After writing a long blogpost on how gulping the words of historical sources as is can be deceptive.
I saw this

https://twitter.com/kirron909/status/1415006883836923905?s=19

Content given to buttress this argument was a speech by Uday Kulkarni (embdedded in the tweet that is now protected). There, Kulkarni portrays how Peshwa’s behaviour & attitude were radically different in meeting with Mewar’s Maharana versus with Jaipur’s Sawai Jai Singh. That while meeting the Mewari Rana he sat on ground as mark of respect. But when he met Jaipur King who expected similar behaviour from Peshwa. Latter highlighted the house’s Mughal alliance and stressed that it wasn’t deserving of behaviour at par with how he had treated Mewar royalty. Further details of what he said and where he draws it from will be covered below.

I will not get into the Mewar visit as it has been commented upon by others elsewhere.

"The Peshwa was friendly to the Rana of Udaipur as he considered him greater to other Rajputs and was equal to the Raja of Satara (Chhatrapati) because he never accepted the Mughal as master." ~ AN UTTER CHITPAVAN SAVARKARITE LIE pic.twitter.com/rsp7Q8lUXw

— Yashasvī Pratāp (@yashasvipratap) May 20, 2020

Coming to Peshwa’s Jaipur visit.
Just before his visit to Jaipur. Peshwa’s Matushri Radha Bai plus her entourage’s pilgrimage and months long stay in Rajputana were completely and thoroughly looked after by Sawai Jai Singh. All this was amidst an ongoing Mughal-Maratha hostilities.

Peshwa’s envoy named Mahadeo Bhatt Hingne was already deputed in Jaipur. Following is from his journal of correspondences & tafsils called the Hingne Daftar.

Hingne Dafter, vol 1, letter no. 19 Hingne Dafter, vol 1, letter no. 19

Basically it says that Radha Bai and Jai Singh’s relation was like mother and son. Jai Singh personally hosted her. Kept a sizeable army for her protection all the time throughout Rajputana and up to Agra. He attached his officers and diplomats for her convenience during further travel. Due to all this, not only was there a positivity in the bilateral relations. But Jai Singh and Peshwa’s tuning became brotherly. In the same vein it even speaks of Marathas being of one mind with “Sawai Ji” (Jai Singh) on the matter of pilgrimage centres and stopping cow slaughter

This is not my but eye witness Hingne’s narration.

For further clarity, I am also attaching parts of what Shri G S Sardesai has said on the matter.

This is further reinforced by the Selections from Peshwa Daftar vol 30, No. 131.

Another contemporary (a Rajput source this time) covering this visit is the Dastur Komwar records of Jaipur Archives. They also don’t say anything to the contrary.

Considering this evidence. We don’t know what to do with the hearsay that is being sold as history in the video. Like Jai Singh expecting Peshwa to sit down at his feet and Peshwa treating him like an out-caste. It completely deviates from the entire political background of past few decades before this event. As if Jai Singh wasn’t some astute Statesman (Maratha sources respectfully call him so). But was some clueless person who had suddenly dropped in that world out of nowhere.

Contrary to what Kulkarni says. Peshwa and the Raja didn’t personally discuss the protocols of the meeting that BajiRao would utter something like this. It doesn’t happen this way anywhere. That discussion is something that, as a norm, was and is always handled by the respective envoys and ministers.

There is no reason to deduce any such lack of cordiality between Jai Singh and the Peshwa. The importance and regard that BajiRao and even his successor gave to Sawai Jai Singh is not a secret and exhibits sufficiently in contemporary literature as well as works of later stalwarts like G S Sardesai.
Sawai Jai Singh was the linchpin in the political transactions between Mughals and Marathas during the first half of 18th century.

This is BajiRao’s successor Balaji writing to envoy Hingne few years later.

For the gossip repeated at video, on both the Mewar visit as well as Jaipur. The first place where it appears is the Bundi bard’s Vansha Bhaskar completed in the late 19th century. Neither on the place nor on the time of events (1736 AD). It quotes Peshwa to have said “You are subordinate to greed and mlechhas. I’m superior to you. But today we meet as equals. Don’t think that I will leave my seat and sit below you. I will sit on the right and you on the left…”.
Then it continues to narrate that Peshwa uses hukkah and puffs the smoke on Jai Singh.

Not only was the Bundi poet telling this tale from well more than a century away. He didn’t even have direct access to Mewari documents to scrutinize the second hand data he may have received verbally or bardically, about the Peshwa’s Mewar visit.

It should be asked from Kulkarni why he didn’t properly analyze whether this narration was credible or not. But ofcourse when it gelled with whatever he wanted to present as history to his audience, so be it. The contradictions in the speech are hilarious. Peshwa and Jai Singh were together for more than two months. And at the same time Peshwa is puffing smoke into Jai Singh’s face during meeting. Observe this in the background of relations per Hingne’s data and the visit of Peshwa’s mother. A classic example of ‘You got it backwards!’

Despite mentioning the visit of Matushri Radha Bai in his speech. Kulkarni doesn’t do the obvious 2+2, omits the contemporary Marathi evaluation of Jai Singh; and goes on portraying as if Peshwa treated Mewari and Jaipur royalty in opposite manners.

Smoke aside, if one really wanted to know what the Peshwas thought of Sawai Jai Singh. They could easily find from contemporary Marathi sources like Peshwa Daftar and Hingne Daftar.
But no, pushing a tilted narrative is more important. Even if it is a stranger to the truth.

This was another retrofitting of modern and biased conclusions into the events of past. Effort to sell it in the name of Hindutva compels for scrambling for data aligning with the pre-conceived notions. Ending up with the use of sources that don’t even fit the requirement at hand.

It is disappointing to see that people would byepass the logical choice of easily available primary sources that overlap the events by time and place. And instead refer to third (fourth actually) party accounts like the Bundi annals written later in the 19th and early 20th century. Takes no labour to understand that all this is just to shove some heavily colored agenda or narrative.
Accepting such polarizing portrayal at face value. One would be forced to believe as if the Peshwa was some milord judging who among the plebs passes the Hindutva test.

What is it, if not a travesty of history.