GS Paper I | Modern Indian History | British Expansion | Maratha Confederacy | Prelims + Mains
Study Material
The Marathas were the most extensive indigenous political power the East India Company confronted after the decline of Mughal central authority. Their influence stretched across large parts of western, central and northern India, and by the late eighteenth century the Maratha Confederacy remained one of the principal obstacles to Company supremacy.
Yet the British did not defeat the Marathas in a single battle. The process took three Anglo-Maratha Wars between 1775 and 1818, and even the First War ended without a clear British victory. NCERT notes that the First Anglo-Maratha War ended in 1782 with the Treaty of Salbai without a decisive victor, while the later wars progressively broke Maratha power.
Maratha Confederacy → succession disputes → Company intervention → Treaty of Bassein → fragmentation of collective resistance → three wars → abolition of the Peshwaship → Company paramountcy
UPSC Demand: What Should You Actually Understand?
The UPSC History Optional syllabus explicitly includes “The Marathas; the three Anglo-Maratha Wars” under British expansion. Recent and older PYQs repeatedly focus on the Maratha Confederacy's internal weaknesses, the Treaty of Bassein, the First Anglo-Maratha War and the reasons for the final collapse of Maratha power. The official UPSC archive provides the original History papers.
| UPSC Angle | What You Must Understand |
|---|---|
| Maratha Confederacy | Why expansion produced powerful semi-autonomous houses rather than a tightly centralised empire. |
| First War | How a Peshwa succession dispute opened the door to British intervention. |
| Treaty of Salbai | Why the First War did not produce British supremacy. |
| Treaty of Bassein | Why placing the Peshwa under Subsidiary Alliance transformed Anglo-Maratha relations. |
| Second War | How Scindia and Bhonsle were defeated on several fronts. |
| Third War | How the Pindari campaign merged into the final destruction of Peshwa power. |
| Maratha defeat | Internal fragmentation + British finance + diplomacy + unified command, not simply inferior Indian weapons. |
The Maratha Confederacy Before the Wars
The Third Battle of Panipat in 1761 was a major setback, but it did not destroy Maratha power. Under Peshwa Madhavrao I, Maratha authority recovered substantially.
By the later eighteenth century, however, Maratha politics operated increasingly as a confederacy. The Peshwa at Pune remained its nominal head, but powerful regional houses exercised substantial autonomy.
| Maratha House | Principal Centre |
|---|---|
| Peshwa | Pune |
| Scindia/Sindhia | Gwalior and influence in North India |
| Holkar | Indore |
| Bhonsle | Nagpur |
| Gaekwad | Baroda |
NCERT describes these Maratha chiefs as being held together in a confederacy under the Peshwa and highlights Mahadji Scindia and Nana Fadnavis as major late-eighteenth-century statesmen.
First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–1782)
Succession Crisis at Pune
The immediate background was the death of Peshwa Madhavrao I in 1772. His brother Narayanrao succeeded him but was murdered in 1773.
Raghunathrao, popularly known as Raghoba, sought the Peshwaship. A powerful group at Pune led by Nana Fadnavis instead supported Narayanrao's posthumous son, Madhavrao Narayan.
Unable to secure power independently, Raghunathrao appealed to the Bombay Government of the East India Company. IGNOU identifies this succession struggle as the immediate background of the First Anglo-Maratha War.
Treaty of Surat, 1775
Raghunathrao entered into the Treaty of Surat with the Bombay Government in 1775.
In return for territorial and political concessions, the Company agreed to support his claim to the Peshwaship.
Treaty of Purandar, 1776
The Calcutta authorities were less enthusiastic about the Bombay Government's commitment to Raghunathrao. A new agreement, the Treaty of Purandar, was negotiated with the Pune government.
The larger significance is more important than memorising every clause: British policy itself was not yet completely coordinated, and Company intervention had not produced a secure political advantage.
Convention of Wadgaon, 1779
The British Bombay force advancing into Maratha territory suffered a serious reverse at Wadgaon.
The resulting Convention required humiliating concessions from the British side, although the Bengal Government refused to accept the settlement and continued the war.
Mahadji Scindia and the Treaty of Salbai
Neither side was able to secure an easy decisive victory. Mahadji Scindia played an important role in the final negotiations.
