This paper explores the strategic parallels between the 17th-century empirical commands of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and modern decentralised blockchain architectures. While distributed ledger technologies provide robust cryptographic verification, they suffer from critical structural vulnerabilities: governance oligarchies within Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs), smart-contract oracle exploits, cross-chain bridge vulnerabilities, and command-and-control failures during network disruptions. By evaluating the defensive tenets codified within the Maratha state apparatus, this brief demonstrates how historical frameworks can inform modern digital defence. It analyses the tripartite fort command structure (Havaldar, Sabnis, Karkhanis), strict diurnal auditing metrics, the zero-trust commercial mandates of the Adnyapatra, decentralised peer-to-peer fort networks, and the sovereign validation of the Rajmudra. Integrating these indigenous military principles into modern cryptography and land warfare doctrines can immunise digital networks against single-point failures. To operationalise these concepts, the brief provides concrete policy recommendations for the Indian Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence, including establishing an Indigenous Knowledge Cyber Research Division within the Defence Cyber Agency (DCA), implementing automated Tripartite Authentication Protocols for high-level strategic assets, and deploying closed tactical peer-to-peer mesh networks for frontline operational units.

Introduction: The Vulnerabilities of Modern Digital Commands

In the contemporary multi-domain security ecosystem, some of the most catastrophic vulnerabilities occur due to interoperability hacks on cross-chain bridges. Bridges connect separate blockchain networks to facilitate data and asset transfers. Because these protocols must interact continuously with external, foreign networks, malicious actors frequently exploit vulnerabilities at these interaction points to acquire unearned network governance rights or drain liquidity pools.

Historically, the geopolitical ecosystem managed by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj faced analogous systemic threats from decentralised foreign maritime powers and colonial trading enterprises. To secure the frontiers of the state, he instituted specific mandates, administrative systems, and royal decrees. While modern defence frameworks are heavily dependent on digital infrastructure—rendering them vulnerable to systemic network disruptions—Shivaji Maharaj’s decentralised commands offer an enduring playbook for survival.

The Adnyapatra (the Royal Edict on State Policy), authored by Ramchandra Pant Amatya, serves as a foundational doctrine for state security. This text explicitly details how highly distributed, complex security networks can be effectively managed without relying on a vulnerable, singular node of centralised authority. By contextualising the empirical commands of Shivaji Maharaj within the nomenclature of modern computer science, this paper highlights how historical statecraft offers robust structural solutions to the persistent vulnerabilities of contemporary blockchain command protocols.

Concept Mapping: Historical Statecraft vs. Cyber Architecture

To conceptualise these interdisciplinary linkages, the matrix below maps specific Maratha administrative mechanisms onto modern decentralised digital infrastructure:

Multisig Governance Issues and the Tripartite Split

The Multi-Signature (multisig) governance vulnerability in blockchain systems typically arises from token-weighted voting, which creates oligarchies in Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs). Under this paradigm, a small concentration of wealthy capital holders (“whales”) can manipulate consensus mechanisms to compromise network security. To resolve this command vulnerability, modern systems can deploy a Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) mechanism modelled directly on the Maratha Empire’s tripartite fort administration. As documented by S.V. Puntambekar (1929), fort administration was strictly segregated: the Havaldar managed the keys and secured the gates, the Sabnis oversaw accountancy and bookkeeping, and the Karkhanis managed the granaries, ammunition, and warehouses.

This tripartite structure serves as an early operational foundation for contemporary digital cryptography, specifically Adi Shamir’s (1979) “Secret Sharing Scheme”. While Shamir’s threshold scheme dictates that a secret can only be reconstructed upon reaching a minimum threshold of unique shares, the Maratha model enforces an asymmetric, role-differentiated multi-signature protocol. Neither officer held absolute power; the fort could only be unlocked when all three unique functional roles executed their duties in unison.

The Absolute Immutability of Data and Diurnal Auditing

To prevent internal collusion and ensure data integrity, the Adnyapatra details how state records must be managed systematically daily:

“The accounts must be checked daily. Every detail of income, even to the fraction of a coin, and every grain of store must be registered in the presence of all three officers. Any discrepancy or unvouched entry must be immediately reported to the central treasury”.

The mechanics of this text directly mirror modern state transitions and live, local transaction verification systems. By vetting fiscal transactions thoroughly before blocks are finalised, this framework effectively thwarts the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” issue that plagues modern data systems and oracles, ensuring absolute structural integrity through multi-party diurnal verification.

Defence Against External Systems: Zero-Trust Cross-Chain Protocols

The “Savkar” section of the Adnyapatra mandated a strict architecture when managing interactions with foreign mercantile entities, reading much like a modern security brief:

“Merchant-strangers should be given places to trade, but they should never be allowed to buy land or build permanent stone structures… Their nature is different; they want to establish their own authority under the guise of trade. Keep them under watch”.

