Introductory - Global Sikh Studies

221
of a Maratha national state. But, this idea of Maratha nationalism
was circumscribed by feudal concepts of those times. His Hindevi
Swarajya was never conceived as divorced from himself and his
descendents being its monarchs. When Shivaji was at his death bed,
there was a proposal to divide his kingdom between his sons to which
his elder son Santaji did not agree. 36 In other words, Shivaji’s Swarajya
was regarded as his personal property and that of his descendents
which could be divided. After Shivaji, only his descendents ascended
the throne although some of them were unworthy. Shivaji ‘was a
through autocrat, and although he freely sought advice from his
ministers, he as often overruled their advice and dictated his own
measures as he often overruled their advice and dictated his own
measures as he thought best.’ 37 ‘The Ashta Pradhans, being virtually
set aside, ceased to bear the responsibility of rule in Sambhaji’s time.’ 38
The Peshwas concentrated the whole of political power in their own
hands. ‘They were their own generals, their own finance ministers,
and foreign ministers also.’ 39 The office of the Peshwa also became
hereditary and ‘the Swarajya of Shivaji came to be transformed into
the Swarajya of the Peshwas.’ 40
There cannot be any comparison between the Maratha movement
and the Sikh movement in the Khalsa period which aimed at capturing
political power for plebian ends. There was no room in it for Jagirdari
or monarchy. The Guru had bestowed leadership on the Khalsa as a
whole. The Tat Khalsa parted company with Banda when he aspired
to become a sovereign. We have already seen how a special convention
was held to withdraw the coin struck in the personal name of Jassa
Singh. 41 It was no casual reaction. It was a deliberate corporate decision
to curb the tendency towards supreme personal authority rearing its
head.
However, feudalism did raise its head in the post-Khalsa period.
We are not dealing with this period, but we should like to make the
point that even this feudalism was somewhat different from the Rajput
or the Maratha feudalism, both in content and form. The Rajput polity
was feudalistic, pure and simple. The Maratha movement was from
the very beginning a marriage between regional nationalism and
feudalism. In the case of the Sikh Missals and Ranjit Singh, feudalism
entered through the back-door of the revolution. This caused
differences of degree and form.