The Marathas and the Lost Narrative: How British Historians Erased Their Role as India’s True Rulers

For centuries, Indian history has been distorted to fit colonial and political narratives. One of the biggest misconceptions, perpetuated first by the British and later by post-independence historians, is the idea that the British “took India from the Mughals.” This narrative conveniently erases the fact that by the mid-18th century, the Mughal Empire was a shadow of its former self, and the real power in India rested with the Marathas.

Had the Marathas fully asserted their rule and removed the Mughals from Delhi, the entire perception of India’s past might have been different. Instead, due to a combination of strategic miscalculations and political choices, the Marathas missed their chance to shape history in their favor. This allowed the British to manipulate historical accounts, portraying their conquest as a smooth transition from one empire to another rather than a hard-fought struggle against the real power in India—the Marathas.

The Marathas: The Real Rulers of 18th-Century India

By the early 18th century, the Mughal Empire was in decline. After Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, the empire began to fragment, with various regional powers rising to prominence. Among them, the Marathas emerged as the dominant force, controlling vast territories across India.

During the time of Peshwa Baji Rao I (1720–1740) and his successor Nanasaheb Peshwa (1740–1761), the Marathas extended their influence over North India. They defeated the Nizam of Hyderabad, forced Bengal and Awadh to pay tribute, and even established control over Delhi itself.

By the 1750s, the Mughal emperor was nothing more than a symbolic figurehead, while real power was wielded by the Marathas. In 1758, the Marathas had taken over Delhi, expelled the Afghan Rohillas, and established their authority in Punjab. If there was any force capable of ruling India at the time, it was the Marathas—not the Mughals.

Why Didn’t the Marathas Remove the Mughals?

Despite controlling Delhi and the Mughal emperor, the Marathas never officially dethroned the Mughals. Several factors contributed to this decision:

1. Symbolic Legitimacy of the Mughal Emperor

Even though the Mughal Empire had lost real power, the emperor still carried symbolic authority. Many Indian rulers, including Rajputs and Nawabs, continued to acknowledge the Mughal emperor as their suzerain. The Marathas found it more practical to keep the Mughal emperor as a puppet rather than replace him, as this allowed them to extract tribute and maintain influence without provoking widespread resistance.

2. The Maratha Confederacy’s Decentralized Nature

Unlike the Mughals, who had a centralized system of administration, the Marathas followed a confederation model where different chieftains (such as the Scindias, Holkars, Gaekwads, and Bhonsles) ruled semi-autonomously. Directly ruling Delhi would have required a shift in governance, which the Marathas were not prepared for. They were more interested in expanding their influence rather than consolidating power in one capital.

3. Fear of a United Opposition

The Marathas were powerful, but they had many enemies—Afghans, Rohillas, Rajputs, and even the British. If they had outright declared the end of the Mughal dynasty and placed themselves on the throne, it could have united their adversaries against them. By keeping the Mughals as a nominal ruling dynasty, the Marathas avoided unnecessary conflicts.

4. Underestimation of British Intentions

At this time, the British were still primarily traders and had not yet emerged as a major military threat. The Marathas, focused on fighting the Afghans and expanding their influence in North India, did not perceive the British as their primary rivals. This underestimation would later prove to be a fatal mistake.

The Turning Point: The Third Battle of Panipat (1761)

Everything changed with the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761. The Marathas, under Sadashivrao Bhau, fought Ahmad Shah Abdali’s Afghan forces in a battle that would alter Indian history. The Marathas had assembled a massive army and had control over Delhi, but due to strategic miscalculations, lack of local support, and poor logistics, they suffered a devastating defeat.

The loss at Panipat weakened Maratha power in North India and halted their expansion. Though they recovered within a decade and regained Delhi in 1772 under Mahadji Scindia, the British had by then begun consolidating their influence.

The British Rewrite History

Once the British defeated the Marathas in the Anglo-Maratha Wars (1775–1818), they took over as the dominant power in India. However, rather than acknowledging that they had fought and defeated the Marathas, they promoted the false narrative that they had simply “replaced the Mughals.”

Why Did the British Push the Mughal Narrative?

1. To Justify Their Rule: By portraying the Mughals as the previous rulers, the British could claim they were simply taking over from a legitimate dynasty rather than conquering a powerful Indian force.
2. To Erase the Marathas’ Legacy: Recognizing that they had defeated the Marathas would have legitimized the Maratha claim to Indian rule. Instead, they framed the Marathas as mere regional chieftains.
3. To Control Indian Perceptions: By reinforcing the idea that India had always been ruled by outsiders (first Mughals, then British), they weakened the idea of indigenous Indian rule.

Congress and Post-Independence Historians Continue the Myth

Even after independence, Indian history books continued to follow the British narrative. The Congress-led governments promoted a version of history that emphasized Mughal rule and downplayed Maratha dominance.

Why?

• To Promote “Unity in Diversity”: Congress wanted to portray India as a mix of Hindu and Muslim influences. Highlighting Mughal rule fit this vision better than acknowledging that the Marathas were the real rulers before the British.
• To Maintain the Secular Narrative: Congress avoided emphasizing Hindu rulers like the Marathas to prevent communal tensions.
• Influence of Leftist Historians: Many post-independence historians followed Marxist frameworks that focused on colonial oppression rather than indigenous power struggles. This led to an oversimplified “Mughals to British” transition in history books.

What If the Marathas Had Removed the Mughals?

Had the Marathas formally ended the Mughal Empire and declared themselves rulers of India, history might have been very different:

• The false notion that “British took India from the Mughals” would not exist.
• The Marathas would be recognized as India’s last indigenous rulers before British colonization.
• Indian nationalism might have had stronger historical roots in Maratha rule rather than Mughal decline.

Conclusion

The biggest strategic mistake the Marathas made was not formally removing the Mughal dynasty and declaring themselves the rulers of India. This allowed the British to manipulate history and frame their conquest as a smooth transition rather than a hard-fought war against the real power—the Marathas.

Even today, history books continue to ignore Maratha dominance, presenting India’s past as a direct shift from Mughals to British rule. Correcting this false narrative is essential to restoring the true legacy of the Marathas as the last indigenous rulers before colonial rule.

It is time India acknowledges its real history, free from colonial distortions.