« PreviousContinue »
Bijapuri camp outside Panhala and help in the bombardment of the fort,“ tossing balls with a flag that was known to be the English's.”
Shivaji punished this breach of neutrality in December next, when he surprised Rajapur, plundered the English factory, and carried off four of the factors-Henry Reviogton, Richar1 Taylor, Randolph Taylor and Philip Gyffard-as prisoners, first to
. Waisati, then to Songarh, a fort three miles north-west of Mahad. fin the Kolaba district) and finally to Raigarh.
At Rajapnry.the Brahman agent of Shivaji told the prisoners. that his master would give the English a fine port named Meate Bandar, * on the coast, if they helped him in taking Danda Raj-puri; but they declined to " discourse about it" unless he set them free. Then Shivaji laid a ransom on the captives, and sent them to Waisati fort. Many other persons-Hindu merchants (banians), Indian Muslims, Persians and Arabs were kept there in his prison in a miserable plight and beaten to extort ransoin.
The Englishmen steadily refused to pay any ransom and tried to secure their liberty by feigned negotiations for helping the Marathas with English ships in capturing Danda Rajpuri, but: taking care to impose such ter.as as always left the Eaglish "a hole to creep out of their obligation" after recovering liberty. Then they tried the effect of threat by saying that if they wero not released their countrymen at Surat would grant Aurangzib's: desire by transporting a Mughal arıny into the Deccan [i.e., the. Konkan district] by sea. (Orme MSS., Vol. 155, pages 1-21,
: letter from the English prisɔners at Songarh, 28 June 1661.)
Raoji Pandit had been sent by Shivaji to take charge of all. the prisoners in Sonyarh and “do with them as he thought fit.” The four Englishmen were well treated. But their
. captivity was prolonged past endurance. To the demand for
Meate Bandar is not the nawe of a plac', but a general term for salt-ports, it being a compound of the Marathi word mith, At, salt, and Persian bandar, port. The term occurs in old Marathi letters, (Vide Rajwado's Marathanche Hiha. Sadhane, VIII. 22, and Mavjoe and Paraspis's Sanadpetrantil Jahiti 87.)
ransom they replied that they could pay nothing, having lost their all in the sack of Rajapar. Shivaji's absence on an expedition near Kalian (June 1661) also delayed the progress of negotiations about an alliance with the English against the Siddis. The "discorsolate prisoners in Raigırh,” after more than a year's confinement, lost their temper and wrote in disrespectful and abusive terms to the President and Council at Surat, charging the latter with making exertion for their release. The reply of the Surat Council was a stern but well-merited rebuke (dated 10th March 1662): “How you came in prison you know very well. 'Twas not for defending the Company's goods, 'twas for going to the siege of Panhala and tossing balls with a flag that was known to be the English’s. None but what is ) rehearsed is the cause of your imprisonment.” (Ibid, also Surat to the Prisoners in Rairi castle, 10 March 1662, F. K. Surat, Vol. 85).
It seems that the four Englishmen made an attempt to escape from Songarh, but were caught and sent off to Raigarh to be kept in “ closer confinement.” Towards the middle of 1662, when
. tlreir captivity had lasted a year and a half, the Council at Surat, finding all appeals to Shivaji and his suzerain fruitless, commissioned some of the English ships to make reprisals by capiuring on the bigh seas Deccani vessels, whether belonging to the king of Bijapur or Shivaji or any merchant of the country, especially the one bringing the Dowager Queen Bari Sahiba back from Mecca. They hoped that such a success would compel the Bijapur Governinent to put pressure on Shivaji to release the English men. But no good prize offered itself to the English privateurs. The Surat Council also influenced the Mughal governor of Surat to write to Shaista Khan, who was then reported to be pressing Shivaji hard (about November 1662), to importune him to move for their release. (Surat to R. Taylor, 17 May 1662, P. R. Surat, Vol. 85 ; Surat Consult., 21 July, F. R. Surat, Vol. 2, also under 21st July, 19th August and 14th November in Vol. 85.)
On 3rd February 1663, the Council commissioned the captain of H.M.S. Convertite to capture two vessels of considerable burden which Shivaji was fitting out at Jaitapur for Mooha and loading with "such goods as were driven by storms upon his coast, which was of considerable value.” (F. R. Surat, Vol. 2.) But such a step became unnecessary, as Raoji Pandit, the Marathi governor of Rajapur, sent for the four captives from Rajgarh and set them free (about 5th February) with solemn assurances from Shivaji that the English would enjoy his protection in future. (Rajapur to Surat, 6th February 1663, in F.R. Surat, Vol. 103.) The Council at Surat say that they “ had desisted from calling that
calling that perfidious rebel Shivaji to an account, because they had not either conveniency of force or time.” They were still resolved to avenge the wrong done to their masters' property and the sufferings of their "loving brethren,” but sadly realized that "az yet we are altogether
as uncapable for want of shipping and men necessary for such an enterprise, wherefore patience.” (Surat Council to R. Taylor, 9 October 1663, in F. R. Surat, Vol. 2.)
