Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Chauth

Chauth, from the term denoting one-fourth, constituted a tribute equivalent to 25% of the revenue or produce extracted by the from territories outside direct Maratha control, primarily Mughal-held provinces in the Deccan and neighboring states. Originating under Bhonsle in the mid-17th century, it functioned as a demanded in for forgoing raids, with non-payment prompting Maratha incursions to enforce collection. This levy, often paired with sardeshmukhi—an extra 10% asserting Maratha overlordship—evolved from ad hoc exactions into a formalized system by the early , pivotal to financing the confederacy's military apparatus and territorial ambitions. Under Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath, the 1719 treaty with Mughal emperor conceded chauth rights over the six Deccan subahs (provinces) of , Berar, , , Ellichpur, and , marking a diplomatic triumph that legitimized Maratha fiscal claims amid declining authority. Subsequent Peshwas like Baji Rao I expanded its scope northward and eastward, applying it to , , and , which generated substantial funds—estimated at millions of rupees annually—to support cavalry-heavy campaigns that eroded suzerainty and reshaped power dynamics in the subcontinent. Enforcement relied on swift, mobile raiding parties, underscoring the Marathas' prowess rather than sustained occupation. While enabling Maratha resurgence post-Shivaji, chauth provoked resistance from governors, local zamindars, and affected peasantry, who viewed it as coercive extraction amid overlapping tax demands, fueling cycles of until the confederacy's internal fractures post-Panipat (1761). Its instrumental role in , however, highlights a pragmatic of pre-existing mechanisms, prioritizing generation through credible threats of force over ideological conquest.

Definition and Purpose

Etymology and Core Concept

The term chauth derives from the word chaturtha, meaning "one-fourth," reflecting its structure as a equivalent to 25% of a territory's or . This etymological basis is evident in Maratha administrative terminology, where chauthai denoted the proportional extraction, often applied to kharif () and rabi (winter) crop yields or estimated fiscal output. Conceptually, chauth functioned as a system wherein Maratha forces demanded one-fourth of the land revenue from regions under nominal or independent principalities, ostensibly in exchange for protection against external aggression and raids. Non-payment typically triggered bargi expeditions—swift incursions aimed at plunder and —transforming the levy into a extortion mechanism to fund Maratha military expansion without full territorial . This core rationale emphasized defensive alliances over outright subjugation, allowing payers to retain while subsidizing Maratha operations, though enforcement often blurred into predatory warfare.

Intended Role as Protection Tribute

Chauth was levied at a rate of one-fourth (25%) of the assessed land revenue from territories not under direct Maratha administration, framed explicitly as a for against invasions and raids. This payment was intended to secure non-aggression pacts with Maratha forces, who positioned themselves as guarantors of regional stability amid threats from the and . In exchange, payers received assurances of defense, including the deployment of Maratha troops to deter or repel external aggressors, particularly during the late 17th-century campaigns in the Deccan under . The mechanism drew from pre-existing practices in the region, where weaker polities compensated stronger military powers for safeguarding trade routes and agricultural lands. Shivaji Maharaj formalized chauth around 1655–1660 during his conflicts with the of , demanding it from adjacent districts as remuneration for forgoing plunder and providing auxiliary forces against shared foes. Proponents of the levy, including Maratha chroniclers, argued it compensated for the opportunity costs of restraint, as Maratha horsemen could otherwise extract the full revenue through mulkgiri (raiding expeditions). Non-payment, however, typically triggered enforcement raids, underscoring the tribute's coercive undertones despite its protective rationale. Over time, chauth evolved into a hereditary right claimed by Maratha sardars, with the intended protection extending to states' internal security and border defense. For instance, agreements with governors in the Deccan provinces (post-1707) stipulated chauth as a for Maratha non-interference and against rebellious zamindars or rival claimants. This role distinguished chauth from standard taxation, as it was not tied to direct governance but to contractual military services, though empirical records from Maratha vakil (agents) reports indicate frequent lapses where protection was withheld pending full tribute delivery.

Historical Origins

Shivaji's Introduction in the Deccan

Shivaji Maharaj, born in 1630 at in the Deccan, began consolidating Maratha power against the Adil Shahi Sultanate of Bijapur and encroachments in the region during the 1640s and 1650s. Following early conquests such as in 1646 and Javli in 1655, which secured his base in the western Deccan ghats, Shivaji shifted from outright plunder to structured tribute extraction to sustain his expanding forces without overextending administrative control. By 1657, he introduced Chauth as a war tax equivalent to one-fourth of the land revenue, initially imposed on territories in the Deccan during raids like the sack of in Ahmednagar province, framing it as payment for protection against further Maratha incursions. This levy targeted vulnerable border areas, allowing Shivaji to weaken adversaries economically while funding campaigns, as evidenced by collections in regions like Chamargunda and that year. The practice gained traction amid Shivaji's conflicts with , whose forces he decisively repelled, such as the defeat of Afzal Khan in 1659 at . Rather than annexing distant Deccan territories, Shivaji extended Chauth demands to Bijapuri uplands and fringes, as formalized in negotiations like the 1665 with general Jai Singh, which conditionally granted him revenue rights—including Chauth equivalents—from specified Bijapur lands yielding around 9 lakhs of hun in installments. By 1670, systematic collections occurred in Deccan locales such as Karinja, , Berar, and Baglana, where locals paid one-fourth of revenue to avert raids, reflecting Shivaji's strategy of coercive diplomacy. This approach, justified by claims of hereditary sardeshmukhi (overlordship) rights over Deccan revenues, transformed sporadic looting into a predictable fiscal tool, amassing funds for fort maintenance and without direct governance burdens. Shivaji's Deccan-focused application of Chauth peaked in the 1670s, exemplified by the 1675 annexation of South Konkan and North Kanara, where the of Bednur agreed to annual tributes akin to Chauth for protection. Alliances, such as his 1677 pact with Abul Hasan against Mughals, further embedded the levy in Deccan interstate relations, extracting resources from sultanate peripheries during Karnatak expeditions that yielded up to 20 lakhs of hurt annually from areas like Jinji and . Unlike internal Maratha revenues, Chauth emphasized extraterritorial , enabling to control over 240 forts by 1680 while preserving mobility against larger empires, though its legitimacy rested on military deterrence rather than legal precedent. This innovation laid the groundwork for Maratha fiscal expansion beyond the Deccan core. Shivaji positioned chauth as a legitimate equivalent to one-fourth of a district's , justified legally as compensation for military protection against external threats and exemption from Maratha incursions themselves. This rationale framed the as a contractual safeguard, where payers secured defense services from Maratha forces, reflecting a pragmatic of medieval under which dominant powers extracted tributes for or passage rights. The legal foundation rested on Shivaji's emerging and overlordship claims, often secured through conquests or diplomatic agreements, such as the peace treaty with Bijapur's Sultan , which explicitly granted collection rights over Deccan territories. Historians interpret this variably: as a protective measure against third-party invasions per R.V. Ranade, a tribute from subjugated areas per G.S. Sardesai, or a means to avert aggression per , but all emphasize its tie to Shivaji's military authority rather than abstract legal precedents. Hereditary justifications intertwined chauth with sardeshmukhi, an additional 10% levy asserted based on his family's longstanding tradition as hereditary tax overseers and paramount sardars of , lending ancestral legitimacy to the combined system. While chauth originated as 's strategic innovation for funding expeditions, its pairing with hereditary overlordship claims ensured its transmission as an inherited right to successors, embedding it within Maratha dynastic fiscal prerogatives despite lacking formal imperial sanction during his lifetime.

