was the rebel son of a vassal jagirdar. He could not claim equality of political status with any king.
Then, again, so long as he was a mere private subject, he could not, with all his real power, claim the loyalty and devotion of the people over whom he ruled. His promises could not have the sanctity and continuity of the public engagements of the head of a State. He could sign no treaty, grant no land with legal validity and an assurance of permanence. The territories conquered by his sword could not become his lawful property, however undisturbed his possession over them might be in practice. The people living under his sway or serving under his banners, could not renounce their allegiance to the former sovereign of the land, nor be sure that they were exempt from the charge of treason for their obedience to him. The permanence of his political creation required that it should be validated as the act of a sovereign.
It is also clear that the rise of the Bhonslas created much jealousy among the other Maratha families which had once been their equals in social status. These men consoled themselves by refusing to adhere to Shivaji as his servants, bragged of their being loyal subjects of Aurangzib or of Adil Shah, and sneered at Shivaji as an upstart rebel and usurper. It was necessary to rectify his position in their eyes. A formal coronation alone could show them that he was a king and therefore their superior, and enable
