The Battle of Bhima Koregaon, fought on January 1, 1818, remains a pivotal yet divisive episode in Indian history. Occurring during the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1819), it involved a small British East India Company force defending against a larger Peshwa army near the village of Koregaon Bhima in present-day Maharashtra. While contemporary British accounts celebrated it as a testament to military valor, modern interpretations, particularly among Dalit communities, frame it as a symbol of resistance against Peshwa-led Brahminical oppression, given the prominent role of Mahar soldiers in the British ranks. However, this narrative is contested, with some viewing it as a colonial skirmish distorted by later political agendas, emphasizing that the Peshwa forces included diverse castes and that the battle was not primarily caste-driven.
Table of Contents
This expanded article revisits the event based on historical records, incorporating primary sources such as dispatches, manuscripts, and contemporary books. It provides additional depth, particularly to the Mahar contribution, drawing from diverse perspectives while highlighting original accounts from the era and modern analyses.
Historical Context: The Decline of Maratha Power and Caste Dynamics
By the early 19th century, the Maratha Confederacy was fragmented, with Peshwa Baji Rao II ruling from Pune under increasing British influence. The Treaty of Bassein (1802) had subordinated the Peshwa to the East India Company, fueling resentment and leading to the Third Anglo-Maratha War in 1817. After defeats at battles like Khadki (November 1817), Baji Rao II fled Pune, pursued by British forces.
Under Peshwa rule, caste hierarchies were stringent, with Dalits like the Mahars facing discrimination, including forced labor, social exclusion, and prohibitions on education or temple entry. Historical records, such as those in the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, note that Mahars were traditionally village servants (balutedars) but also had a military heritage, serving in Maratha armies under Shivaji in the 17th century as guards and soldiers. However, under the later Peshwas, their status declined due to Brahminical orthodoxy, leading many to seek opportunities in the British army, which recruited them without caste barriers, offering better pay, pensions, and dignity. This backdrop informs the battle’s later symbolism as a fight for self-respect, though primary records from the time, like British dispatches, focus on military tactics rather than caste conflict.
The Battle Unfolds: A Day of Intense Fighting
On December 31, 1817, Captain Francis F. Staunton led a detachment of about 834 men—approximately 500 from the 2nd Battalion, 1st Bombay Native Infantry (largely Mahars), 300 irregular horse, and artillery with two 6-pounder guns—from Shirur to reinforce Pune. Arriving at Koregaon Bhima on January 1, they encountered Peshwa forces numbering around 20,000–28,000, including infantry, cavalry, and elite Arab mercenaries under commanders like Bapu Gokhale and Trimbakji Dengle.
The British entrenched in the village, using mud walls for cover, and repelled repeated assaults over 12 hours despite severe shortages of water and ammunition. Key moments included the Peshwa’s artillery bombardment, fierce hand-to-hand combat where Arabs captured a temple and a gun (killing Lieutenant Chisholm), and the British counterattack to recapture it. By evening, the Peshwa withdrew, fearing British reinforcements under General Smith, leaving the field to Staunton’s survivors. British casualties totaled 275: 50 killed (including two officers and 22 Mahars), 105 wounded, and some missing. Peshwa losses were estimated at 500–600 killed or wounded.
Primary accounts, such as Staunton’s dispatch to the Bombay Government, describe the engagement as a “desperate stand” against overwhelming odds, praising the troops’ endurance without explicitly highlighting caste. James Grant Duff’s “A History of the Mahrattas” (1826) provides a detailed narrative, noting the Peshwa’s initial confidence and eventual retreat.
The Mahar Contribution: Valor Amid Controversy
The Mahar soldiers, numbering around 500 in Staunton’s infantry contingent, formed the backbone of the British defense and played a crucial role in repelling the Peshwa assaults. British dispatches and contemporary records, including Staunton’s personal narrative, highlight their bravery, noting that they held firm under intense fire and participated in bayonet charges to reclaim lost positions. The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency (1885) and Henry Thoby Prinsep’s “History of the Political and Military Transactions in India” (1825) corroborate this, describing the Native Infantry—predominantly Mahars—as instrumental in the “gallant defense” that forced the Peshwa’s withdrawal. Of the 50 British fatalities, 22 were Mahars, underscoring their heavy involvement and sacrifices.
Folklore and Dalit narratives elevate figures like Sidhnak Mahar (also known as Sidhnak Mahar Inamdar), portrayed as a heroic leader who rallied the troops and personally led charges against the Peshwa forces. In oral traditions and modern retellings, such as those in Dalit literature and the film “The Battle of Bhima Koregaon” (upcoming as of 2021), Sidhnak symbolizes Mahar valor and resistance, with stories claiming he defeated Peshwa commanders in combat. However, historical evidence for Sidhnak is sparse; primary sources like Staunton’s dispatch and Duff’s history do not name him specifically, leading some scholars to view him as a semi-mythical figure amalgamated from broader Mahar military traditions, possibly linked to earlier heroes like those who fought under Shivaji or against Mughals in 1688. Books like “The Mahar Regiment” by Col. V. Longer document Mahar contributions since the 17th century but emphasize the multi-ethnic composition of the British force, including Marathas, Rajputs, Muslims, and Jews, rather than isolating Mahar actions.