Collection Mechanisms

Revenue Assessment and Rates

Chauth revenue was assessed as one-fourth of the standard land , known as mal or jama, derived from the official or revised jamabandi (settled assessment) of the targeted territories, which primarily encompassed agricultural produce yields estimated through local surveys and records. This method leveraged existing Mughal or provincial administrative frameworks to estimate the total potential without requiring Maratha officials to conduct independent cadastral surveys in most cases, though revisions occurred to reflect updated yields or disputes. Non-agricultural extras, termed siwai (such as or miscellaneous levies), were explicitly excluded from the base to focus solely on core land . The fixed rate for Chauth stood at 25%, equivalent to one-fourth of the assessed mal, a proportion rooted in the term's etymological meaning and applied consistently across Maratha claims from Shivaji's era onward. In practice, this yielded specific figures tied to pargana-level assessments; for example, in the Mughal Deccan province of Pargana Wadhun, Chauth amounted to 131 rupees and 8 from a mal base of 394 rupees and 4 annas.
Territory ExampleBase Mal (Rupees/Annas)Chauth Amount (Rupees/Annas)Rate Applied
Pargana Wadhun394/4131/825% of
While the nominal rate remained uniform, actual collection could involve negotiations or coercive adjustments based on the payer's capacity or Maratha leverage, though historical records emphasize adherence to the one-fourth standard to legitimize claims as protective rather than arbitrary plunder. In territories, assessment often drew from tankhwah (full assignment) figures allocated to jagirdars, enabling Marathas to appoint intermediaries like mokasadars for without disrupting core collections. Until around 1722, revenue officials frequently deducted the Chauth share before remitting balances to the imperial treasury, streamlining the process.

Administrative Processes and Enforcement

The administration of Chauth relied on the deputation of Maratha sardars and specialized agents, such as mokasadars and naib-sardeshmukhs, to oversee collection in designated territories, often dividing regions into zones and parganas for localized management. These officials, appointed by central figures like the or , conducted assessments through jamabandi processes, which involved estimating standard land (jama) for rabi and kharif harvests to calculate the 25% , excluding extra collections like siwai. In the Deccan subahs, for instance, the total assessed across six provinces reached Rs. 18,517,291, forming the basis for Chauth demands. Collection methods evolved from direct extraction by Maratha agents, who retained two-thirds of proceeds to maintain their troops, to hybrid arrangements where local Mughal revenue officers deducted Chauth shares before remitting balances, particularly after 1727 in areas like . Agents like tahsildars, amins, amils, karoris, and shiqqdars handled on-ground assessments and gathering, often coordinating with provincial diwans or jagirdars during harvest seasons to ensure timely payments. Levies were frequently assigned as saranjam to chiefs, incentivizing efficient through personal stakes in the yields. Enforcement emphasized military deterrence, with sih-bandi units deployed to secure collections and conduct raids on resistant territories or jagirdars, as exemplified by actions against figures like Amin Khan Deccani in the 1720s–1740s. Non-compliance triggered punitive expeditions or bargi raids, which pressured payers by demonstrating the costs of refusal, while formal sanads from emperors and treaties—such as the 1784 Treaty of —codified obligations and resolved disputes through arbitration when raids proved insufficient. This approach placed primary responsibility on sardars for both recovery and accountability, blending fiscal extraction with ongoing military readiness.

Relation to Sardeshmukhi

Definition and Addition to Chauth

Sardeshmukhi was a tax amounting to one-tenth of the land revenue, asserted by the Marathas as their hereditary right over Deccan territories where they claimed paramountcy as sardeshmukh, or overlord of subordinate chiefs. This levy originated under Shivaji in the mid-17th century, alongside chauth, to fund military expeditions while reinforcing Maratha suzerainty over regions nominally under Mughal control. As an addition to chauth, sardeshmukhi increased the total extraction to roughly 35% of revenue: 25% for chauth as protection against raids, plus 10% for sardeshmukhi reserved for the Maratha . In practice, the two were frequently bundled for collection by Maratha agents or assignees, with sardeshmukhi proceeds directed to the rather than divided among military leaders as portions of chauth often were. This combined mechanism streamlined enforcement, enabling systematic revenue from provinces like Berar and starting in the 1710s under agreements such as the 1719 farman. The fiscal logic emphasized causal links between tribute payment and territorial security, with non-compliance risking Maratha incursions; sardeshmukhi's overlay thus amplified chauth's deterrent effect without altering its core protective rationale. Historical records indicate this dual levy sustained Maratha expansion, yielding substantial funds—estimated in lakhs of rupees annually from key territories—while embedding claims of sovereignty.

