated his exploits at Surat. Property worth about Rs132 lakhs was looted and Surat remained in continual dread of the Marathas,” Sardesai says further. The real loss of Surat, says Sardesai, was not in the booty carried away by the Marathas, but “the trade of this, the richest port of India, was practically destroyed”.

In his book, ‘Surat in the Seventeenth Century’, BG Gokhale states about the January 1664 attack: “The Marathas pillaged homes and the sarais, burnt down nearly half of the town and retreated carrying with them enormous booty.”

“The reports current then were that Shivaji had taken away some two-and-a-half millions of rupees, gold, silver, pearls, rubies, diamonds and emeralds from the homes of Virji Vora, Haji Zahid Beg, Haji Kasim and other rich merchants,” Gokhale’s book says further. In her book, The East India Company: And the British Empire in the Far East, historian Marguerite Eyer Wilbur, says, “For four days, from the sixth to the tenth (January), a reign of terror ensued, as the Marathas sacked, burned and looted the city (Surat). Accounts of the destruction vary considerably, but at-least two thirds of the houses were reduced to ashes.”

Many historians too believe that Modi’s statement in defence of Shivaji is contrary to historical evidence.

Former professor of history and historian Makrand Mehta said that Modi lied when he said that Shivaji did not loot Surat. “Who is right? Historians like Jadunath Sarkar, RC Majmudar and me who have done a lot of research in history, or Modi?” Mehta asked.

Historians believe that none of the invasions were motivated by religious intention but were meant for loot. Mehta added that Shivaji was inspired to act against fanatic Islamic policies of Aurangzeb and was inspired by regional nationalism.

“He invaded Surat as he needed money to maintain his army,” said Mehta.

Agreeing to this fact, the head of department of history at Gujarat Vidyapith, Mehboob Desai said: “His modus operandi was guerilla style for attack. There was economic aspect to Shivaji’s invasion of Surat.”

According to Mehta, Shivaji had done recce of Surat before his first invasion of the city.

“Shivaji came to Surat disguised as a sadhu and collected information about the city, its geography and the wealthy people before invading the city in January 1664,” Mehta added.



 
.
Lord parashuram slaughtered 14 Hindu kings who had become adharmi, guru govindhji killed 4 Hindu kings who sided with enemies of Hindus, Marathas did not slaughter true Hindus, they fought with those who sided with their enemies.

And spared those Muslims who allied with them. Basically, religion didn't matter - it was all about political/military goals. ; )
 
.
Alivardi Khan became Nawab of Bengal in April 1740, after defeating and killing Sarfraz Khan. His rule was challenged by Sarfraj Khan’s brother-in-law Rustam Jung, who was naib nazim (deputy governor) of Orissa. Alivardi defeated him in a battle at Falwaei, near Balasore, placed his own nephew as naib nazim of Orissa and left for his capital, Murshidabad. Rustam Jung sought the assistance of the Maratha ruler of Nagpur, Raghoji I Bhonsle. He regained control of Orissa with the assistance of Marathas, who in the process discovered how easy it was to plunder the rich countryside in Bengal. Alivardi returned to Orissa and again defeated Rustam Jung, but before he returned to Murshidabad, a Maratha cavalry under Bhaskar Pandit was sent to Bengal by Bhonsle. They entered through Panchet and started looting the countryside. Bhaskar Pandit had decided to build Dainhat (a small town of Burdwan district, West Bengal) as his main camp to attack enemies. He had dug several trenches to protect his camp. Temple created by Bhaskar Pandit still exits near the place Swamaj Bati of Dainhat. Currently that temple is known as Kisore Kisori Mandir.[3][5]

For about ten years, the Bargis raided and plundered Bengal every year. Contemporary chroniclers have left behind vivid descriptions of Bargi terror, their hit-and-run tactics and the helplessness of the Nawabab's army in checking them. Alivardi showed exemplary courage and military skill in every frontal battle that took place, but the objective of the Bargis was not occupation of territory but plundering; they looted and burned bazaars.[3][5] The Nawab's soldiers could not match the Maratha horsemen in speed and manoevureability. Only the Ganges -Bhagirathi river line proved a barrier to their movement. They crossed it only on a few occasions.[3]

The Bargi invasions came to an end in May 1751 after the Nawab and the Marathas reached an agreement, including the secession of Orissa.[3]
Bargi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
. .
Malik Ambar, the celebrated Prime Minister of the Ahmadnagar Sultanate, had instituted the Deccan practice of guerrilla warfare, which at that time took the name bargir-giri. These swift hit-and-run guerrilla tactics became a part of the military heritage of the Deccan, being used to great effect by Shivaji and, eventually, by the Marathas against the hapless residents of Bengal.

that is interesting for me, though i am not a fan of military history.
 
.
The Marathas were die hard nationalists (and to some extent still are)...I would credit them with the concept of Swaraj (self rule) which was the basis of the Indian Independence movement starting with Tilak and carried on by Gandhi.

