Which of the following took the initiative to organise a confederacy of the Maratha chiefs against the English leading to the Third Anglo- Maratha War (1817-18)?

1. The Maratha Confederacy: Structure and Dynamics (basic)

To understand the Anglo-Maratha wars, we must first understand who the Marathas were and how they were organized. The Maratha Confederacy was not a single, centralized empire under one absolute ruler; rather, it was a loose alliance of powerful Maratha chiefs (Sardars) who recognized the Peshwa (the Prime Minister) in Pune as their nominal head. At its peak under Baji Rao I and Balaji Baji Rao, this system allowed the Marathas to dominate the Indian subcontinent, overrunning regions from the South to the borders of the North Bipin Chandra, Modern India, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.31.

The structure was built around five primary power centers, often referred to as the five pillars of the Confederacy:

• The Peshwa at Pune (The coordinating head)
• The Gaekwad at Baroda
• The Scindia (or Shinde) at Gwalior
• The Holkar at Indore
• The Bhonsle at Nagpur

The dynamics of this confederacy changed drastically over time. Initially, the chiefs worked cordially under the strong leadership of the early Peshwas. However, the Third Battle of Panipat (1761) served as a massive shock to this unity. The subsequent death of the young, capable Peshwa Madhavrao I in 1772 created a power vacuum at the center, weakening the Peshwa's control over the other chiefs Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.101. This led to a period where the individual chiefs became increasingly independent, often prioritizing their own territorial ambitions over the collective interest of the Maratha state.

This internal friction became the Confederacy's "Achilles' heel." While they could unite against a common enemy in rare instances, they more frequently quarrelled among themselves. This lack of cohesion was so severe that during British incursions, some chiefs would remain neutral or even assist the British while their fellow Maratha rivals were being attacked Bipin Chandra, Modern India, The British Conquest of India, p.80. It was this specific structural weakness—the shift from a coordinated alliance to a fractured group of rivals—that the British East India Company eventually exploited to dismantle Maratha power.

Period	Confederacy Dynamic	Central Authority
Early 18th Century	Cohesive and Expansionist	Strong (Peshwas Baji Rao I to Madhavrao I)
Post-1772	Fractured and Rivalrous	Weak (Internal successions and British interference)

Sources: Modern India (NCERT 1982 ed.), Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.31; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.101; Modern India (NCERT 1982 ed.), The British Conquest of India, p.80

2. The Subsidiary Alliance System and its Impact (basic)

To understand British expansion in India, we must look at the Subsidiary Alliance System — a masterstroke of 'imperialism on a budget.' Devised in its most evolved form by Lord Wellesley (Governor-General, 1798–1805), this system allowed the British to expand their influence without the immediate cost or administrative burden of direct annexation THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), REBELS AND THE RAJ, p.266. While the concept of hiring out European troops to Indian rulers actually began with the French leader Dupleix and was later used by Clive in the 1765 treaty with Awadh, Wellesley perfected it into a tool for establishing British supremacy Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.121.

Under this system, an Indian ruler entered into a 'protection' agreement with the British. The terms were cleverly designed to strip the ruler of their sovereignty while making them pay for their own subjection. The core conditions usually included:

• Stationing of Troops: A permanent British armed contingent was stationed within the ruler's territory.
• The Subsidy: The ruler had to pay for the maintenance of these troops, either in cash or by ceding parts of their territory History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.267.
• The Resident: A British official, called a 'Resident,' was posted at the ruler’s court. Though technically an advisor, the Resident often became the real power behind the throne.
• Loss of Foreign Policy: The ruler could not employ any other Europeans (like the French) or negotiate with any other Indian state without British permission Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120.

The impact of this system was devastating for Indian states but brilliant for the British. For the British, it provided a way to fight wars far from their own frontiers using the resources of Indian princes. For the Indian rulers, it was a 'protection trap.' By accepting British protection, they effectively disbanded their own armies, leading to thousands of soldiers losing their livelihoods. Economically, the high cost of the 'subsidy' often led to bankruptcy, which the British then used as a pretext to annex the state for 'misgovernance' or failure to pay.

Feature	Impact on Indian State	Benefit to the British
Security	Protected from external enemies but lost internal control.	Eliminated European rivals (like the French) from Indian courts.
Military	Native armies disbanded; became militarily helpless.	Maintained a large army at someone else's expense.
Diplomacy	Lost the right to negotiate with neighbors.	Became the sole arbiter of all Indian political affairs.

Sources: THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), REBELS AND THE RAJ, p.266; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120-122; History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.267

3. Prelude to Conflict: The Second Anglo-Maratha War (intermediate)

To understand the Second Anglo-Maratha War, we must first look at the Treaty of Salbai (1782), which concluded the first conflict and established a fragile peace for twenty years Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.103. During this hiatus, the British were busy fighting Tipu Sultan in Mysore, while the Maratha Confederacy began to crumble from within. The 'glue' that held the Maratha chiefs together was Nana Phadnavis, a brilliant statesman often called the 'Maratha Machiavelli.' However, his death in 1800 removed the last check on the internal rivalries between the great Maratha families — the Peshwa, Holkar, Sindhia, Bhonsle, and Gaekwad Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.104.

