In spite of this fiction of a settled jama or tribute, the Maráthás, when they had a sufficient force at their back, invariably demanded a larger sum, the excess being called khará-ját or extra distinct from the actual tribute. This ingenious plan of increasing the collections originated, it is said, with Shivrám Gárdi, and was carried out scrupulously by both Bábáji and Vithalráv in their tours. In fact during the last few years of the old system Vithalráv had so good a force with him that the extra demand formed a large proportion of the whole tribute collected and had been paid only under strong protest. British Intervention.The British had not long been established in Ránpur, Gogha, and Dhandhuka before a few petty chiefs of Gohilvád and Sorath applied to the Resident at Baroda for protection against the mulakgiri of the Nawáb of Junágaḍh and the Rával of Bhávnagar, offering to cede the sovereignty of their states to the British on condition that certain rights and privileges were preserved to the chiefs and their families. The conditions they named were not such as were likely to meet with the approval of the British Government, and do
The Maráthás, a.d. 1760–1819.
British Intervention. not seem to have received much consideration. The proposals had, however, the effect of drawing the attention of the Bombay Government towards the state of Káthiáváḍa, and permission to aid the mulakgiri of the Gáikwár by detaching a few companies of British troops was accorded by the Supreme Government. The outbreak of hostilities with Sindia led to the whole question as to the best means of collecting the tribute being for a time deferred. The internal disputes of some of the more turbulent states, a few years afterwards, gave the Resident an opportunity of sending an envoy to one or two courts to see how matters stood, and to open a way for a settlement in conjunction with the Gáikwár. Affairs at Baroda, as mentioned above (page 416), detained the Resident there till 1807, in which year he joined Vithalráv’s army with a British contingent, at a place in the Morvi state.
Settlement of 1807.Before treating directly with the chiefs a circular was sent round to all of them both by the Gáikwár’s agent and by Colonel Walker the Resident, containing the basis of the proposals with regard to the tribute about to be submitted to them. The position of the British Government throughout this negotiation is not clearly defined. Vithalráv in his circular mentions indeed that a British force was with his own, but urges the chiefs to come to a settlement entirely with the government he represented. Colonel Walker’s note was longer, more explicit, and conciliatory, but at the same time assumes a tone of protection and superiority. The replies of the chiefs were various, and, as a rule, seem to show that they regarded the British Government as the chief mover in these negotiations. They were probably aware of the position in which the engagements of the Gáikwár had placed him with reference to the British, and for some years had had the latter as their neighbours in the east of the peninsula. They were therefore not able at once to take in the whole scope of the action of the British Government in the tribute question.
Many seemed to take the note as a preliminary to a mulakgiri on the part of the East India Company. The Rája of Mália, who had just been causing disturbances in the dominions of all his neighbours, had repulsed Bábáji and permitted the self-immolation of a Bhát rather than fulfil an engagement, openly proposed a joint expedition across the Ran to plunder Kachh and Sindh. From the inquiries made by the Resident and from information gathered from the Gáikwár’s accounts, it was anticipated that separate engagements need only be entered into with the twenty-nine chiefs to whom the circular invitation had been issued, provided that the rights and interests of subordinate members of the Bháyád were clearly defined in the agreement. When, however, these rights came to be investigated in the light of the peculiar rules of Rájput inheritance, it was found that no less than one hundred and fifty-three persons had a claim to settle independently of each other for their tribute. This greatly prolonged the settlement, but at last the agreements were all framed on one principle. The amount settled was determined by a close scrutiny of the collections of past years, and Colonel Walker found it advisable to make great
The Maráthás, a.d. 1760–1819. reductions in the item of extras or kharáját, for which the later Gáekwár collectors had such predilection. The engagements were of the following nature.
Settlement of 1807.
