The historiography of the Maratha Empire serves as a profound microcosm of the broader ideological shifts within Indian historical scholarship. This article interrogates the transformative trajectory of the Maratha narrative, navigating the conceptual distance between the pejorative portrayals of the colonial era, the hagiographic reconstructions of nationalist historiography, and the socio-economic re-evaluations posited by Marxist scholars. It argues that for over two centuries, the Maratha polity has functioned as a "malleable archive," periodically reshaped to align with the prevailing political zeitgeist and discursive demands of successive intellectual epochs. The inquiry first deconstructs the Imperialist/Colonialist paradigm, most notably articulated by James Grant Duff. Within this framework, the Marathas were strategically relegated to the status of "predatory freebooters"-a reductionist trope employed to delegitimize indigenous sovereignty and manufacture a moral imperative for British Hegemony. Contrasting this, the article examines the Nationalist intervention of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Spearheaded by luminaries such as M.G. Ranade and V.K. Rajwade, this movement reclaimed the Maratha legacy as Hindavi Swarajya. By framing the empire as a proto-nationalist endeavour and a vanguard of indigenous statecraft, these scholars inverted the colonial "anarchy" thesis, positioning the Marathas as the foundational architects of Indian resistance. Finally, the paper analyzes the Marxist departure, which pivoted the scholarly gaze away from charismatic leadership and religious identity toward deep-seated socio-economic configurations. Through the rigorous interrogation of the Chauth and Sardeshmukhi fiscal mechanisms, historians like Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib re-envisioned Maratha expansion as a byproduct of systemic agrarian crises and evolving feudal dynamics. By synthesizing these divergent scholarly traditions, this article posits that the Maratha "meta-narrative" is a dynamic socio-political construct, illustrating the persistent instrumentalization of the past to negotiate the identity and ideological exigencies of the present. Colonial Ideology (often referred to as Imperialist Historiography) is a body of thought developed by European powers-primarily the British, French, and Dutch-to justify their political and economic control over foreign territories. Rather than seeing colonialism as a quest for profit or resources, this ideology framed it as a moral obligation or a "civilizing mission." In direct opposition to colonial ideology, Nationalist Ideology is a framework of thought that seeks to restore the dignity, history, and sovereignty of a colonized people. It wasn’t just a political movement for independence; it was an intellectual battle to prove that a nation had a distinct, proud identity and was fully capable of governing itself. While Colonial ideology focuses on the "civilizing" ruler and Nationalist ideology focuses on the "glorious" nation, Marxist Ideology focuses on the struggle between classes. In a historical and political context, Marxism views the world not through the lens of religion, race, or kings, but through the lens of economics and labour.
Bharati et al. (Wed,) studied this question.