The immediate catalyst for war was the ascent of Baji Rao II as the Peshwa. Lacking the administrative genius of his predecessors, he played the Maratha chiefs against one another to maintain his own power. This internal 'civil war' peaked in 1802 when Yashwant Rao Holkar defeated the combined forces of the Peshwa and Daulat Rao Sindhia at the Battle of Poona. In a moment of panic and desperation, Baji Rao II fled to the British at Bassein, seeking protection against his own countrymen. This was the opening the British Governor-General, Lord Wellesley, had been waiting for.

In December 1802, the Peshwa signed the Treaty of Bassein, a Subsidiary Alliance that effectively surrendered Maratha independence in exchange for British bayonets Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.134. While the Peshwa was restored to his throne in Poona by British troops, the other Maratha chiefs — particularly Sindhia and Bhonsle — saw this treaty as a supreme national insult. They refused to recognize the Peshwa's right to sign away their sovereignty, leading directly to the outbreak of the Second Anglo-Maratha War.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103, 104, 134

4. The Pindari Menace and British Intervention (intermediate)

The Pindaris were not a specific tribe or religion; rather, they were a diverse group of irregular horsemen—comprising Hindus, Muslims, and various castes—who served as mercenaries for the Maratha armies. Traditionally, they were not paid a fixed salary; instead, they were allowed to plunder the enemy's territories as their primary form of compensation Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.106. As long as the Maratha power was strong, the Pindaris were controlled and directed. However, after the Second Anglo-Maratha War, the Maratha chiefs became weakened and could no longer provide these freebooters with regular employment or loot. This economic displacement turned the Pindaris into a decentralized 'menace' that began raiding British-held territories and neutral states alike.

By 1815-1816, the Pindari raids became intolerable for the British. They pillaged the Northern Circars and Mirzapur with extreme brutality, which gave the Governor-General, Lord Hastings (1813-1823), a strategic opportunity. Hastings viewed the Pindaris not just as bandits, but as a convenient casus belli (reason for war) to finally dismantle the Maratha Confederacy and establish British paramountcy in India Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.106. He organized a massive 'Grand Army' of over 110,000 troops—the largest British force assembled in India up to that point—to surround and trap the Pindaris in Central India.

The British campaign against the Pindaris (1817-1818) was swift and decisive. Lord Hastings accused the Maratha chiefs, particularly Sindhia and Holkar, of providing shelter to these raiders. While the Pindari leaders met different fates—Amir Khan and Karim Khan surrendered and were given small estates, Chitu Khan fled into the jungles and was reportedly killed by a tiger—the campaign's true historical significance lies in how it transitioned directly into the Third Anglo-Maratha War. By mobilizing such a large force under the pretext of 'policing' the Pindaris, Hastings was perfectly positioned to crush the Maratha chiefs when they eventually rose up in one final attempt to regain their independence Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.817.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.106; A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.817

5. British Policy of Paramountcy under Lord Hastings (intermediate)

To understand the Policy of Paramountcy, we must look at the shifting ambitions of the British East India Company in the early 19th century. Under Lord Hastings (Governor-General from 1813 to 1823), the British moved away from being just one of the many powers in India to claiming they were the supreme or 'paramount' power. This wasn't just about winning battles; it was a legal and political assertion that the Company’s authority was superior to that of all Indian states. Consequently, the British claimed the right to annex or threaten to annex any Indian kingdom if it served their interests Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.106.

The drive for this policy was largely economic. The Charter Act of 1813 ended the Company’s monopoly on Indian trade, meaning the Company now had to compete with other British merchants. To survive and thrive, they needed total political control to guarantee markets for British goods and a steady flow of raw materials. This shift turned the Company into an aggressive imperialist force, leading to the final crushing of the Maratha Confederacy and the suppression of the Pindaris — irregular horsemen who plundered territories and provided the British with a convenient excuse to intervene in central India Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.106.

Historically, this concept was kept intentionally vague. By not strictly defining what 'Paramountcy' meant, the British ensured they could adapt the policy to suit the 'shifting necessities of time' Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 31, p.606. It allowed them to intervene in the internal succession or administration of Princely States at will. This 'hydra-headed' doctrine remained the bedrock of British-Indian relations until it finally lapsed with the Indian Independence Act of 1947 D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Outstanding Features, p.51.