For Dalit communities, the battle represents a triumph over caste oppression, where Mahars fought not merely as mercenaries but for dignity against the Peshwa’s Brahminical regime that had humiliated them through practices like forcing them to carry brooms or pots to avoid “polluting” upper castes. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, himself of Mahar descent, visited the site on January 1, 1927, and popularized it as a symbol of Dalit empowerment, inspiring the community’s military legacy and anti-caste struggle; he referenced it in writings to highlight how Mahars “defeated the Peshwas” and broke the chains of untouchability. This narrative gained traction in the 20th century, with annual commemorations at the Vijay Stambh (victory pillar) drawing millions, framing the 500 Mahars’ stand against 28,000 Peshwa troops as a David-vs-Goliath victory for the oppressed.
Critics, however, argue that this Dalit-centric interpretation oversimplifies and mythifies the event. Scholar Anand Teltumbde, in articles and interviews, contends that the battle was a colonial victory, not an anti-caste rebellion, and that portraying it as “Mahars defeating Peshwas” ignores the British command and the professional soldiering of Mahars, who were fighting for pay rather than ideology. He warns against “mythifying history,” noting that the Peshwa army included Mahars and other castes, and only about 2,000–3,000 were actively engaged, not 28,000. Right-wing perspectives, such as those in Organiser and OpIndia, decry it as anti-national propaganda that glorifies British colonialism over Indian unity, equating it to celebrating Indian involvement in World Wars under the British flag. Left-leaning critiques, like those in The Wire and Frontline, acknowledge Dalit agency but highlight how the narrative is co-opted in caste politics, sometimes exacerbating Maratha-Dalit tensions without addressing broader anti-colonial struggles. Manuscripts from the period, such as those in “Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government” (1852), support the view of a multi-faceted army, not a caste war.
Significance and Legacy: Victory, Symbolism, and Controversy
Contemporaneously, the British hailed it as a “brilliant achievement,” honoring the regiment as Grenadiers and erecting an obelisk in 1822 inscribed with the names of the fallen, including the 22 Mahars. It contributed to the Peshwa’s surrender in June 1818, ending Maratha sovereignty and paving the way for British paramountcy in India.
Today, annual commemorations draw crowds, but violence in 2018 during the 200th anniversary—killing one and injuring many amid clashes between Dalit groups and right-wing activists—underscored ongoing caste tensions and alleged Hindutva orchestration. The Elgar Parishad event preceding it led to arrests under anti-terror laws, fueling debates on state repression of Dalit activism.
Hindu nationalists view it as a “false narrative” glorifying colonial victory, while Dalit advocates see it as empowerment against oppression. Recent books, like those critiquing “hate politics” in Frontline, explore how the battle is weaponized in contemporary identity politics.
Conclusion: A Layered Historical Narrative
Bhima Koregaon exemplifies how history is reinterpreted through lenses of caste, colonialism, and identity. Primary records emphasize military prowess, while contemporary debates highlight social justice and division. As India navigates these tensions, engaging with original sources remains essential to navigate biases.
References, Books, Manuscripts, and Records
This article draws from a range of sources, prioritizing primary and near-contemporary accounts. Inline citations refer to web-sourced summaries, but below are key books, manuscripts, and records:
Primary and Contemporary Records:
- Captain Francis Staunton’s Dispatch/Personal Narrative (1818/1827): Firsthand account detailing tactics, valor, and the role of Native Infantry (Mahars). Published in “Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No. XXIV” (1852).
- East India Company Dispatches (1818): Official reports to the Bombay Government, archived in British parliamentary papers and “Rise and Progress of the British Power in India” by Peter Auber (1837).
- Manuscript Maps from the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1819): 25 manuscript maps depicting campaigns, including Koregaon, held in collections like Old World Auctions.
- House of Commons Resolution (1819): Parliamentary thanks referencing Koregaon.
- Inscription on the Koregaon Obelisk (1822): Memorial listing 22 Mahar names.
Books and Manuscripts:
- James Grant Duff, “A History of the Mahrattas” (Vol. 3, 1826): Pages 432–438 cover the battle, forces, and retreat. Available on Archive.org.
- Henry Thoby Prinsep, “History of the Political and Military Transactions in India During the Administration of the Marquess of Hastings” (Vol. 2, 1825): Pages 158–167 based on dispatches.
- Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency (Vol. 18, 1885): Edited by James M. Campbell, local history and battle account referencing Staunton.
- Charles Augustus Kincaid and Dattatraya Balawanta Parasnis, “A History of the Maratha People” (Vol. 3, 1918): Covers the Third War and Koregaon.
- Peter Auber, “Rise and Progress of the British Power in India” (Vol. 2, 1837): Includes dispatches.
- Thomas Edward Colebrooke, “Life of the Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone” (Vol. 2, 1884): Elphinstone’s role and context.
- Col. V. Longer, “The Mahar Regiment” (History book): Documents Mahar contributions from 17th century, multi-ethnic army in 1818.
- R.V. Russell, “The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India” (Vol. 1, 1916): Mahar involvement.
- Anand Teltumbde, Various Writings (e.g., “Mythifying History”): Critiques Dalit narrative.
