The battle over a king's legacy: The distortion of Shivaji Maharaj

By Ram Puniyani* 

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

Earlier controversies centred on his statue committee being headed by Babasaheb Purandare, as many accused him of presenting Maharaj in Brahminical colours. Similarly, a history handbook prepared by human rights activist Teesta Setalvad recounted the incident of Shivaji not being crowned by Brahmins, as he was not considered a Kshatriya. At yet another time, an arch prepared during Ganeshotsav (Ganesh Festival) showing Shivaji stabbing Afzal Khan with a dagger provoked hostility among a large section of society.

Currently, two controversies have come up. One was the statement made by Bageshwar Dham Baba at an RSS function in Nagpur. Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, the Baba in question, resorts to blind-faith techniques to attract a large following. He produces chits to demonstrate supposed knowledge of his visitors through various tricks. His following has grown to the extent that even retired Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai visited him with his family to seek blessings. Shyam Manav, an activist working against blind faith, has observed that under the BJP's central rule, blind faith has increased and self-styled babas have proliferated.

At the RSS function, this charlatan Baba stated that Shivaji Maharaj, tired of wars, went to his guru Samarth Swami Ramdas, placed his crown at his feet, and requested him to take over his kingdom. There were two gross falsehoods in this statement. First, Ramdas was not Shivaji's guru — this is a fabricated Brahminical version of the Shivaji narrative. The matter had gone to court, which delivered the verdict that Ramdas was not Shivaji's guru, and there is no mention of such an incident in Shivaji's life. This statement was made in the presence of RSS Chief Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, none of whom objected.

When an outcry followed, the Baba apologised, saying he draws inspiration for Hindu Rashtra from Shivaji's concept of Hindvi Swaraj, among other things. This too is far from the truth. Shivaji's Hindvi Swaraj was area-specific, with "Hind" being a geographic term rather than a religious one, as his life clearly exemplifies. He respected all religions. His army had nearly twelve generals who were Muslim — Siddi Sambal, Ibrahim Gardi, and Daulat Khan among them. He also had a mosque built in his fort of Raigad for his Muslim officers and subjects. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali. He held women in the highest regard. When his army brought him the daughter-in-law of the Muslim ruler of Bassein as a prize of war, he had the moral stature to return her to her family with full respect. The Brahminical version on which the Baba based his remarks is the very narrative the RSS promotes.

The other controversy involves Sanjay Gaikwad, a BJP ally and Eknath Shinde's Shiv Sena MLA from Buldhana. Gaikwad triggered controversy by threatening to "chop off the tongue" of a publisher over the 1988 book Shivaji Kon Hota? (Who was Shivaji?) by Govind Pansare. Gaikwad objected to what he claimed was a disrespectful, singular reference to Shivaji Maharaj in the title and content, accusing it of distorting history. He also called Prashant Ambi, the book's distributor, threatening that he would meet the same fate as Govind Pansare. As a reminder: Pansare, the CPI leader and rationalist activist, was shot dead during a morning walk — a killing largely attributed to Hindu nationalist groups. In a recorded phone call, Gaikwad allegedly used abusive language and made this explicit threat to the Kolhapur-based publisher.

Pansare wrote this book after painstaking research, titling it in Marathi in a form of address used for the most intimate persons. Gaikwad treats this as an insult to Shivaji. The book was published in 1988 and has since sold hundreds of thousands of copies, being translated into many languages. In many ways it has become the foundational text on Shivaji for the general reader. It highlights Shivaji's concern for raiyats (poor farmers) and his respect for all religions. His grandfather, Maloji Rao Bhosle, had prayed at the dargah of Sufi saint Shah Sharif when he had no children; when two sons were born to him, he named them Shahji and Sharifji. Shivaji was the son of Shahji Bhosle.

Shivaji built his kingdom partly by fighting neighbouring Hindu kings such as Chandra Rao More. In his famous encounter with Afzal Khan, the general of Adil Shah of Bijapur, the iron claws he used were given to him by a Muslim bodyguard, Rustom-e-Zaman. Notably, Afzal Khan had commissioned a yagna through local Brahmins to defeat Shivaji, while Shivaji's own secretary was Krishnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni, a Brahmin. Shivaji's humane values were remarkable: he killed Afzal Khan in battle, yet later built a tomb in his honour that stands to this day. The likes of Gaikwad and Hindu nationalist narratives omit these aspects to present Shivaji as an anti-Muslim king — which he was not. Across Maharashtra, and now across India, the propaganda portrays him as such, but this narrative collapses under any serious study of his life and work. His primary concern was always the poor peasants, and he put an end to the atrocities of middlemen to their great relief.

The Brahminical tendency, then, distorts the full truth by interpreting Shivaji as anti-Muslim. This is the agenda Gaikwad serves. Dhirendra Shastri and the RSS combine seek to project his legacy in support of their Hindu Rashtra project, when his Hindvi Swaraj was never synonymous with Hindu Rashtra.

The most heartening aspect of the current controversy is that booksellers report surging demand for Pansare's book, while human rights groups are organising mass public readings of it — a very healthy response indeed.

---

*Political commentator