Combined Fiscal Strategy

The combined levy of chauth and sardeshmukhi constituted a dual fiscal mechanism that extracted 35% of assessed land revenue—25% as chauth for nominal and an additional 10% as sardeshmukhi to affirm Maratha overlordship—primarily from Deccan territories under nominal control. This strategy, initiated by in the 1670s, juxtaposed chauth's coercive element, collected via threats of raids and assigned largely (three-quarters) to Maratha military sardars for operational funding, with sardeshmukhi's direct realization by the sovereign from peasants, circumventing intermediaries to assert hereditary primacy as sardeshmukh. The approach established a parallel revenue administration, where Maratha agents conducted independent assessments and enforcement, often integrating both taxes into a single demand to streamline collection and minimize resistance. This fiscal pairing enabled sustained military mobilization without full territorial annexation, as the steady inflows—estimated in the millions of rupees annually from key provinces like Berar and by the early —financed expansions and diplomatic maneuvers. By embedding sardeshmukhi within chauth collections, Marathas blurred tribute and claims, eroding Mughal fiscal monopoly while distributing proceeds to incentivize loyalty among revenue farmers and commanders. The system's efficacy hinged on mobility and intimidation, with non-payment triggering punitive expeditions, though it occasionally devolved into outright when assessments exceeded nominal rates. Under later Peshwas, this strategy scaled nationally via imperial farmans, such as the 1719 grant conceding Deccan chauth rights, transforming levies into institutionalized empire-building tools.

Expansion and Implementation

Early Maratha Campaigns Against Mughals

Shivaji Bhosale initiated Maratha campaigns against territories in 1657, with forces raiding areas near and plundering , marking the shift from localized Bijapuri conflicts to direct confrontation with imperial authority. These operations relied on mobility and surprise, capturing outposts and disrupting supply lines to assert Maratha presence in the , where subahdars struggled to respond effectively due to overstretched garrisons. The 1664 sack of Surat exemplified the economic dimension of these campaigns, as Shivaji's 4,000 cavalrymen overwhelmed the port's defenses on January 5, looting treasuries, merchant warehouses, and factories for an estimated one rupees in , silver, pearls, and textiles over three days. A second raid in October 1670 yielded additional wealth, approximately 6.6 million rupees, bypassing fortified enclaves while devastating local revenue sources. These incursions pressured officials to negotiate tribute, evolving plunder into demands for chauth—one-quarter of assessed revenue—as protection against recurrence, with non-payment prompting renewed raids. Mughal records, including a waqia entry dated , 1671, document 's enforcement of chauth collections from provinces like , where officials like Abdulla Khan Shirazi complied under threat of invasion to preserve . This mechanism, rooted in Maratha claims to oversight as Deccan guardians, sustained military logistics amid ongoing skirmishes, enabling to fortify his position before the 1665 temporarily curbed expansions. By 1674, post-coronation raids into reinforced chauth as a fiscal , funding resistance even as escalated counter-campaigns.

Formal Treaties and Mughal Concessions

In 1719, Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath, acting on behalf of Chhatrapati Shahu, negotiated a treaty with the —powerful kingmakers—who secured concessions from Emperor amid the empire's internal turmoil following Aurangzeb's death. The agreement recognized Shahu's sovereignty over the Maratha swarajya (self-rule territories) and granted the Marathas the imperial farman () to collect chauth—25 percent of the land revenue—and sardeshmukhi—an additional 10 percent levy—from six Deccan subahs (provinces) under administration: Aurangabad, Berar, Bidar, Bijapur, Golconda, and Khandesh. These rights extended to -held areas south of the , excluding initial claims on Malwa and Gujarat. In return, the Marathas committed to maintaining 15,000 troops at the emperor's disposal for military campaigns and to preserving within the Deccan provinces to prevent raids on territories. The treaty also stipulated an annual payment of 10 rupees to the imperial treasury, though enforcement of this obligation remained inconsistent. As part of the concessions, authorities released Yesubai, Shahu's mother, from captivity in , along with other Maratha prisoners, symbolizing a partial reconciliation after decades of conflict. This formal endorsement shifted chauth from a coercive wartime levy—originally justified by as protection money against plunder—to a legally sanctioned , enabling the Marathas to allocate collections systematically: 25 percent as royal share (babti), 66 percent to chiefs for troop maintenance (mokasa), and smaller portions for administrative roles. The bolstered Maratha fiscal stability by distributing collection among key sardars (commanders), laying groundwork for confederate , though it faced from provincial governors like Nizam-ul-Mulk, necessitating subsequent enforcement. Ratified amid a palace revolution that deposed shortly after, the treaty's terms endured under successors like [Rafi ud-Darajat](/page/Rafi ud-Darajat), marking a pragmatic acknowledgment of Maratha dominance in the Deccan.

Peshwa-Era Extensions to Broader India

During the Peshwa Rao I's leadership from to , Maratha forces systematically extended chauth collection into through targeted military campaigns, beginning with the first organized assertion of claims in 1723. This initiative challenged governance in the region, with Maratha cavalry raids disrupting revenue flows to and establishing control over tribute extraction. By June 1725, victories over forces led by Girdhar Bahadur at battles in solidified these gains, allowing annual chauth yields estimated at 22 lakh rupees from the suba's revenues. Parallel expansions targeted , where Baji Rao coordinated invasions involving key sardars such as the Scindias and Gaekwads, penetrating and en route to secure chauth rights by the early 1730s. These operations leveraged rapid mobility to overwhelm local appointees, transitioning from sporadic raids to structured revenue demands equivalent to one-fourth of provincial yields. concessions formalized this via royal farmans granting chauth and sardeshmukhi over both and , acknowledging Maratha suzerainty in exchange for nominal allegiance to the emperor. Under subsequent Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao (1740–1761), the practice reached eastern provinces like Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa through campaigns nominally under Maratha confederacy oversight, though executed by Nagpur's Bhonsle forces starting in 1741. Nawab Alivardi Khan, facing repeated incursions totaling six major raids by 1751, agreed to annual payments of 20 lakh rupees as tribute framed as chauth to halt devastation, with initial lump sums reaching 2 crore rupees in 1743 to cover arrears. These arrangements integrated eastern wealth into Maratha fiscal networks, though enforcement relied on periodic threats rather than permanent administration, reflecting the opportunistic scaling of chauth amid weakening Mughal and regional authority. By mid-century, such extensions spanned from the Deccan to the Bay of Bengal, amassing revenues that sustained the confederacy's pan-Indian ambitions.