Feature	Subsidiary Alliance (Wellesley)	Paramountcy (Hastings)
Core Objective	Defensive alliance & military control	Undisputed political supremacy
Intervention	Limited to external affairs (mostly)	Claimed right to intervene in internal affairs
Stance	States as 'subordinate allies'	States as 'inferior entities' under British law

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.106; A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.606; Introduction to the Constitution of India, OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION, p.51

6. The Treaty of Poona (1817): The Final Trigger (exam-level)

By 1817, the Maratha Empire was a shadow of its former self, yet the fire of independence still flickered in Peshwa Baji Rao II. Under the Subsidiary Alliance, the Peshwa felt like a puppet, heavily restricted by the British Resident at Poona, Mountstuart Elphinstone. The relationship soured completely following the murder of Gangadhar Shastri, an envoy of the Gaekwad of Baroda, for which the British held the Peshwa’s favorite, Trimbakji Dengle, responsible Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Chapter 5, p. 107.

To tighten their grip, the British forced the Peshwa to sign the Treaty of Poona (June 13, 1817). This treaty was the "final straw" because it didn't just take territory; it stripped the Peshwa of his political soul. Key provisions included:

• Dissolution of the Confederacy: The Peshwa had to formally renounce his position as the head of the Maratha Confederacy. This effectively destroyed the legal and symbolic unity of the Maratha chiefs History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p. 235.
• Territorial Cessions: He was forced to cede important regions, including the Konkan, and give up his claims over the Gaekwad of Baroda History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p. 241.
• Diplomatic Isolation: He could no longer maintain relations with other foreign powers or Maratha chiefs without British consent.

Feeling utterly humiliated, Baji Rao II began organizing a secret front with the Bhonsle and Holkar. The Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1818) was the direct result of this treaty, as the Peshwa chose to fight rather than endure the total loss of his prestige. In November 1817, he attacked the British Residency at Khirki, signaling the start of the final conflict Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), Chapter 4, p. 81.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (SPECTRUM), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.107; History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.235, 241; Modern India, Bipin Chandra (Old NCERT), The British Conquest of India, p.81

7. Outbreak of the Third Anglo-Maratha War (exam-level)

The outbreak of the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1818) was not an isolated event but the final explosion of years of simmering resentment. Following the Second Anglo-Maratha War, the Maratha chiefs felt deeply humiliated by the tightening grip of the British 'Subsidiary Alliance' system. The primary protagonist, Peshwa Baji Rao II, felt like a prisoner in his own palace under the watchful eye of the British Resident at Poona, Mountstuart Elphinstone.

The immediate spark was ignited by a diplomatic crisis: Gangadhar Sastri, the minister of the Gaikwar of Baroda (who was under British protection), was murdered by Trimbakji, a close favorite of the Peshwa. Elphinstone forced the Peshwa to imprison Trimbakji, but his subsequent escape—allegedly with the Peshwa's help—led the British to impose the Treaty of Poona (1817). This treaty was the last straw; it forced the Peshwa to formally renounce his claim to the leadership of the Maratha confederacy and cede vast territories. History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.234.

Desperate to regain his prestige, the Peshwa organized a secret united front with the Bhonsle and Holkar. However, the Governor-General Lord Hastings (not to be confused with Warren Hastings) acted with lightning speed and superior coordination. The Maratha forces, though brave, lacked a unified command and were defeated in quick succession across different fronts.


By June 1818, the Peshwa surrendered. The British took the radical step of abolishing the office of the Peshwa entirely. Baji Rao II was exiled to Bithur (near Kanpur) on a pension, and a small state of Satara was carved out for Pratap Singh, a descendant of Shivaji, to satisfy Maratha sentiments while ensuring British supremacy was absolute. Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.107.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.234; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.107

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the evolution of the Subsidiary Alliance and the decline of the Maratha administrative structure, you can see these concepts converge in this question. The Third Anglo-Maratha War was essentially the final, desperate attempt by the Maratha leadership to dismantle the British paramountcy that had been tightening since the Treaty of Bassein. The key building block to remember is the Treaty of Poona (1817), which forced the Maratha leader to formally renounce his claim to the headship of the Maratha confederacy—a humiliation that served as the direct catalyst for the subsequent uprising.

To arrive at the correct answer, (A) Peshwa, focus on the hierarchical catalyst. While the Maratha chiefs shared a collective grievance, it was Peshwa Baji Rao II who took the active initiative to organize a secret confederacy. Driven by the desire to regain his lost prestige and independence from the overbearing British Resident, Elphinstone, the Peshwa ignited the conflict by attacking the British Residency at Poona. As highlighted in Modern India by Bipin Chandra, although the Bhonsle and Holkar eventually joined the struggle, the spark and the organizational effort originated from the Peshwa’s court.

UPSC often uses the other Maratha houses as traps because they were all involved in the war at different stages. However, (B) Sindhia was effectively neutralized by the Treaty of Gwalior just as the war began, and (C) Holkar only joined the conflict after the Peshwa had already initiated hostilities. (D) Gaekwad is a particularly clever distractor; the Gaekwads of Baroda were actually under British protection, and it was the murder of the Gaekwad's envoy, Gangadhar Shastri, that provided the British with the excuse to impose the restrictive terms on the Peshwa in the first place. Therefore, the initiative rested solely with the Peshwa, as noted in A Brief History of Modern India by Spectrum.