Is it true that the court intrigues and weak revenue system led to the collapse of the Maratha empire? Comment.

Answer:

The Maratha empire collapsed before British power between 1775 and 1818. Court intrigue at Poona and a revenue system that extracted tribute without administering territory were indeed major causes, though military and diplomatic failures also contributed decisively.

Court intrigues

• The murder of Narayan Rao in 1773 precipitated a disputed succession.
• Raghunath Rao sought British help, beginning the First Anglo-Maratha War.
• Nana Phadnavis's death in 1800 removed the last unifying statesman at Poona.
• Baji Rao II intrigued against his own commanders and signed the Treaty of Bassein in 1802.
• Rivalry among Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle and the Gaekwad prevented common action.

The weakness of the revenue system

• Chauth and sardeshmukhi were claims on revenue, not systems of administration.
• Extraction without governance alienated the populations of the areas raided.
• Revenue farming and assignments to sardars weakened central control of finance.
• The Peshwa's treasury could not sustain modern armies and artillery.
• No settled bureaucracy comparable to the Mughal or British system was created.

Other causes of collapse

• Defeat at Panipat in 1761 destroyed a generation of leaders and troops.
• European-trained infantry and artillery were adopted late and imperfectly.
• The confederacy's members were defeated one by one through British diplomacy.
• Subsidiary alliances dissolved the confederacy from within.

Assessment

• Madhav Rao I's early death in 1772 removed the one leader capable of recovery.
• Mahadji Scindia's modernised army showed what might have been achieved.
• The Third Anglo-Maratha War of 1817-18 ended the empire entirely.
• The Peshwa was pensioned to Bithur and his territory annexed.

The statement therefore captures two genuine and central causes. As Jadunath Sarkar and Satish Chandra both concluded, a confederacy weakened by intrigue at its centre and living on tribute rather than administration could not sustain a modern state, and it was this internal fragility, more than British arms, that decided the outcome.