Strategic and Economic Role

Funding Maratha Military Operations

The chauth, levied at one-fourth of the revenue or produce from tributary territories, constituted a vital financial pillar for sustaining the Maratha military apparatus, enabling the maintenance of standing armies and the execution of expansive campaigns. Under Shivaji, who formalized the practice in the 1670s, chauth collections from neighboring states like the Adil Shahi sultanate of Bijapur and Mughal provinces in the Deccan provided essential funds to support cavalry forces, fort garrisons, and infantry units, compensating for limited territorial revenues in the nascent Maratha swarajya. This revenue stream allowed Shivaji to pay cash salaries to soldiers rather than relying solely on land grants, fostering a professionalized military capable of rapid mobilization against superior foes. By the early 18th century, under the regency of the Peshwas, chauth expanded northward following the 1719 treaty with the Mughals, which granted Maratha rights to collect one-fourth of revenues from six Deccan provinces and extended claims to broader , yielding substantial sums estimated at millions of rupees annually by the 1730s. These funds directly financed large-scale expeditions, such as Baji Rao I's campaigns from 1720 to 1740, which involved thousands of horsemen traversing vast distances; for instance, chauth from and alone supported the upkeep of 40,000–50,000 , covering costs for , armament, and during offensives like the in 1737. Historians note that by 1740, chauth accounted for approximately 45% of total Maratha revenues, prioritizing military expenditures over administrative or infrastructural investments, thus perpetuating a warfare-driven . The system's efficiency in funding operations stemmed from its decentralized collection via senapati-led raiding parties, who secured payments in cash or kind to defray immediate campaign expenses, reducing dependency on central treasuries strained by sieges and defeats, such as those during the Mughal-Maratha War (1680–1707). Combined with sardeshmukhi (an additional 10%), chauth ensured liquidity for hiring mercenaries, including and gunners, and maintaining trains essential for later victories like the in 1761, though overreliance on such transient revenues contributed to fiscal vulnerabilities post-1761. Empirical assessments from Maratha records indicate that these levies covered up to 80% of military outlays in peak expansion phases, underscoring chauth's role as a pragmatic instrument of fiscal-military statecraft rather than mere predation.

Diplomatic Leverage in Statecraft

The collection of chauth—a equivalent to one-quarter of a territory's —functioned as a core element of Maratha diplomatic strategy, allowing leaders to extend influence through negotiated fiscal rights rather than outright . By framing chauth as payment for against raids or invasions, Maratha statesmen could alternate between and , compelling adversaries to concede rights via treaties that preserved nominal for payers while securing steady inflows for Maratha campaigns. This approach minimized administrative overhead, freeing resources for opportunistic expansions, and positioned chauth as a of in negotiations with satraps and regional potentates. A landmark instance occurred in 1719, when Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath exploited Maratha military support for the —kingmakers who installed Emperor —to obtain a farman confirming chauth and sardeshmukhi (an additional tenth of revenue) collection rights over the six Deccan subahs south of the , including and Berar. This concession, extracted amid Delhi's factional turmoil, legitimized Shahu Maharaj's claims under and provided Balaji with leverage to mediate internal Maratha disputes while projecting power northward. The arrangement underscored chauth's role in realigning alliances, as Marathas traded contingent loyalty for fiscal autonomy, though enforcement often hinged on renewed military demonstrations. Further exemplifying this leverage, Baji Rao I's victory at the on February 28, 1728, pressured —the Mughal viceroy asserting independence in —to sign the Treaty of Mungi-Shevgaon on March 6, 1728. Under its terms, the Nizam recognized Shahu's chhatrapati status, abandoned support for rival claimant Sambhaji II of Kolhapur, and yielded Maratha authority to levy chauth from Deccan territories, averting deeper conquest while binding the Nizam into uneasy coexistence. Such treaties transformed chauth into a deterrent mechanism, where default risked reprisals, enabling Peshwas to calibrate —offering exemptions or joint defense pacts to secure fronts against common foes like the Mughals or Afghans—thus sustaining Maratha preeminence amid fragmented polities.

Perspectives and Controversies

Criticisms as Extortionate Practice

Chauth was frequently enforced through the threat or execution of military raids, leading critics to characterize it as a form of extortion rather than legitimate taxation. Historians such as described chauth as revenue obtained via forceful extraction, where Maratha forces conducted swift bargir incursions into territories that withheld payment, resulting in plunder, violence, and economic disruption. This practice deviated from traditional fiscal systems by prioritizing coercion over administrative collection, as and subsequent Maratha leaders demanded the tribute prior to any raids but proceeded with devastation if refused. Contemporary accounts from affected regions underscored the extortionate nature of these demands. In , Maratha invasions beginning in November 1741 under Raghoji Bhonsle involved multiple raids through 1751, extracting chauth while inflicting atrocities such as the killing of civilians, destruction of crops, and disruption of trade, which Sarkar detailed as leaving the province in and severely harming its industries and commerce. Mughal officials and local nawabs viewed these expeditions not as sovereign rights but as predatory campaigns that weakened imperial control, with payments secured only after initial plundering. Rajput states faced similar pressures, exemplified by the case of Jaipur ruler Ishwari Singh, who committed by poison on December 12, 1750, amid mounting Maratha exactions for chauth that strained state finances and fueled internal conflicts. Sarkar attributed the ruler's despair directly to this relentless extortion, noting that Maratha forces subsequently entered on January 10, 1751, triggering riots, nine hours of slaughter, and widespread pillage by 4,000 troops. Such incidents highlighted how chauth demands often escalated into sieges or occupations, compelling rulers to divert revenues under duress rather than through negotiated governance. British colonial observers later reinforced these criticisms, with diplomat John Malcolm labeling chauth "feudal extortion" in his 1823 A Memoir of Central India, arguing it perpetuated arbitrary feudal burdens on agrarian economies. This perspective informed British policy, culminating in the abolition of chauth rights in princely states by 1818 as incompatible with centralized revenue systems. Overall, detractors emphasized that the system's reliance on military intimidation—rather than legal or customary authority—distinguished it from standard tribute mechanisms, fostering resentment among Hindu and Muslim rulers alike who paid to avert rather than reward Maratha protection.

