Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj: An Inclusive Ruler

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is the most popular King in Maharashtra. Currently, he is also being popularised in other places of the country as a major Hindu nationalist icon. Controversies have surrounded him time and over again. His popularity is not restricted to one section of society but cuts across different sections of society. His anniversary is celebrated with great enthusiasm and powadas (folk songs) praising him are sung all over the state. The controversies surface as his interpretation by various sections of society is very diverse.

The earlier controversies were around his statue committee being headed by Babasaheb Purandare, as many accused him of presenting Maharaj in Brahminical colours. Similarly, the Handbook of History prepared by the human rights activist Teesta Setalvad recounted the incident of Shivaji not being crowned by Brahmins as he was not a Kshatriya. At yet another time, the arch prepared during Ganeshotsava (Ganesh festival) showing Shivaji stabbing Afzal Khan with a dagger provoked hate sentiments amongst a large section of society.

Currently, two controversies have come up. One was the statement of Bageshwar Dham ‘baba’ at an RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) function in Nagpur. Incidentally Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, the ‘baba’, is resorting to blind faith techniques to attract a large following. He takes out a chit to show the credentials of the people by using various tricks. His following is growing to the extent that even retired Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, visited him with his family to seek his blessings. Shyam Manav, working against blind faith has observed that during the central rule of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), blind faith has gone up and ‘babas’ have proliferated.

Anyway, in the RSS function, this ‘baba’ stated that Shivaji Maharaj was tired of wars so he went to his Guru Samarth Swami Ramdas, put his crown on his feet and requested him to take over his kingdom.

There were two gross fallacies in this statement. First, Ramdas was not Shivaji’s guru, this is a make believe Brahminical version of the Shivaji narrative. The matter had gone to the court, which gave the verdict that Ramdas was not Shivaji’s Guru. There is no mention of such an incident in Shivaji’s life.

All this was stated by the ‘baba’ in the presence of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, Union Minister Nitin Gadkari and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. None objected to his statement.

When a hue and cry was raised, the ‘baba’ apologised saying that he draws inspiration of Hindu Rashtra from Shivaji’s Hindvi Swaraj, among other things. This again is far from the truth. Shivaji’s Hindvi Swaraj was area specific, Hind being a geographic term rather than a religious term. Shivaji’s life exemplifies this. He respected all religions. His army had nearly 12 generals who were Muslims, Siddi Sambal, Ibrahim Gardi, Daulat Khan among them. He had also got a mosque made in his Fort of Raigad for his Muslim officers and subjects. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali. Shivaji respected women to the core. His army had brought the beautiful daughter-in-law of Muslim ruler of Bassein as a gift for him. He had morals enough to return her to her family home with due respect. The Brahminical version based on which this ‘baba’ had made these remarks is the narrative that RSS promotes.   

The other controversy relates to BJP ally Eknath Shinde Shiv Sena MLA from Buldhana, Sanjay Gaikwad. He triggered a controversy by threatening to "chop off the tongue" of a publisher regarding the 1988 book 'Shivaji Kon Hota?' (Who Was Shivaji?) by Govind Pansare.

Gaikwad objected to the alleged disrespectful, singular reference to Shivaji Maharaj in the title and content, accusing it of distorting history. He called up the distributor of the book, Prashant Ambi and allegedly threatened him that he would meet “the same fate as Govind Pansare” (he was killed during a morning walk, mostly by those belonging to Hindu nationalist groups).

Pansare, a Communist Party of India leader and rationalist activist, wrote this book, after painstaking research and titled in Marathi, Shivaji Kon Hota, addressing him in singular form. This form is used for most intimate persons. Gaikwad is objecting to that as an insult to Shivaji. The book was published in 1988 and since then has sold lakhs of copies and has been translated in many languages. In a way this has become a basic book on Shivaji for average people. It shows the concern of Shivaji for raiyats (poor farmers) and respect for all religions.

Shivaji Maharaj’s grandfather, Maloji Rao Bhosle, had prayed at a Sufi saint (Shah Sharif) Dargah, as he had no children. Later when he got two sons, he named them Shahji and Sharifji. Shivaji was son of Shahji Bhosle.

He built his kingdom by attacking the neighbouring Hindu Kings like Chandra Rao More. In his fight with Afzal Khan, the general of Adil Shah of Bijapur, he was given iron claws by a Muslim bodyguard, Rustom-e-Jaman. Interestingly Afzal Khan had performed a ‘yagna’ through local Brahmins to defeat Shivaji. Also, his secretary was Krishnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni.

Interestingly Shivaji’s humane values were matchless. He did kill Afzal Khan but later he also built a tomb for him, which is present even today. The likes of Gaikwad and Hindu nationalist narratives omit these aspects of Shivaji to present him as an anti-Muslim King, which he was not.

In Maharashtra, and now all over India, the propaganda is that Shivaji was an anti-Muslim king. This narrative falls flat if we study his life and work. His main concern was poor peasants for whose protection he stopped the atrocities of middlemen.

So, the Brahminical tendencies interpret and propagate Maharaj as anti-Muslim, distorting the whole truth, and this is what Gaikwad is aiming at. Dhirendra Shastri and RSS combine want to project this for their agenda of Hindu Rashtra, whereas Shivaji’s Hindvi was not synonymous with Hindu Rashtra.

The most interesting part of the whole controversy is that most book sellers are facing the demand for this book in increasing numbers. At the same time, human rights groups are also organising mass reading of the book, and are eliciting a healthy response.

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.