Interoperability hacks on blockchain bridges can be systematically addressed by deploying a “Zero-Trust Cross-Chain Protocol” inspired by this edict. Because networks are easily compromised when interacting with foreign, external protocols, implementing this historical zero-trust mindset allows secure data exchange without granting external actors persistent network governance or structural rights.

Decentralised Nodes and Peer-to-Peer Fort Networks

Historically, the collapse of a centralised capital city could lead to the collapse of an entire kingdom. To mitigate this vulnerability, Shivaji Maharaj treated every fort as an autonomous, self-sustaining node. Applying this logic to digital defence, treating individual network segments as separate nodes ensures that if one node is compromised, the remaining connected networks continue to function seamlessly. This architecture systematically eliminates single points of failure.

Elimination of Intermediaries: The Ryotwari System

Shivaji Maharaj bypassed traditional Zamindari or Deshmukhi intermediary systems, wherein regional powerbrokers intercepted agrarian wealth and exploited the labour force (Ryots). By decreeing that state officials must collect revenues directly from cultivators based on empirical crop yields, the Maratha administration established an early model of a direct, disintermediated value chain. Just as removing intermediaries protected the agrarian economy, utilising peer-to-peer (P2P) computer network architectures in military logistics maximises transaction security, visibility, and transparency (Sarkar, 1920).

Proof-of-Authority Tokens: The Rajmudra

The inscription on the royal seal read: “The glory of this Mudra of Shiva’s son, Shahaji, will grow like the first-day moon. It is world-worshipped and shines only for the well-being of the people”.

The Rajmudra was not merely a signature, but a non-forgeable, proof-of-authority token. Any decree bearing this seal served as a cryptographic verification of sovereign command. In modern cyber defence, digital governance tokens can be structured with multi-layered, role-validated cryptographic seals modelled after the Rajmudra, preventing unauthorised command distribution even if individual private keys are compromised.

Policy Recommendations for the Indian Armed Forces

To address critical security and coordination vulnerabilities exposed by contemporary cyber and electronic warfare tactics globally, the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Armed Forces can operationalise these historical models through four key initiatives:

1. Establish an Indigenous Knowledge Cyber Research Division: The Ministry of Defence should sponsor dedicated research initiatives within the Defence Cyber Agency (DCA) to translate historical Indian administrative doctrines, such as the Adnyapatra, into mathematical algorithms and software-defined network (SDN) security blueprints.
2. Implement an Intra-Node Tripartite Authentication Protocol: High-value strategic assets—including intelligence ledgers and missile command interfaces—should require separate operational, administrative, and strategic cryptographic keys. No asset alteration should be permanently registered without simultaneous, cross-verified authorisation from three distinct functional sectors.
3. Transition to Closed, Peer-to-Peer Tactical Mesh Networks: Frontline tactical communications should utilise closed, localised P2P mesh networks that treat individual operating units as autonomous, disconnected nodes, isolating security breaches and ensuring systemic continuity.
4. Secure Military Supply Chains via Disintermediated Ledgers: Replace complex commercial intermediary networks within military logistics with a decentralised blockchain ledger based on the Ryotwari paradigm, establishing a direct data link between ordnance production facilities and frontline units to eliminate data tampering and tracking delays (Sen, 1923).

Conclusion

Building a resilient digital fortress requires looking inward at India’s rich military history and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. As Sun Tzu observed, a nation must know itself thoroughly to survive conflict. Translating the institutional logic of historical statecraft can effectively govern modern military operations while protecting both digital and physical borders from subversion, spoofing, and corruption. By synthesising the timeless empirical commands of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with cutting-edge decentralised cryptography, the contemporary strategic establishment can construct architectures capable of withstanding the asymmetric realities of tomorrow’s cyber warfare.

Title Image Courtesy: https://historyverse7.com/

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of India and the Defence Research and Studies.

References

• Amatya, R. P. (1929). The Ajnapatra or Royal Edict on Maratha State Policy (S. V. Puntambekar, Trans.). Journal of Indian History, 8(1), 81–105; 8(2), 207–233. (Original work written c. 1715).
• Babare, S. B. (2025). Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s Agrarian Policy and Its Relevance Today. International Journal of Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Studies, 11(3), 208–214.
• Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Bitcoin. https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-pdf/
• National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2020). Zero trust architecture (NIST Special Publication 800-207). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-207/final
• Sarkar, J. (1920). Shivaji and his times. Longmans, Green and Co.
• Sen, S. N. (1923). Administrative system of the Marathas. University of Calcutta.
• Shamir’s Cryptographic Paper:
  • Shamir, A. (1979). How to share a secret. Communications of the ACM, 22(11), 612–613. https://web.mit.edu/6.857/OldStuff/Fall03/ref/Shamir-HowToShareASecret.pdf
• NIST Zero Trust Publication:
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2020). Zero trust architecture (NIST Special Publication 800-207). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-207/final
• Maratha Historical Reference (The History Files):
  • Kessler, P. (2021). Kingdom of India: Marathas. The History Files. https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesFarEast/India_EarlyModern_Marathas07.htm