Note 16 — a.d. 1760–1819.

It is not on record that the mulakgiri force habitually devastated the country over which it passed, or caused much greater hardships to the ryots than are inseparable from the passage of an army in the field. There are, however, well authenticated stories of the depredations and damage committed during these expeditions. A village is said to have been deserted by order of the bhumia in order that the timber of its houses might furnish fuel for the Marátha army on its march. Tortures were doubtless inflicted on men supposed to be well off, who were suspected to have hidden their property. A Marátha army was usually, if not always, ill disciplined, as is proved by the testimony of Mr. Forbes, an eye witness of the campaigns of 1775.16 From the same writer it is learned what an immense proportion the camp followers bore to the actual combatants. If this were the case in a real campaign against a formidable and active enemy, it is likely that the irresponsible element was still larger in an expedition like this of mulakgiri, where the enemy was insignificant and the country at the mercy of the invaders. It is probable therefore that the troops have been credited with misconduct that should in point of fact be attributed to these Pindháris. In after years, when the expeditions were conducted systematically, villages on the line of march were always allowed the alternative of entertaining a pioneer or two as a sort of guarantee. If no bandhári of this sort were accepted, the army occupied the place. In many cases the demands for supplies made by these pioneers were so exorbitant that the villagers preferred to compound in turn with them also for their absence. Another method by which a chieftain might avoid the necessity of the army’s passing through his territories was by sending to the commander of the expedition an envoy empowered to treat for the amount of tribute and to execute a provisional guarantee for its future liquidation. This deed was destroyed on the subsequent confirmation by the chief himself of the agreement for the sum fixed.