Indian Antiquary Vol 50

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 66

56
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(FEB., 1921
shoulders to extreme anguish," betrays a good deal of humour but is evidently untrustworthy. Even Khafi Khan who delighted in abusing Shivaji, gave him credit for the respect he had usually shown to holy places and holy men of both the Hindus and the Muhammadans. Mannucci's Storia Do Mogor, another contemporary work, has been translated into
English by a great scholar, the late Mr. Irvine. The gossiping Mannucci.
adventurer, however, had little regard for truth, and loved to give anecdotes in which he himself figured. He claims to have met Shivaji in Jai Singh's camp, but unlike most Eurcpean writers, refrains from giving any account of his dominions, his people and government. Robert Orme wrote his fragments long after Shivaji's death. But all that he learnt
of the great Maratha ruler was nothing but popular legends. These Orme's Fragments were reproduced by John Bruce, Esq., M.P. and F.R.S., keeper of
His Majesty's State-papers and historiographer to the Hon'ble East India Company, in his Annals of the Hon'ble East India Company. Both Orme and Bruce failed to give any account of the administrative system of Shivaji, What their version of political history is worth will be evident from the following account of the night attack on Shaista Khan:
"In the next campaign Aurungzebe reinforced Chaest-Chan's army by sending
the forces of the Maha-Rajah of Joudpore to join him. These generals were at variance with each other the Maha-Rajah, to gratify Sevagee, undertook to assassinate Chaest ;-the murderers broke in on Chaest, who
escaped with a severe wound; but his son was slain."-BRUCE, Vol. II, p. 39. The most important English work from our point of view is Major Jervis' Geographi.
cal and Statistical memoir of the Konkun. A junior contemporary of Jorvis'. Konkan.
OLAN. Elphinstore, the work of surveyirg Konkan was entrusted to him. While so er gaged, he gathered valuable information about Land Revenue settlement, in all probability, mainly, from popular traditions. He tells us many things about Malik Ambar's and Shivaji's Land Revenue Settlement, Annoji Datto's Survey and Assessment, but never quotes any authority. It is therefore extremely difficult, or rather impossible, to verifv his assertions. Hitherto I have come across only one Marathi Document (Rajwade, M.1.8., vol. xv), a circular of Annaji Datto, that supports Jervis' account of the Bighaoni survey. But this does not improve our situation much. We can without much hesitation accept Elphinstone's account of the Administrative System of the Peshwas or Sir John Malcolm's account of the Administrative System of the Central Indian ohjefs. For both of them had personal acquaintance with men who had served under the Peshwas and the Maratha and Rajput Chiefs of Central India, who could give them first hand information. But the case of Jervis is altogether different. He lived and wrote about two centuries after Shivaji. Most of the old documents were yet unknown in his time, and he had to rely mainly upon popular traditions transmitted from generation to generation. Consequently it is extremely
difficult either to acoept or to reject the views of Jervis. The writer anottoor of the Bombay Gazetteer, however, has accepted Jervis, as the sole authority on the subject.