The war ended with the Treaty of Salbai in 1782. Madhavrao Narayan was recognised as Peshwa, the British retained Salsette, and a long period of relative Anglo-Maratha peace followed. IGNOU and NCERT both identify Salbai as the settlement ending the First War.
Twenty Years of Uneasy Peace
The peace after Salbai lasted for roughly two decades. This period benefited the Company because it could concentrate on other rivals, especially Mysore.
Meanwhile, Maratha politics became increasingly unstable. The deaths of powerful figures such as Mahadji Scindia and Nana Fadnavis removed leaders capable of balancing rival chiefs and preserving a degree of confederal unity.
The Peshwa's authority also weakened as Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle and other houses pursued increasingly independent interests.
The Crisis of Baji Rao II
Baji Rao II became Peshwa in the late 1790s, but his political position was insecure.
The rivalry between the Scindia and Holkar houses became particularly destructive. In 1802, Yashwantrao Holkar defeated the forces of the Peshwa and Scindia near Pune.
Baji Rao II fled and sought British protection.
This produced one of the most consequential treaties in the history of British expansion in western India.
Treaty of Bassein, 31 December 1802
Baji Rao II signed the Treaty of Bassein with the East India Company on 31 December 1802.
The Maharashtra State Gazetteer records that the Peshwa accepted a permanent subsidiary force, ceded territory yielding about twenty-six lakh rupees for its maintenance, and surrendered substantial freedom in external relations.
| Key Feature | Political Meaning |
|---|---|
| British subsidiary force stationed for Peshwa | Peshwa became dependent on Company military protection. |
| Territory/revenue assigned for force | Economic cost of dependence shifted to Maratha resources. |
| Foreign relations restricted | Peshwa lost a major attribute of sovereignty. |
| Disputes with other powers subject to Company influence | Company became arbiter within Maratha politics. |
Why Was the Treaty of Bassein So Important?
The Peshwa was still regarded as the formal head of the Maratha Confederacy.
When that office accepted British military protection and restrictions on independent diplomacy, other Maratha chiefs saw the agreement as a fundamental change in the balance of power.
The treaty therefore did more than restore Baji Rao II to Pune. It gave the Company a strategic position at the heart of the Maratha political system and helped trigger the Second Anglo-Maratha War.
Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–1805)
The Treaty of Bassein was unacceptable to important Maratha chiefs, especially Daulat Rao Scindia and Raghuji II Bhonsle.
Lord Wellesley's aggressive expansionist strategy now turned the political crisis into open warfare.
Two Major Theatres
The Company fought simultaneously in northern India and the Deccan.
In the Deccan, forces under Arthur Wellesley confronted Scindia and Bhonsle. In northern India, Company forces under General Gerard Lake attacked Scindia's positions.
Battle of Assaye, 1803
The Battle of Assaye on 23 September 1803 became one of the major engagements of the war.
Arthur Wellesley's forces defeated the combined Maratha forces associated with Scindia and Bhonsle. Academic military history identifies Assaye, together with Argaon and the northern victories, as central to the collapse of Scindia-Bhonsle resistance in 1803.
Delhi and Laswari
In northern India, General Lake's campaigns brought Delhi and Agra under Company influence and culminated in a major victory over Scindia's forces at Laswari.
This had political significance beyond territorial conquest because the Mughal emperor at Delhi now came increasingly under Company protection.
Argaon and the End of the 1803 Campaign
Bhonsle forces were defeated at Argaon, while Scindia also suffered severe reverses.
Bhonsle concluded the Treaty of Deogaon, and Scindia accepted the Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon in December 1803.
Holkar Enters the Conflict
Yashwantrao Holkar had not initially joined Scindia and Bhonsle against the Company.
Conflict with Holkar developed later, extending the wider Anglo-Maratha struggle into 1804–05. British operations against him were less straightforward, illustrating again that Maratha military power was not simply swept aside in one campaign.
Consequences of the Second Anglo-Maratha War
The Second War dramatically strengthened Company power.
| Development | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Scindia and Bhonsle defeated | Major Maratha houses lost territories and strategic independence. |
| Delhi under Company influence | Mughal emperor increasingly came under British protection. |
| Orissa and northern territories gained | Company's territorial network became more continuous. |
| Peshwa already under Bassein | Nominal head of Confederacy remained British dependent. |
NCERT notes that the Second Anglo-Maratha War gave the British Orissa and territories north of the Yamuna, including Agra and Delhi.