Therefore, instead of resorting to force, they began negotiations with Shivaji for compensation for the loss done to their factory at Rajapur. These were protracted for many years till the hearts of the Englishmen grew sick. Even when Shivaji agreed as to the amount of damages and admitted his liability for it, the actual payment was repeatedly put off and never fully carried out. With the help of the Factory Records preserved in the India Office, London, we can clearly trace the history of these negotiations through their successive stages, the alternate hopes and disappointments of the English, their diverse tactics, their series of embassies, and their final conviction, at the close of Shivaji's life, that they would get uothing at all from him. The records of this long-drawn diplomatic intercourse afford striking examples of the perseverance and patience of the English traders, though one is apt to smile when he reads how they held diametrically opposite views of Shivaji's character and feelings at diferent stazos of the negotiations, as they hoped or despaired of a settlement of their claims. Our psychology is naturally coloured by our emotions.
Shivaji's encounter with the English during his two raids on Surat (in 1664 and 1670) and the dispate between them in connection with his fortification of the Khanderi island have been kept out of the present paper, wbich deals with the South Konkan and Kanara factories only.
The policy of the English traders is thus clearly set forth in a letter from the Deputy Governor and Council of Bombay to the President and Council of Surat, dated 25th November 1668 :
According to your commands, we shall at convenient time enorder such as we employ to treat Shivaji's servants civilly wherever they meet them, but not to enter into any contract with them, letting them know the great damage the Hon'ble Company hath suffered and the abuses offered to our people on several occasions, for which we expect satisfaction and reparation before we enter into any league with their master,-all of which, we suppose, will come to his ears by one or more of his servants, though we are not of opinion that ever he will be brought to a peaceable treaty till he be forced to it.” (F. R. Surat, Vol. 105.)
In a letter from the same to the same, dated 17 March 1669, we read, "Shivaji Raja having by his servants requested a favour of no great import, not exceeding Rs. 300, ... we ... having much occasion for a good correspondence with his people on the main [-land] from whence most of provisions come hither, and wood [i.e., fuel] in special, (which is not to be had other where), we were the more ready to gratify Shivaji Raja.” (Ibid.)
On 5th March 167C, the President and Council at Surat instruct the Deputy Governor of Bombay thus : broke out between Shivaji and the Mughal hath put a check to
a some overtures which were made to the President of an accommodation with Shivaji touching the Company's demands on him; but we hope they will yet go forward, ... but we would not have
« The war
you appear too forward lest you undervalue our pretence [= lawful claim] and make him cool.” (F. R. Surat, Vol. 3.)
In October Shivaji tried to put the English of Bombay in distress, evidently because they refused to sell him war material (esp. lead) for his contest with the Siddi of Danda-Rajpari. Bombay writes to Surat on 14 October 1679 : “A few days since we, as usually, sent our boats to the main (-land) for wood to burn our chunam with ; but ... our boats returned, empty being forbid by Shivaji's people to cut any more wood in those parts." (F. R. Surat, 105.) On 12 August 1671 Bombay writes to Surat, "The Deputy Governor [of Bombay] received an answer from Shivaji,...by which your Honour, etc., will see how he slights our friendship.” (Ibid.)
But in September 1671 Shivaji sent an ambassador to Bombay to treat with the English. Shivaji's chief motive was to secure English aid against Danda-Rajpuri, especially a supply of “grenadoes, mortar-pieces and ammunition”. The Bombay Council immediately realized that unless he obtained these war materials be" would not pay a penny" of compensation for the loot of their factory at Rajapur. The President of Surat sent the following instructions to the factors at Bombay : “Let him know that if he gives us such encouragement that we settle in his port, he may obtain from us those advantages that other nations do in whose ports we trade. But we would not positively bave them ( the English representatives in these negotiations) promise hi:n those grenadoes, mortar-pieces and ammunition he desires, nor absolutely deny him, in regard we do not think it convenient to help him against Dunda-Rajpuri, which place if it were in his possession, would prove a great annoyance to the port of Bombay ; and on the other side, our denial is not consistent at present with our interest, in respect we believe the keeping in suspense will bring him to a speedier conclusion of the treaty, hoping thereby to be furnished with those things he desires. ( F. R. Surat 87.)
The negotiations, as might have been expected from the diverse aims of the two parties, could not possibly end in an