Financial.First, the chief bound himself his heirs and successors to pay at Baroda each year the tribute fixed in perpetuity in 1807. He also procured a counter security for this payment who engaged himself in this capacity for ten years. The Honourable Company’s government had then to become security on the part of the Gáikwár for the fixity of the tribute demanded. This participation of the British in the engagement was insisted upon by the chiefs, and in all probability Colonel Walker was not averse from admitting it. Having thus arranged for the payment of the tribute and guaranteed the amount to be demanded, it was proposed to take measures to prevent internal quarrels between the chiefs themselves. The object of a fixed settlement was simply to remove the necessity for overrunning the country from time to time with an irregular army and to protect the chiefs against extortion. It was found that if the army of the paramount power were removed, all means of keeping order in the province would be lost, and the internecine feuds of the chiefs would soon destroy the good effects of the permanent settlement by materially altering the then existing position of the weaker feudatories and rendering them unable to pay the tribute. It was also the wish of the British Government to bring about such a state of things in Káthiáváḍa that the presence of an army to control the chiefs would be wholly uncalled-for and that the chiefs themselves would co-operate to keep order and maintain the permanent settlement.
Political.A second agreement therefore was called for from each signatory state of the nature of a security for good and peaceful conduct. The counter security to this was usually that of another chief. This bond was perpetual. On the execution of both these engagements the chief received a parvána or guarantee that the Gáikwár government would not take from him more than the tribute agreed upon, and to this deed the countersignature of the Resident on behalf of the British Government was affixed. This guarantee, like the promise of the chief himself, was apparently given in perpetuity. It will be noted that the amount of tribute was fixed permanently, but that it was considered advisable to renew the security every ten years. It is also remarkable that, except in the failzámin or bond for good behaviour, the name of the Peshwa’s government, the rights of which over the tribute had only been temporarily alienated, does not appear. The total amount of the tribute thus settled was Rs. 9,79,882.
By means of these engagements the relations of the tributaries to their paramount power were made a matter of contract, instead of as heretofore a series of uncertain and arbitrary exactions dependent upon the respective means of coercion and resistance.
Peshwa’s Share in Káthiáváḍa.Seven years of the lease granted to the Gáikwár in 1804 by the Peshwa still remained unexpired and during at least six of these
The Maráthás, a.d. 1760–1819.
Peshwa’s Share in Káthiáváḍa. the arrangements that had been made about the Káthiáváḍa tribute do not seem to have been officially communicated to the Peshwa’s government. It was not until 1815, when the Resident at Poona was trying to procure the renewal of the lease for the Gáikwár, that an account of the settlement was drawn up in a draft agreement which the Resident submitted to Bájiráv. In this draft the curious mistake was made of mentioning the settlement instead of only the security bond as decennial. The Peshwa, whose policy was to protract negotiations, submitted in his turn a second draft which he said he was willing to sign. In this he seized at once on the supposition that the tribute was fixed only for ten years and stipulated for an increase at the expiration of that period. He also demanded that certain extra collections should be refunded by the Gáikwár, and assumed the British Government to have become security for the tribute owed by the chiefs to his own government.
It was evident that no accord would be reached on the lines of either of these draft agreements as they stood. Before others were prepared, Gangádhar Shástri had been murdered and the treaty of June 1817 was a completed act, leaving further negotiations unnecessary.
Later Arrangements.Meanwhile the tribute since the expiry of the farm of 1804 had been collected by a joint British and Gáikwár expedition, for it was found that partly from their own disputes and partly owing to the instigation of the agents of Bájiráv, the chiefs were little disposed to act up to the engagements of 1807, either with respect to tribute or good conduct. The Peshwa, whose interference in the affairs of the peninsula had been constantly discouraged, declined to trouble himself to collect the tribute, the responsibility of which he asserted rested entirely upon the British and Gáikwár governments. He subsequently ceded the tribute to the British Government on account of military expenses. After his fall in 1819 his territories, including the rights in Gujarát, fell to the British Government, and in 1820 the Gáikwár arranged that the whole of the Káthiáváḍa tribute, except that due from the districts directly subordinate to Baroda, should be collected by the agency of the British.
The Mahi Kántha.Turning to the events on the mainland, we find that soon after Colonel Walker’s return from the Káthiáváḍa expedition, he introduced the Káthiáváḍa tribute system into the Mahi Kántha, in spite of the opposition of Sitárám Rávji and the anti-English party in the Darbár.