Why Did Maratha Power Still Survive?
The Second War weakened but did not immediately abolish the Maratha states.
Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle and the Peshwa still controlled substantial territories.
The Company increasingly preferred to reduce these rulers to subordinate or dependent positions rather than annex everything immediately.
The final destruction of the Peshwa's power would occur under Lord Hastings.
Pindaris and the Road to the Third War
The Pindaris were irregular mounted bands associated historically with the military economy of central India and with different Maratha armies. As Maratha political structures weakened, many increasingly survived through raiding.
By the 1810s their attacks had extended into Company territories, giving Governor-General Lord Hastings a justification for a massive military mobilisation in central India.
Historical studies of the campaign show that the operation against the Pindaris became inseparable from the final confrontation with Maratha powers.
Treaty of Poona, 1817
Before the final war, the Company imposed a new settlement on Peshwa Baji Rao II.
The Treaty of Poona of June 1817 further restricted his power and external relations.
The Peshwa increasingly recognised that continued British dominance would reduce his office to little more than a dependent title.
Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818)
Battle of Khadki/Kirkee, 1817
On 5 November 1817, Peshwa forces attacked the British position near Pune after tensions finally erupted into war.
The clash at Khadki (Kirkee) ended in a Company victory, forcing the Peshwa away from Pune.
Battle of Sitabuldi
At Nagpur, the Bhonsle forces fought the British around Sitabuldi.
Their defeat further weakened the possibility of coordinated Maratha resistance.
Battle of Mahidpur, 1817
The Holkar forces were decisively defeated by the Company at Mahidpur on 21 December 1817. The subsequent settlement brought the Holkar state into a subordinate relationship with the Company.
Battle of Koregaon, 1 January 1818
At Koregaon on the Bhima River, a small Company force, composed largely of Indian sepoys, defended its position against a much larger section of the Peshwa's army.
The battle did not itself end the war, but it became one of the best-known engagements of the final Peshwa campaign. Contemporary military narratives place it within the continuing pursuit of Baji Rao II after Khadki.
Fall of the Peshwa, 1818
Baji Rao II continued resistance for several months but ultimately surrendered in 1818.
The Company abolished the office of the Peshwa and pensioned Baji Rao II, who was sent to Bithur near Kanpur.
A small kingdom of Satara was created under Pratap Singh, a descendant of Shivaji, while the bulk of the Peshwa's territories came under Company control.
NCERT summarises the result clearly: after the final Maratha war, the Peshwa was removed and sent to Bithur, while Company control extended decisively over territories south of the Vindhyas.
The Three Anglo-Maratha Wars at a Glance
| War | Period | Immediate Context | Key Events | Settlement/Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1775–1782 | Peshwa succession dispute and Raghunathrao's British alliance | Surat, Purandar, Wadgaon | Treaty of Salbai |
| Second | 1803–1805 | Treaty of Bassein and opposition of Maratha chiefs | Assaye, Delhi, Laswari, Argaon | Major territorial and political gains for Company |
| Third | 1817–1818 | Pindari campaign + resistance to British paramountcy | Khadki, Sitabuldi, Mahidpur, Koregaon | Peshwaship abolished; Maratha supremacy ended |
Why Did the Marathas Ultimately Lose?
A strong UPSC answer must avoid the simplistic claim that the Marathas lost because they were militarily backward.
Maratha states had modernised important parts of their armies. Scindia, for example, developed disciplined infantry and artillery with European-trained officers. IGNOU explicitly cautions against explaining Indian defeat solely through inferior military organisation.
1. Confederal Fragmentation
The Peshwa, Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle and Gaekwad frequently pursued separate interests.
At critical moments, one Maratha house could even benefit from the defeat of another.
2. Leadership Crisis
The deaths of capable political organisers such as Mahadji Scindia and Nana Fadnavis weakened mechanisms of coordination.
Later leaders frequently became absorbed in succession disputes and personal rivalries.
3. British Diplomacy
The Company rarely fought all Maratha powers simultaneously.
It isolated opponents through treaties, neutrality arrangements and subsidiary alliances before attacking them separately.
4. Stronger Fiscal Base
The Company's access to Bengal's revenues gave it the capacity to finance long-distance campaigns and maintain permanent armies.
Its fiscal-military system increasingly exceeded the fragmented resource mobilisation of individual Maratha houses.