They did not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims as both fought for them (Read About Ibrahim Gardi and his massive contribution to the Maratha confederacy) and recruited based on loyalty rather than religion. They were great at uniting the masses and were forward thinking in their military tactics. I would credit India's naval history to have started with the Marathas who built a formidable navy and realized early (as did the British) that the navy was the backbone of future wars to come and would define modern day imperialism.

Their attack on Bengal and other parts of the country was an extension of their guerrilla tactics employed at weakening governance and rule of their enemies. By taking away revenue in the form of taxes that the Marathas would loot. They relied on hit and run methods as they knew that the mughal and golconda armies were much larger and heavily equipped to deal with in a full on confrontation. Hence they decided to weaken the enemy from within by taking away their revenue.

Their biggest mistake was not forming many alliances. Had they secured their position the way the Mughals had done through marriage and politics, the Marathas rule would have been hard to usurp, even for the British.
 
.
The Marathas were die hard nationalists (and to some extent still are)...I would credit them with the concept of Swaraj (self rule) which was the basis of the Indian Independence movement starting with Tilak and carried on by Gandhi.

They did not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims as both fought for them (Read About Ibrahim Gardi and his massive contribution to the Maratha confederacy) and recruited based on loyalty rather than religion. They were great at uniting the masses and were forward thinking in their military tactics. I would credit India's naval history to have started with the Marathas who built a formidable navy and realized early (as did the British) that the navy was the backbone of future wars to come and would define modern day imperialism.

Their attack on Bengal and other parts of the country was an extension of their guerrilla tactics employed at weakening governance and rule of their enemies. By taking away revenue in the form of taxes that the Marathas would loot. They relied on hit and run methods as they knew that the mughal and golconda armies were much larger and heavily equipped to deal with in a full on confrontation. Hence they decided to weaken the enemy from within by taking away their revenue.

Their biggest mistake was not forming many alliances. Had they secured their position the way the Mughals had done through marriage and politics, the Marathas rule would have been hard to usurp, even for the British.

Maratha's took a different path than forming alliance by marriage and politics. They created a federal structure within their empire that empowered each regional chief and helped them build local competency. But it also built up local ambition and fuelled civil war to some extend.

But you were right in pointing out their inability to win over allies and treat them with respect. A trait they display till Date.

Worse they DID NOT BUILD INSTITUTIONS that would have sustained the empire even after the defeat in Panipath. That was their greatest weakness. Lack of institution building. From trading, education, warfare to administration.

Which is why after Panipath, it started falling apart.

So no alliance and no institutions equals death.
 
.
Maratha's took a different path than forming alliance by marriage and politics. They created a federal structure within their empire that empowered each regional chief and helped them build local competency. But it also built up local ambition and fuelled civil war to some extend.

But you were right in pointing out their inability to win over allies and treat them with respect. A trait they display till Date.

Worse they DID NOT BUILD INSTITUTIONS that would have sustained the empire even after the defeat in Panipath. That was their greatest weakness. Lack of institution building. From trading, education, warfare to administration.

Which is why after Panipath, it started falling apart.

So no alliance and no institutions equals death.

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.


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.
 
.
They did not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims as both fought for them (Read About Ibrahim Gardi and his massive contribution to the Maratha confederacy) and recruited based on loyalty rather than religion. They were great at uniting the masses and were forward thinking in their military tactics.

This actually was a trait for pretty much all Hindu kings of India.

The kingdom of Vijaynagar too hired muslim soldiers and even had muslim generals. Krishna Deva raya in fact had a quran kept alongside the hindu scriptures in his court. (above his throne)

Vijayanagar king Rama Raya had two Muslim Generals, two brothers (Gilani). King Rama Raya even adopted one of the muslim Badami Sultan, Ibrahim Adil Shah as his Son !!! In fact when Rama Raya was asked by his advisors to prevent animal sacrifice by his muslim subjects, he refused and declared that they have come here to serve the kingdom, not to renounce their religion.

and However these were unrequited honour and respect.

The Gilani Brothers betrayed King Rama Raya in the battlefield of Talikota and joined Adil shah with his men and attacked Rama Raya.

Rama Raya's adopted "son" Adil Shah joined the 4 other sultanates to attack Vijayanagar and chopped of the head of Rama Raya.

After the victor of the sultanates in Talikota , the muslim army pillaged and destroyed the town of Vijayanagar. Even today we can see the ruins of Hampi as a testimony to the destruction visited upon it. It is ironically a world heritage site today :angel:
 
.
Loknath baba's main asram is left in Bangladesh's Barodi,Narayanganj. That is why he must be angry.


Don't Take Him to Heart He Is Suffering From Delusional Disorders.He Thinks That He Is Hindu Today Because Of Some "National Resistance Movement "
 
.
Back
Top Bottom