Defenses as Pragmatic Necessity

The collection of chauth has been defended by historians as a pragmatic fiscal instrument indispensable to the Marathas' military viability in an era of incessant conflict and fiscal precarity. Emerging in the mid-17th century under , chauth—levied at one-quarter of a territory's —enabled the of a mobile force critical for guerrilla operations against the numerically superior armies, without requiring the Marathas to establish cumbersome administrative structures over distant lands. This approach addressed the causal imperative of warfare: armies demand constant remuneration, and the Marathas' early lack of fixed agrarian domains necessitated extractive mechanisms to sustain troop salaries and horse maintenance, averting disbandment amid campaigns like those against from 1680 to 1707. In a politically fragmented subcontinent marked by overextension and regional power vacuums post-1650s, chauth pragmatically substituted for outright , imposing lower extraction costs on payers while deterring raids that could devastate local economies far more severely. states, from Deccan principalities to northern provinces, effectively purchased respite from Maratha incursions, preserving their internal governance in exchange for periodic payments—a dynamic evidenced by treaties such as the 1719 agreement under , which formalized chauth rights over Deccan subahs to stabilize alliances and revenue flows. This system underpinned Maratha resilience, channeling funds into expansions that, by the 1730s under I, extended influence to the Gangetic plains, demonstrating its role in converting defensive necessities into offensive capabilities without overcommitting scarce resources to occupation. Critics overlooking this context fail to account for the empirical alternatives: unfinanced levies or conquests would have eroded Maratha cohesion, as seen in contemporaneous failures of revenue-starved foes like the . Chauth's efficiency—yielding substantial yields, such as estimates of 10-15 million rupees annually by the mid-18th century from key territories—thus reflected adaptive realism, prioritizing sustainable power projection over ideological purity in revenue collection.

Historiographical Debates

Historiographical assessments of Chauth have centered on its character as either a legitimate fiscal rooted in Maratha assertions of or a coercive mechanism akin to , with interpretations shaped by colonial and nationalist lenses. Colonial-era scholars, exemplified by in his 1826 History of the Mahrattas, depicted Chauth collection as emblematic of Maratha predatory tactics, portraying the polity as a loose reliant on raids (bargi) to enforce rather than sustained or . This view aligned with British narratives justifying intervention by contrasting Mughal imperial order with Maratha "anarchy," emphasizing empirical instances of destructive campaigns, such as those in during the 1740s, where non-payment prompted plundering despite nominal claims to revenue rights. In response, early 20th-century Indian historians like G.S. Sardesai framed Chauth within a narrative of righteous expansion of , arguing it derived from pre-existing Deccan revenue practices and Mughal concessions, such as those granted by Azam Shah in 1707 amid succession struggles, thereby legitimizing Maratha demands as extensions of sardeshmukhi entitlements over subahs. Sardesai's multi-volume New History of the Marathas (1946) integrated Maratha bakhars and Persian chronicles to portray Chauth as a pragmatic for funding resistance against dominance, countering colonial dismissal by highlighting administrative mechanisms like mokasadars for collection in provinces such as Berar and . This nationalist historiography, influenced by regional identity quests, often prioritized causal links to Maratha military efficacy over critiques of economic disruption to tributary regions. Jadunath Sarkar offered a more critical perspective, rejecting the notion of Chauth as bona fide protection money; in Shivaji and His Times (1919), he contended that payments merely averted the "unwelcome presence" of forces without guaranteeing defense against raids, underscoring the system's reliance on threat rather than mutual obligation. Sarkar's analysis, drawing from and archival sources, highlighted empirical failures in enforcement, such as inconsistent exemptions and overlaps with sardeshmukhi, positioning Chauth as a fiscal expedient born of logistical constraints rather than principled statecraft. Later scholarship, including M.A. Nayeem's of Deccan operations (1707–1803), has debated its administrative functionality, noting how Maratha agents extracted both land () and non-land (siwai) amid provincial resistance, with figures like Nizamu’l Mulk challenging its legality as an erosion of imperial fiscal monopoly. Marxist-influenced historians like have analogized Chauth to intermediaries such as banth and giras, viewing it as a transitional form amid feudal decay, though this invites for underemphasizing Maratha agency in exploiting post-Aurangzeb power vacuums. Contemporary debates reflect politicization, as seen in 2025 calls for standardized Maratha histories, which historians warn risk subordinating evidence to over rigorous source scrutiny. These divergences underscore source credibility issues, with bakhars prone to and colonial accounts to bias against non-European polities, necessitating cross-verification against fiscal records for causal realism.

Impact and Legacy

Effects on Maratha Power Dynamics

The collection of chauth decentralized Maratha authority by allocating substantial portions directly to sardars for military maintenance, thereby enhancing their operational independence from the Peshwa's central command in . Following the 1719 imperial secured by Peshwa , which formalized Maratha rights to chauth from the six Deccan provinces, revenues were systematically divided: approximately 75% went to military chiefs to defray troop costs, 6% to administrative officials like the Pant Sachiv, 3% as nadgaunda to the , and the remainder retained by the Peshwa. This distribution incentivized sardars to prioritize in assigned territories, building personal armies funded independently of 's oversight. Sardars exercised growing through direct in designated zones, as exemplified by Kanhoji Bhonsle's over Berar and Fateh Singh Bhonsle's in the Karnatak, where they negotiated collections and enforced compliance without consistent Peshwa intervention. Such arrangements, while enabling rapid territorial expansion under Peshwa Baji Rao I (r. 1720–1740), who extended chauth claims northward into and , eroded unified command structures; sardars like the Scindias and Holkars amassed forces exceeding 50,000 cavalry each by the mid-18th century, often pursuing regional agendas that conflicted with collective strategy. This fiscal decentralization culminated in fragmentation, as revenue disputes—such as the 1782–1785 suspension of levies against the —exposed fissures in authority, with leveraging chauth incomes to assert sovereignty. The system's causal dynamic, whereby chauth sustained sardar militaries but diluted central fiscal control, intensified after the 1761 , where the loss of northern expeditionary forces amplified internal rivalries; surviving sardars, flush with provincial revenues, resisted Madhavrao I's (r. 1761–1772) centralizing reforms, fostering a confederacy of semi-independent principalities prone to civil strife. Ultimately, chauth's role in empowering peripheral actors overrode its initial contributions to cohesive expansion, precipitating the Maratha polity's vulnerability to encroachment by the 1790s.