5. Unified Strategic Command
Company armies operating from Bengal, Bombay and Madras could increasingly coordinate within one imperial strategy.
Maratha chiefs lacked an equivalent permanent mechanism of confederal command.
6. Treaty of Bassein
The acceptance of British protection by the Peshwa fatally damaged collective Maratha sovereignty.
The formal head of the Confederacy had placed himself within the Company's subsidiary system.
The Marathas were not defeated because individual Maratha soldiers or commanders lacked courage. They were defeated because a fragmented confederacy confronted an increasingly centralised Company state with superior finance, diplomacy and strategic coordination.
Did the Maratha Confederacy Collapse Only Because of Internal Weakness?
No. Internal stress was crucial, but it is only half the explanation.
Maratha rivalries created opportunities. The Company still had to possess the resources and political skill to exploit those opportunities.
British success therefore resulted from the interaction of:
+
Company diplomacy
+
Bengal revenue
+
professional standing armies
+
Subsidiary Alliance
+
sequential defeat of opponents
This balanced explanation is much stronger than either “divide and rule” alone or “Maratha weakness” alone.
Why the Treaty of Bassein Was the Real Turning Point
The First Anglo-Maratha War had shown that the Company could intervene in Maratha affairs without yet dominating them.
Bassein changed the relationship.
By accepting a British subsidiary force and surrendering independent foreign policy, the Peshwa made the Company a permanent participant in the internal balance of the Confederacy.
The agreement also challenged the authority and prestige of Scindia, Holkar and Bhonsle.
Anglo-Mysore Wars vs Anglo-Maratha Wars
| Anglo-Mysore Conflict | Anglo-Maratha Conflict |
|---|---|
| Conflict with a comparatively centralised territorial state. | Conflict with a decentralised confederacy of powerful chiefs. |
| Haidar and Tipu maintained clearer central command. | Peshwa could not permanently command all Maratha houses. |
| French connection was a major strategic issue. | British intervention increasingly worked through treaties and internal rivalries. |
| Four wars ended with Tipu's death in 1799. | Three wars ended with abolition of Peshwaship in 1818. |
| Reduced Wodeyar Mysore survived. | Several Maratha princely houses survived, but under British paramountcy. |
Direct UPSC PYQ Zone
UPSC – Previous Question Papers
The original History Optional papers should be verified from the official UPSC archive.
UPSC History Optional, 2023
“The Carnatic Wars, the Anglo-Mysore Wars and the Anglo-Maratha Wars had virtually eliminated the French from the contest of supremacy in South India.” Discuss.
Answer direction: Connect the Company's defeat of French political influence with its subsequent victories over major Indian states. The French question did not disappear after the Carnatic Wars; British fears of French-trained armies and diplomacy remained relevant in Mysore and Maratha politics.
Takeaway: British expansion must be studied as one connected imperial process rather than isolated regional wars. The 2023 History Paper II contains this question.
UPSC History Optional, 2021
UPSC asked candidates to examine the view that individual Marathas possessed ability and courage but lacked the collective political spirit needed to preserve independence.
Answer direction: Discuss the confederal structure and rivalries, but qualify the statement by examining Company finance, diplomacy and military organisation.
UPSC History Optional, 2017
“The Maratha polity disintegrated through internal stress.” Critically examine.
Answer direction: Internal rivalry is central, but do not make it monocausal. Add British intervention, succession disputes, fiscal limitations and unequal strategic organisation.
UPSC History Optional, 2004
UPSC asked candidates to comment on the proposition that the Treaty of Salbai was neither honourable to the English nor advantageous to their interests.
Answer direction: Show that the First War failed to produce British domination, but the long peace after Salbai also gave the Company strategic breathing space to concentrate elsewhere.
UPSC History Optional, 1993
UPSC asked candidates to evaluate the view that the Treaty of Bassein, through its direct and indirect consequences, gave the Company the Empire of India.
Answer direction: Treat the statement as deliberate exaggeration but recognise Bassein's enormous strategic importance: it subordinated the Peshwa, provoked the Second War and gave the Company a permanent position within western Indian politics.
