Movie Chhava's selective historiography: Medieval history seen as battle between noble Hindu kings and evil Muslim rulers

By Ram Puniyani* 

As communal hate rises through the misuse of history on political battlegrounds, new dimensions have been added to this phenomenon in recent years. Apart from propaganda and indoctrination through RSS Shakhas, social media, the BJP's IT cell, and mainstream media—particularly many TV channels—films have now become a tool to perpetuate misconceptions within society.  

In the recent past, films like "The Kerala Story" and "The Kashmir Files" have gripped society in a frenzy of hate. Other, less successful films such as "Swatantraveer Savarkar", "72 Hoorain", and "Samrat Prithviraj" have also contributed to this trend. Now, "Chhava", a film running to packed houses in Maharashtra and across the country, is taking this hate to new heights. This film is not a historical account but is based on the novel "Chhava" by Shivaji Sawant. The filmmakers have already had to apologize for inaccuracies in the film.  

The film selectively picks incidents from Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj’s life and portrays Aurangzeb as cruel and anti-Hindu. In the 126-minute film, a significant 40 minutes are devoted to the torture of Sambhaji Maharaj, a segment where the filmmaker may have taken considerable creative liberties. The narrative frames medieval history as a battle between noble Hindu kings and evil Muslim rulers.  

Sambhaji Maharaj was the eldest son of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Shivaji’s kingdom included Muslim officers, such as Maulana Haider Ali, his confidential secretary, and 12 Muslim generals in his army, including Siddi Sambal, Ibrahim Gardi, and Daulat Khan. When Shivaji confronted Afzal Khan, he was advised to carry iron claws, which were provided by his subordinate, Rustam-E-Jamaan. After killing Afzal Khan, the latter’s secretary, Krishnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni, attempted to attack Shivaji.  

From Aurangzeb’s side, Raja Jai Singh led the army against Shivaji. Shivaji was forced to appear in Aurangzeb’s court and was later imprisoned. He escaped with the help of a Muslim prince, Madari Mehtar.  

Hindutva ideologues like Savarkar and Golwalkar have raised questions about Sambhaji’s character, citing his indulgence in wine and women. For this, Shivaji imprisoned him in Panhala Fort. Later, Sambhaji allied with Aurangzeb in battles against Shivaji and Adil Shah of Bijapur.  

After Shivaji’s death, a succession battle ensued. Sambhaji’s half-brother, Rajaram (son of Shivaji’s other wife, Soyrabai), attempted to poison him. When the conspiracy was uncovered, Sambhaji executed many Hindu officers. In the battle against Sambhaji, Aurangzeb sent his general, Rathod, to fight him. Once captured, Sambhaji was humiliated and tortured, an event that has been exaggerated in the film.  

The film further propagates negative portrayals of Aurangzeb, depicting him as exceptionally cruel in dealing with his opponents. However, this is not an attempt to justify his actions but to understand the patterns of medieval kingdoms. Many kings inflicted brutal punishments on their enemies. Historian Ruchika Sharma notes that when the Chola kings defeated the Chalukya army, they beheaded Chalukya’s general, Samudraraj, and cut off the nose of his daughter. Ashoka’s Kalinga war is infamous for its brutality. The actions of kings cannot be judged by modern standards.  

What, then, should we say when bulldozers raze the homes of Muslims for crimes not proven in a court of law? Or when a Hindu king had a fort atop a hill where conspirators were thrown into a deep valley with their hands and feet tied? Bal Sawant, in his book, describes the atrocities committed by Shivaji’s army during the plunder of Surat. Armies and atrocities were closely linked; cruelty against enemies, while condemnable, was not unusual. When Sambhaji’s Marathas attacked Goa, a Portuguese account (cited by historian Jadunath Sarkar) stated, “Up to now, nowhere else in India has such barbarity been seen…” Such accounts must be treated carefully, but they highlight the pervasive nature of violence, even if its extent varied.  

Was Aurangzeb anti-Hindu? Aurangzeb was neither Akbar nor Dara Shukoh. He was orthodox and did not welcome Hindus or non-Sunni sects of Islam at one level. However, he was also a master of alliances, with a significant number of Hindu officers in his administration. As Professor Athar Ali points out, Aurangzeb had the highest proportion of Hindu officers (33%) in his administration.  

While Aurangzeb did destroy some temples, he also donated to many, such as Kamakhya Devi (Guwahati), Mahakaleshwar (Ujjain), Chitrakut Balaji, and Lord Krishna’s temple in Vrindavan. Even Shivaji donated to the Sufi dargah of Hazrat Baba Bahut Thorwale. Destroying places of worship associated with enemy kings was a common practice to humiliate them, as noted by Richard Eaton (*Frontline*, December-January 1996). Communal historians, however, selectively highlight temple destruction by Muslim kings while ignoring their donations to Hindu temples.  

Aurangzeb imposed the Jizya tax after 22 years of his rule, exempting Brahmins, the disabled, and women. It was not a tool for conversion but a property tax set at 1.25%, compared to the 2.5% Zakat paid by Muslims. The torture of Sikh Gurus was wrong, but it stemmed from power struggles between the Sikh Gurus and the Mughal administration.  

Communal historians are working overtime to cherry-pick incidents without considering the broader context of the period. Kings used religion to inspire their armies—Hindu kings invoked Dharmayuddha, while Muslim kings invoked Jihad. These right-wing historians’ selective use of sources may seem apt, but their framework is constrained by a communal narrative that views kings through the lens of religion rather than their pursuit of power and wealth. Religion was incidental, if relevant at all, to their goal of expanding their kingdoms or empires.  

Such narratives fuel divisive politics, posing a significant threat to the Indian Constitution.
---
*Youtube Facebook Instagram Whatsapp
Twitter Pinterest My Website My App