Consequences for Tributary Economies

The imposition of chauth, nominally one-quarter of a region's or produce, combined with the additional sardeshmukhi of one-tenth, extracted up to 35% of fiscal resources from territories, imposing a heavy burden that often exceeded local capacities for reinvestment in or . This systematic diversion of surplus reduced the economic of paying states, as rulers and peasants faced diminished margins after fulfilling land taxes, which typically claimed one-third to one-half of gross output, leaving scant buffer for contingencies like droughts or invasions. In practice, collection frequently involved coercive raids, amplifying the fiscal drain through direct plunder and disruption of productive activities. In Rajasthan, Maratha demands for chauth precipitated economic depletion via recurrent taxation and depredations, with local states allocating scarce funds to tribute payments and defenses rather than development. For instance, following the 1733 Battle of , Jaipur's ruler Jai Singh II surrendered ₹6 lakhs in cash alongside 38 parganas (revenue districts) to secure chauth obligations, straining royal treasuries already burdened by internal conflicts. Raids, such as Baji Bhim's 1726 incursion into , further eroded rural wealth through looting of crops and livestock, fostering chronic insecurity that deterred and trade. These extractions weakened state finances, compelling rulers like those in to divert resources from to outlays against Maratha threats, thereby perpetuating a cycle of fiscal exhaustion and underinvestment. Bengal's experience underscored the destructive potential of chauth enforcement, where Maratha "Bargi" invasions from 1741 to 1751 devastated key sectors including textiles, silk production, and farming through targeted killings of merchants, , and cultivators. The ultimately conceded annual chauth payments, including ₹3.2 million in arrears by 1751, which depleted provincial revenues and exacerbated civilian hardships amid ongoing lootings that halved productive populations in affected areas. This extraction, layered atop existing Nawabi taxes, triggered widespread economic contraction, with disrupted supply chains and depopulated villages hindering recovery and contributing to Bengal's vulnerability during the subsequent Anglo-French contests. Across Deccan Mughal provinces, the chauth and sardeshmukhi regime yielded far-reaching disruptions, as Maratha sardars siphoned revenues originally earmarked for imperial maintenance, fostering administrative fragmentation and reduced incentives for local revenue optimization. While nominal protection against rival raiders was proffered, the preponderance of evidence points to net negative effects, including sown area stagnation and heightened indebtedness, as demands prioritized short-term extraction over sustainable growth. In aggregate, these policies accelerated economic disequilibrium in tributaries, channeling wealth northward to Maratha heartlands while sowing seeds of fiscal instability that persisted into the .

Long-Term Historical Significance

The chauth system, by institutionalizing tribute collection at one-fourth of territorial revenues, underpinned the Marathas' fiscal-military apparatus from Shivaji's era onward, enabling sustained campaigns that eroded authority across the Deccan and beyond by the early . This mechanism generated substantial funds—estimated to support armies numbering tens of thousands—without the overhead of permanent garrisons or , allowing Maratha forces to prioritize mobility and rapid strikes over territorial administration. Its extension to provinces like , , and by the 1740s exemplified how chauth facilitated asymmetric , compelling governors to cede fiscal rights in exchange for nominal peace, thereby accelerating the empire's into successor states post-1707. Over the longer arc, chauth's emphasis on negotiated extraction rather than conquest fostered a decentralized among Maratha sardars, which, while adaptive to 's fragmented geography, inhibited unified command and contributed to vulnerabilities exposed at the in 1761. This structure, reliant on periodic raids and alliances, strained tributary economies through recurring demands, exacerbating fiscal instability in regions like , where Maratha incursions in the 1740s disrupted agrarian output and local governance. The practice's scalability, however, demonstrated the viability of tribute-based empires in pre-colonial , influencing subsequent polities such as the Sikh misls in , which employed analogous protection levies against incursions. In historical retrospect, chauth's legacy lies in its role as a catalyst for political pluralism amid imperial decline, fragmenting centralized taxation into regional fiefdoms and inadvertently easing penetration by the late 18th century, as the exploited Maratha disunity to secure alliances modeled on precedents. While enabling Maratha resurgence after 1707—evident in their control over chauth from six subahs by mid-century—it also perpetuated cycles of that undermined long-term state-building, as overreliance on such revenues diverted focus from institutional reforms. This duality underscores chauth's contribution to the transition from universalism to colonial paramountcy, reshaping India's power dynamics through economic leverage rather than outright .