Prelims Traps
| Statement | Correct Position |
|---|---|
| Panipat in 1761 permanently destroyed Maratha power. | ❌ Maratha power recovered significantly under Madhavrao I. |
| Raghunathrao was supported by Nana Fadnavis. | ❌ Nana led the opposing Pune faction. |
| Treaty of Surat began British intervention in the Peshwa succession dispute. | ✅ Correct. |
| Wadgaon was a decisive British triumph. | ❌ It was a serious British setback. |
| Treaty of Salbai ended the First Anglo-Maratha War. | ✅ Correct. |
| Treaty of Bassein was signed with Tipu Sultan. | ❌ It was signed with Peshwa Baji Rao II. |
| Bassein belongs to 1802. | ✅ Correct. |
| Assaye was fought during the First Anglo-Maratha War. | ❌ It belonged to the Second War. |
| Arthur Wellesley was associated with Assaye. | ✅ Correct. |
| Scindia's power extended into North India. | ✅ Correct. |
| The Second War immediately abolished the Peshwaship. | ❌ Peshwaship survived until 1818. |
| Pindari suppression became linked with the Third Anglo-Maratha War. | ✅ Correct. |
| Battle of Mahidpur involved Holkar forces. | ✅ Correct. |
| Koregaon alone ended Maratha power. | ❌ The collapse resulted from a much wider campaign. |
| Baji Rao II was pensioned at Bithur after defeat. | ✅ Correct. |
Practice MCQs
Q1. With reference to the First Anglo-Maratha War, consider the following statements:
1. It arose partly from a dispute over succession to the Peshwaship.
2. Raghunathrao sought support from the East India Company.
3. The war ended with the Treaty of Salbai.
A. 1 only
B. 1 and 2 only
C. 2 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: D
Explanation: All three are correct. The succession dispute allowed the Bombay Government to intervene through Raghunathrao, and the long conflict ultimately ended with Salbai.
Extra fact: The war demonstrated that Company intervention did not yet guarantee Company supremacy over the Marathas.
Q2. Consider the following treaties:
1. Treaty of Surat
2. Treaty of Salbai
3. Treaty of Bassein
4. Treaty of Poona
Which is the correct chronological sequence?
A. 1–2–3–4
B. 2–1–3–4
C. 1–3–2–4
D. 2–3–1–4
Answer: A
Explanation: Surat — 1775; Salbai — 1782; Bassein — 1802; Poona — 1817.
Q3. The Treaty of Bassein is especially significant because:
A. It ended the First Anglo-Maratha War.
B. It brought Tipu Sultan under British protection.
C. It placed the Peshwa within the Company's Subsidiary Alliance system.
D. It abolished the Peshwaship immediately.
Answer: C
Explanation: Baji Rao II accepted British protection and substantial limitations on external sovereignty. The office of Peshwa continued until 1818.
Q4. Which one of the following pairs is incorrectly matched?
A. Assaye — Arthur Wellesley
B. Mahidpur — Holkar
C. Wadgaon — First Anglo-Maratha War
D. Salbai — Third Anglo-Maratha War
Answer: D
Explanation: Salbai ended the First Anglo-Maratha War, not the Third.
Q5. Which factors contributed to the final Maratha defeat?
1. Rivalries among major Maratha houses
2. Company's stronger fiscal base
3. British diplomatic isolation of opponents
4. Absence of a durable unified confederal command
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 1, 2 and 3 only
C. 2, 3 and 4 only
D. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: D
Explanation: The collapse was structural and cumulative. No single military defeat adequately explains it.
Mains Practice Questions
- “The Treaty of Bassein was more important than any single battlefield victory in the British subjugation of the Marathas.” Discuss.
15 Marks | 250 words - Why did the First Anglo-Maratha War fail to establish British supremacy over the Maratha Confederacy?
10 Marks | 150 words - “The Maratha Confederacy's strength in expansion became a weakness in resistance.” Analyse.
15 Marks | 250 words - Examine the relationship between the Pindari campaign and the Third Anglo-Maratha War.
10 Marks | 150 words - Was the final defeat of the Marathas caused primarily by internal disunity? Give a balanced assessment.
15 Marks | 250 words
Mains Answer Framework
Q. “The Treaty of Bassein was the decisive political turning point in the British subjugation of the Maratha Confederacy.” Discuss.
Introduction: The Treaty of Bassein, signed by Peshwa Baji Rao II with the East India Company in December 1802, did not immediately end Maratha power. It nevertheless transformed the strategic balance by placing the nominal head of the Confederacy under British military protection.
Body:
1. Background: Rivalry between Scindia and Holkar destabilised Pune; Yashwantrao Holkar defeated the Peshwa and Scindia; Baji Rao fled and sought British aid.
