2.2.2. War with the Marathas

From the late eighteenth century, the Company also sought to curb and eventually destroy Maratha power. With their defeat in the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761, the Marathas’ dream of ruling from Delhi was shattered.

This chunk discusses the decline of Maratha power in India, particularly after their defeat in the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761. This battle was significant as it marked the end of the Marathas' aspirations for dominance over Delhi, effectively fragmenting their control into various states governed by different chiefs.

Imagine a large team that once had high hopes for victory but then loses a crucial game. After this defeat, the team splits into smaller groups, each trying to play their own way rather than working together. This scenario mirrors how the Marathas, after their loss, became divided and weakened, leading to their eventual decline.

They were divided into many states under different chiefs (sardars) belonging to dynasties such as Sindhia, Holkar, Gaikwad and Bhonsle. These chiefs were held together in a confederacy under a Peshwa (Principal Minister) who became its effective military and administrative head based in Pune. Mahadji Sindhia and Nana Phadnis were two famous Maratha soldiers and statesmen of the late eighteenth century.

This chunk explains the structure of the Maratha leadership after their defeat. With the Marathas unable to unite, many chiefs emerged who ruled distinct regions, though they recognized the Peshwa as their nominal leader. Key figures like Mahadji Sindhia and Nana Phadnis played crucial roles in maintaining some level of unity among the Marathas despite their fragmented power.

Think of a once-thriving organization that begins to disintegrate after a major setback. Each department might still operate but with little coordination between them, learning to adapt under different managers. Similarly, the Marathas continued to function as sub-groups, striving to maintain power but without the strength they once had as a united front.

The Marathas were subdued in a series of wars. In the first war that ended in 1782 with the Treaty of Salbai, there was no clear victor. The Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–05) was fought on different fronts, resulting in the British gaining Orissa and the territories north of the Yamuna river including Agra and Delhi. Finally, the Maratha power came to end with the Third Anglo-Maratha War of 1817–19. The Peshwa was removed and sent away to Bithur near Kanpur with a pension. The Company now had complete control over the territories south of the Vindhyas.

This chunk outlines the outcome of three major conflicts between the British and the Marathas, collectively known as the Anglo-Maratha Wars. The first war ended indecisively, but subsequent conflicts led to substantial territorial losses for the Marathas. By the end of the Third Anglo-Maratha War, the British had effectively dismantled the Maratha influence in India, instituting their authority over vast areas.

Consider sports playoffs where a team faces repeated defeats, progressively losing various key players until they are eliminated from the tournament altogether. Each defeat represents a loss of power and influence, similar to how the Marathas experienced diminishing control through each Anglo-Maratha War until they were ultimately subdued.

It is clear from the above that from the early nineteenth century, the Company pursued an aggressive policy of territorial expansion. Under Lord Hastings (Governor-General from 1813 to 1823), a new policy of “paramountcy” was initiated. Now the Company claimed that its authority was paramount or supreme, hence its power was greater than that of Indian states.

This chunk discusses the shift in British policy toward total control of Indian territories. During Lord Hastings' tenure, the East India Company adopted a 'paramountcy' policy, asserting that it held authority above that of any Indian state, justifying further annexation of territories under the premise of safeguarding its interests.

Imagine a large corporation that begins to see itself as more important than all the smaller businesses it interacts with. This view allows them to impose policies that overrule local regulations, reflecting the Company’s approach to dominating Indian states through claimed superiority.

This process, however, did not go unchallenged. For example, when the British tried to annex the small state of Kitoor, Rani Channamma took to arms and led an anti-British resistance movement. She was arrested in 1824 and died in prison in 1829. But Rayanna, a poor chowkidar of Sangoli in Kitoor, carried on the resistance. With popular support, he destroyed many British camps and records. He was caught and hanged by the British in 1830.

This chunk highlights the resistance faced by the British as they expanded their control. Rani Channamma and later Rayanna emerged as important figures in opposing British rule, illustrating that resistance movements were not only prevalent but also actively sought to undermine British authority despite facing severe consequences.

Think of a local community banding together to defend against a large corporation that wants to take over their land. Despite limited resources, individuals can unite, making stand against powerful opponents. This reflects how local leaders like Channamma and Rayanna galvanized support against the British takeover.

--