________________
102
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
MISCELLANEA.
TIPU SULTAN'S LETTERS AT SRINGERİ.
|
The gabours of Mr. R. Narasimhachar, Officer in charge of Archaeological Researches in Mysore, have recently been rewarded with the discovery of some letters of Tipu Sultan, in the Sringeri Matha of Sri-3akaracharya, that shed a new light upon the character of the last Sultan of Mysore (ante, 1917, p. 136). Their purport, however, is apparent. ly so incredible and contrary to all accepted views that we would certainly hesitate to accept them as genuine, had not other materials from quite an unexpected quarter been available, for their confirmation. The Svami of Sringeri was generally styled as the Peshwa's guru; religious and social questions were often referred to him for decision by the Peshwas; to them the lineal successor of Bri-Sankaracharya was almost a semi-divinity--a Pope, an exponent of divine will. Yet these letters tell us that a Mahratta army, under the command cf a Brahman general, Paréurâm Bhau Patwardhan, had ruthlessly plundered the temple and village and carried their sacrilege so far as to break and defile the image of the goddess Sârada. All these details, however, are confirmed by two letters written from the Mahratta Camp. Both of these have been published in the 9th volume of Mr. V. V. Khare's Aitinasik Lekha-Sangraha, but an English translation may here be added, for those who are not acquainted with Marathi. The first of these was dated the 23rd of April, 1791, and was addressod to Bala Saheb at Miraj. Nilkanth Appaji, the correspondent of Bâlâ Saheb, writes: "The Lamans and the Pondhåris went from the army of Rajeri Dada Saheb, plundered the temple of Sringerlkar Svami and took elephants and other property worth about a lac of rupees. They brought these things, yesterday, to a place, about a kos from this camp, and some of our people went there and saw them. Thereupon, a letter has been addressed to Dada Saheb, about their confiscation." This letter, written just after the incident, omits all its horrible details: but the second correspon. dent, who wrote about a month later (the 14th of May), gives a more minute description. Trimbak Rav Ballal wrote to Balasaheb: "Before the army crossed the Tuigabhadra the Lamâns and the Pendharia had gone towards ŝivamoghe. They plundered the Svami's village of Sringeri. They looted the Svami's belongings, including his Danda and Kamandalu and left nothing. Women were violated and acme of them committed suicide. The Devalinga and other images belonging to the
[JUNE, 1910
Svant were plundered. The Lamáns took away all his elephants. The Svâmi fasted for five days and died.
"When the Elder (f = Parsurâm Khâu
Patwardhan) learnt this news, he sent some horsemen, arrested the Lamaps and recovered the elephants. Besides this, not a Rupee worth of thing
was found."
Whether these elephants were restored to the Sväri, we do not know; but the Svami proceeded to the Peshwa's Court at Poona, with a petition for the recovery of nis lost property. Mr. Khare, to whom we are indebted for the publication of the above letters, however, argues that Partyrâm Bhau Patwardhan should not be blamed for the deeds of professional plunderers, over whom In fact, he could exercise but a feebie control. the Dâdâsaheb, to whose army these offenders. were attached, claimed sole jurisdiction over them, and the miscreants were suffered to escape unpunished. Though I am well aware of the great weight that Mr. Khare's name will always lend to the view he supports, I think we cannot so easily absolve Parsuram Bhau from the crime of sacrilege and plunder. For these Pendharis were not independent free-booters, but they formed an integral part of the Mahratta army. Moreover, their deeds were legalised by the tacit sanction of the State, for they were granted license in consi. deration of a tax called Pâl Patil or tent dues This tax was rated at 25 per cent. of their plunder, and the State therefore directly participated in their misdeeds, by sharing with them their illearned income. We should also remember that Dâdà Saheb (Raghunath Râv Kurundwalkar), the officer directly responsible for protecting the offenders, was not a rival of Pariurâm. On the contrary, he was a friend, to whom the command of the Patwardhan forces had been entrusted, after the withdrawal of Parsuram Bhau to his Jagir during the late war against Tipu. Perhaps the Pendhâris were on this occasion allowed unbridled license, and the reason will be found in the following remark made by Moore,-in his narrative of Captain Little's Detachment: The mutual acts of plunder and devastations now committed by the Mysoreans and the Mahrattas, proceed solely from a personal hatred and detestation between Purseram Bhow and the Sultan, and perhaps there are no two men existing who more mortally hated each other. Tippoo, it is said, either by his own hand or direction was the immediate cause of the
*