2. Subsidiary dependence: The Peshwa accepted a permanent Company force and assigned revenue for its maintenance.
3. Loss of diplomatic sovereignty: Independent war and foreign relations became subject to British influence.
4. Impact on Confederacy: Scindia, Bhonsle and other chiefs regarded the agreement as a threat to their autonomy and the political structure of the Maratha Confederacy.
5. Second Anglo-Maratha War: Opposition to the new arrangement helped produce the war of 1803–05, in which Scindia and Bhonsle suffered major defeats.
6. British strategic advantage: The Company acquired a permanent position in western India and influence over the Peshwa's government.
7. Qualification: Bassein did not itself destroy Maratha power. Holkar remained a serious opponent, and the final destruction of the Peshwaship occurred only in 1818.
Conclusion: Bassein was decisive not because it immediately conquered the Maratha states, but because it transformed the Confederacy's nominal centre into a British-dependent authority. It therefore created the political conditions through which later military victories could dismantle Maratha sovereignty piece by piece.
One-Minute Revision
| Topic | Remember |
|---|---|
| Third Battle of Panipat | 1761 |
| Maratha recovery | Madhavrao I |
| Key Pune statesman | Nana Fadnavis |
| Major North Indian Maratha leader | Mahadji Scindia |
| First Anglo-Maratha War | 1775–1782 |
| Treaty starting intervention | Surat, 1775 |
| British setback | Wadgaon, 1779 |
| First War settlement | Salbai, 1782 |
| Peshwa in 1802 | Baji Rao II |
| Holkar leader | Yashwantrao Holkar |
| Turning-point treaty | Bassein, 1802 |
| Second War | 1803–1805 |
| Assaye | Arthur Wellesley, 1803 |
| Important northern battle | Laswari, 1803 |
| Bhonsle settlement | Treaty of Deogaon |
| Scindia settlement | Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon |
| Third War | 1817–1818 |
| Governor-General | Lord Hastings |
| Peshwa battle | Khadki/Kirkee, 1817 |
| Holkar defeat | Mahidpur, 1817 |
| Koregaon | 1 January 1818 |
| Final result | Peshwaship abolished |
| Baji Rao II | Pensioned to Bithur |
Three Wars in One Flow
↓
Confederacy of powerful regional chiefs
↓
Peshwa succession crisis
↓
Raghunathrao seeks British support
↓
Treaty of Surat, 1775
↓
First Anglo-Maratha War
↓
Wadgaon setback → Treaty of Salbai, 1782
↓
Two decades of relative peace
↓
Scindia–Holkar rivalry + weak Peshwa
↓
Baji Rao II seeks Company protection
↓
Treaty of Bassein, 1802
↓
Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1803–05
↓
Assaye + Delhi + Laswari + Argaon
↓
Maratha houses weakened separately
↓
Pindari suppression + British paramountcy
↓
Third Anglo-Maratha War, 1817–18
↓
Khadki + Sitabuldi + Mahidpur + Koregaon
↓
Baji Rao II surrenders
↓
Peshwaship abolished
↓
Company supremacy across most of India
Final Historical Assessment
The Anglo-Maratha Wars show that Company supremacy did not emerge simply because Indian powers lacked military courage or political capacity.
The Marathas had survived Panipat, recovered their influence and repeatedly demonstrated that they could resist Company armies. The First Anglo-Maratha War itself ended without decisive British supremacy.
The eventual transformation occurred because the political structure of the Maratha Confederacy became increasingly difficult to coordinate at precisely the moment when the East India Company was becoming a far more integrated military-fiscal power.
The Company possessed revenues from Bengal, presidency armies, a growing diplomatic network and a strategy of isolating opponents before confronting them.
The Marathas, by contrast, increasingly faced one another as rivals before facing the British as a common enemy.
British victory resulted not from a single superior army but from the Company's ability to convert Indian political divisions into strategic advantage and Indian revenues into sustained military power.
The Treaty of Bassein weakened the political independence of the Peshwa.
The Second War broke the strategic power of Scindia and Bhonsle.
The Third War finally destroyed the Peshwa's authority.
By 1818, the Company had removed the most important indigenous political system capable of contesting its supremacy across western and central India.
Next Chapter:
Anglo-Sikh Wars and the Annexation of Punjab