References

  1. [1]
    Chauth and Sardeshmukhi - GKToday
    Chauth and Sardeshmukhi were two types of taxes collected in South India, particularly Maratha Empire during medieval times.
  2. [2]
    The System of the Collection of Chauth and Sardeshmukhi by the ...
    Chauth (from Sanskrit meaning one-fourth) was a tax or tribute imposed, from early eighteenth century, by the Maratha Empire in India. It was nominally levied ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  3. [3]
    Chauth and Sardeshmukhi, Background, Chauth ... - Vajiram & Ravi
    Oct 1, 2025 · Chauth and Sardeshmukhi functioned in the Mughal provinces of the Deccan, establishing a dual land revenue administration, and were levied by the Maratha ...
  4. [4]
    What was Chauth? - Vedantu
    Chauth (Sanskrit meaning one-fourth) was a daily tax or tribute levied on the Indian subcontinent by the Maratha Empire from the beginning of the 18th century.
  5. [5]
    [Solved] The Maratha claim of revenue for pr - Testbook
    Chauth was a tax of one-fourth of the land revenue paid to the Marathas in order to avoid Maratha raids. Chauth was an annual tax nominally levied at 25% on ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Maratha Empire - Political, Economic and Social life - Vision IAS
    It was a politico-military tribute, not land revenue—paid in return for protection and non-aggression. ... Collected after chauth, often from the same regions.<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    CHAUTH - NDHistories - WordPress.com
    May 19, 2023 · This Chauth meant, that these kingdoms would pay Shivaji Maharaj one-fourth of the total revenue collections, and in return, Maharaj would keep ...
  8. [8]
    The Working of the Chauth and Sardeshmukhi System in the Mughal ...
    A part of the levies were reserved for the Maratha government, but the individual sardars had to be assigned their responsibility for collecting this also. The ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Entrepreneurs in diplomacy: Maratha expansion in the age of the vakil
    that many vakils were directly involved in negotiations over chauth tribute. They also played a key role in transmitting local intelligence about how far ...
  10. [10]
  11. [11]
    Shivaji and his times : Sarkar, Jadunath, Sir, 1870-1958 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    **Summary of Shivaji's Use of Chauth (Jadunath Sarkar, "Shivaji and His Times"):**
  12. [12]
    Chauth | Rural India, Caste System, Land Revenue | Britannica
    Chauth was a levy of one-fourth of a district's revenue, often paid to Marathas to avoid molestation, and was considered oppressive.
  13. [13]
    Salient Features of Maratha Administration under Shivaji
    Sardeshmukhi was an additional tax of 10% which Shivaji claimed as the hereditary Sardeshmukhi or overlord of Maharashtra.Missing: justification | Show results with:justification
  14. [14]
    A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE CHAUTH PRACTICE IN MARATHA ...
    The. Chauth and Sardeshmukhi were important ways of generating revenue for army throughout Maratha history. To maintain the military order, Shivaji needed ...Missing: quarter | Show results with:quarter
  15. [15]
    [PDF] AHHST 402 C-9 COURSE TITLE: HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL INDIA (C ...
    Besides the land revenue, he had also sources of income of which the most important ... The chauth amounted to one-fourth of the standard revenue assessment of ...
  16. [16]
    Chauth-Collection in the Subah of Hyderabad 1726-1748
    5. The officers appointed for the purpose of assessment and collection of revenues in the Deccan, were generally amins, 'amils, Karoris and shiqqdars. The ...
  17. [17]
    24.6 The Maratha fiscal and financial system for UPSC - ias express
    Sardeshmukhi was an additional tax levied by the Maratha Empire on territories within its domain · It was equal to one-tenth (10%) of the land revenue collected ...
  18. [18]
    The Great Maratha Kingdom - Power, Important Terms and Facts
    Rating 4.2 (373,000) Chauth, as the name suggests, was one-fourth of the income analysis charged as non-molestation tax. Sardeshmukhi was an extra tax levied at 10% of the revenue.
  19. [19]
    Consider the following statements regarding Chauth and ... - Testbook
    Chauth was one-fourth of the land revenue paid to the Marathas in order to avoid the Maratha raids. It was nominally levied at 25% on revenue or produce.
  20. [20]
    DYNAMIC CONTENTS OF CHAUTH AND SARDESHMUKHI - jstor
    History that Marathas used Chauthai and Sardeshmukhi as an instru- ment for extending their rule over India. It is often compared to the. Subsidiary System ...
  21. [21]
    Shivaji Bhosale (1630-1680 C.E.) - GS SCORE
    Feb 19, 2025 · Raids on Mughal territory (1657): Shivaji raided Ahmednagar and Junnar, which led to retaliation from Nasiri Khan of the Mughal Empire.<|control11|><|separator|>
  22. [22]
    Sivaji: Life, Conquests and Conflict with Mughals - History Discussion
    For the first time in 1656 during the reign of Shahjahan, Sivaji had attacked the Mughal territory. The period between 1657-1659, Shivaji had increased his ...
  23. [23]
    64. Shivaji - The Fearless and Legendary Emperor - MM Rao
    Jun 6, 2020 · Shivaji's confrontations with the Mughals began in March 1657, when two of Shivaji's officers raided the Mughal territory near Ahmednagar.
  24. [24]
    Shivaji Maharaj and Surat Raid - Drishti IAS
    Sep 17, 2024 · Shivaji Maharaj raided Surat in January 1664, catching Mughal forces off guard. The Battle of Surat 1664 (Sack of Surat) yielded wealth.<|separator|>
  25. [25]
    A strategic strike on the Mughal Empire: Why Shivaji Maharaj ...
    Sep 13, 2024 · In 1670, Shivaji Maharaj launched a second raid on Surat, this time on October 3 and 4, seizing wealth worth approximately Rs 6.6 million. The ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] MARATHAS Role of Bhakti Movement - PrepMate IAS
    Marathas were to maintain law and order in Deccan. • Marathas could collect Chauth in six Mughals subas in Deccan. • Yesubai mother of Shahu, was released ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] HISTORY OF THE MARATHAS (1707 CE - University of Mumbai
    Apr 12, 2023 · Balaji. Vishwanath fought hard for the Mughal grant of 1719 because it gave full legal status for revenue collection to Shahu's government in ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Chapter-7-Maratha.pdf - Plutus IAS
    In 1719, Balaji Vishwanath got certain rights from the then Mughal Emperor, Farrukh Siyar, for instance, the recognition of Shahu as the Maratha king and the ...Missing: concessions | Show results with:concessions
  29. [29]
    The Maratha Advance into Gujarat and Malwa - Edukemy
    First Phase: Challenging Chauth (Malwa) In 1723, Baji Rao orchestrated the first organized attempt to assert the Maratha claim for chauth in Malwa. The ...
  30. [30]
    The Maratha Advance into Gujarat and Malwa - Medieval India ...
    The first organised attempt to uphold the claim for chauth from Malwa was made in 1723 under the direction of Baji Rao. In June 1725, Girdhar Bahadur was ...
  31. [31]
    Peshwa Baji Rao - BYJU'S
    After two more wars, the Mughals decided to grant the Marathas the right to collect 22 lakh in Chauth from Malwa. Baji Rao and Jai Singh made an accord in ...<|separator|>
  32. [32]
    The Marathas Part 20 The Prominent Feudatories of the Empire ...
    Sep 11, 2022 · Peshwa Baji Rao, along with Scindia and Pilaji Gaekwad invaded Khandesh, Balaghat, Gujarat and Malwa. Initially the Maratha objective was ...
  33. [33]
    BAJI RAO I AND NORTH INDIA - jstor
    3 excused. 2. The chauth and sardeshmukhi of Malwa and Gujarat should be granted by royal farman. 8. The kingdom of Tanjore which is an old Maratha kingdom and.
  34. [34]
    The Peshwas: Peak & Debacle - The History Files
    The reign of Peshwa Balaji Bajirao (died 1761) witnessed the zenith of Maratha power and also the commencement of its decline.
  35. [35]
    MARATHAS OWN BENGAL - NDHistories - WordPress.com
    Apr 13, 2024 · Raghuji had always been keen only on a steady annual tribute from Bengal. Aliwardi Khan's Begum kept forcing him to negotiate peace terms ...
  36. [36]
    Maratha empire | History, Definition, Map, & Facts - Britannica
    Oct 2, 2025 · Between 1720 and 1761 the Maratha empire expanded rapidly, gradually taking over Mughal territory. The Marathas took over Malwa and Gujarat in ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Unit-I MARATHA MILITARY SYSTEM
    Maratha's system of administration was largely borrowed from the administrative practices of the. Deccan states. Hence, the Marathas had important positions ...
  38. [38]
    Administration under Shivaji - ASHA: Blast From The Past
    Apr 21, 2020 · Shivaji strictly supervised the Mirasdarswho had hereditary rights in land. The revenue system was patterned on the Kathi system of Malik ...Missing: legal justification
  39. [39]
    [PDF] the maratha empire: strategies, expansion, and decline
    By instituting efficient tax collection methods, such as the "Chauth" and "Sardeshmukhi," the Marathas ensured a steady flow of resources to sustain their ...Missing: fiscal | Show results with:fiscal
  40. [40]
    The Evolution of Chauth: From Maratha Tribute to Modern Extortion
    Aug 2, 2025 · The term chauth, derived from the Sanskrit “chaturtha” meaning “one-fourth,” refers to a historical tax levied by the Maratha Empire, ...Missing: etymology | Show results with:etymology
  41. [41]
    Background of Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath - BYJU'S
    In July 1718, Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath negotiated a Mughal -Maratha treaty in which he demanded 1/4th of revenue along with an additional 10% of the revenue in ...
  42. [42]
    4. MARATHA POWER UNDER THE PESHWAS - Aptinfo.in
    Balaji Vishwanath has been rightly called the second founder of the Maratha state. He concluded an agreement with the Sayyid brothers (1719 AD) by which the ...
  43. [43]
  44. [44]
    The Marathas and Nizam-ul-Mulk - Medieval India History Notes
    In the Mungi Shevgaon Treaty of 1728, Nizam-ul-Mulk reiterated Shahu's claim to the Deccan Chauth and Sardeshmukhi and vowed not to assist Sambhaji of Kolhapur.
  45. [45]
    Battle of Palkhed 1728: The War Between Maratha & Mughal Army!
    This victory led to the signing of the Mungi Shevgaon treaty on March 6, 1728. The treaty marked Nizam's acknowledgment of Maratha authority, abandonment of ...
  46. [46]
  47. [47]
    [PDF] HISTORY OF THE MARATHAS (1630 CE - University of Mumbai
    Jadunath Sarkar believed 10th April 1627 as Shivaji's birth date. But the ... Shivaji demanded chauth as tribute before raiding the territory and if denied raids ...
  48. [48]
    Bajirao the great Hindu nationalist — That's only in the movies
    Dec 21, 2015 · Maratha extortion caused Jaipur's Ishwari Singh to commit suicide in December 1750. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (the Manmohan Desai of our historians) ...
  49. [49]
  50. [50]
    The Maratha Fiscal and Financial System - UPSC Exam - EduRev
    Rating 4.8 (575) Chauth has a long history. The Koli Rajas of Ramnagar (in Konkan) were collecting chauth from the Portuguese long before Shivaji imposed it. This is why the ...
  51. [51]
    JAMES GRANT DUFF AND THE MARATHAS - jstor
    James Grant Duff ( 1789-1858), the author of the History of the. Mahratlas (1826), is known to almost every student of Maratha history. That his work has served ...
  52. [52]
    Forgotten Indian history: The brutal Maratha invasions of Bengal
    Nov 22, 2017 · Marathas and Mughals were sworn enemies. Continuous state of war existed between them from 1657 (Shivaji's generals attacked Mughal ...
  53. [53]
    New History Of Marathas : Sardesai Govind Sakharam
    Jan 16, 2017 · New History Of Marathas ; Publication date: 1946 ; Topics: UOD ; Collection: digitallibraryindia; JaiGyan ; Language: English ; Item Size: 396.1M.
  54. [54]
    'Fall of the Mughal Empire' clears misconceptions about ... - The Hindu
    Aug 4, 2018 · Sir Jadunath writes that “on 10 January, some 4,000 Marathas entered Jaipur… (and) despising the helpless condition of a king propped up by ...
  55. [55]
    'It will be a challenge': Call for government-approved history of ...
    Apr 1, 2025 · 'It will be a challenge': Call for government-approved history of Marathas sparks debate among historians. Maharashtra BJP MP Udayanraje ...<|separator|>
  56. [56]
    Maratha in Rajasthan - Connect Civils - RAJ RAS
    Tributary Gains (Chauth & Sardeshmukhi) : Marathas targeted Rajasthan for revenue extraction through forced tributes. ... : Ishwari Singh was rooted out and had ...
  57. [57]
    [PDF] MARATHA EXPANSION IN RAJASTHAN - IRJMETS
    These Maratha incursions imposed a significant financial burden on Kota, as the necessity to ward off their destructive raids led to the allocation of ...
  58. [58]
    The Maratha atrocities during their invasion of Bengal is considered ...
    Sep 28, 2019 · ... consequences of the Bargi atrocities. The economy of Bengal was destroyed as many merchants, weavers, farmers, etc. were killed. A Bengali ...
  59. [59]
    The story behind the lullaby: Maratha invasions in Bengal
    Jun 7, 2020 · The Nawab of Bengal also paid a whopping amount of ₹ 3.2 million to the Marathas, to meet the arrears of chauth for the preceding years. The ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] 2 Maharashtra and the Deccan: a Note - Cambridge University Press
    frequent expeditions to foreign countries, and exact one-fourth {chauth) ... Though it is difficult to estimate the exact economic impact ... seeds of grave ...
  61. [61]
    THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY IN INDIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY - jstor
    of extraction of tribute out of revenue collection ( chauth and sardesh- mukhi) ... economic consequences. Unless one makes it a matter of faith that whatever ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] MARATHA EMPIRE: AN ADVANCED STUDY - JETIR.org
    Chauth and. Sardeshmukhi were seized from the monarchs of Rajasthan (Avadh), Bengal (Hyderabad), Hyderabad. Karnataka (Maharashtra), and Mysore by the dynasty.