Who was Shivaji

by Govind Pansare

Pansare had a clear sense that the ideological and cultural fight against the Right could not be avoided, since it was in this domain that the Right had corrupted the social basis for worker solidarity.

When Pansare went to Shivaji University to lecture about Godse, a student activist of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad threatened him with legal action and more. In his measured way, Pansare asked the student to do just that so that he could prove that Godse was the opposite of a patriot.

In most countries which become nations in history, the great men (and, occasionally, women) of their ancient and medieval past are found standing at the cross roads of fact and legend in the collective consciousness and imagination of the people. This collective historical consciousness is forged over time by writers, poets, historians, philosophers and a media dedicated to nationalism. Ramses, Alexander, Ashoka, Caesar, Changez, Akbar . . . they all overshadow the modern historical consciousness as living statues made of myth and reality.

In time, and due to generations of collected memories fashioned by vested interests and ideology, fact and fiction become inseparable in our love for our heroes and our hatred for our villains. In the haste to identify with the heroes of our history and alienate the villains from this process of identification we forget that love and hatred both can be, and often are, irrational.

It can be confidently asserted that after 1826 the name of Shivaji entered the formal pedagogy of colonial education in India designed to promote the “divide and rule” policy of the British. The invention of Shivaji as a Hindu warrior-ruler who had developed a deep-seated hatred for the Muslims in his early life must be credited to the Orientalist colonial imagination of Grant Duff. After this postulate that Shivaji hated the Muslims was laid down, most of Maratha historiography and Marathi historical fiction which developed in the nineteenth and twentieth century, in the words of Stewart Gordon, can be seen as a “gloss” on Duff’s master narrative.

In 1869 Jotirao Phule inserted a discordant note in the Brahmanical interpretation of Shivaji’s achievements by writing a powada (Marathi ballad) on Shivaji which celebrated his achievements as a Kshatriya Raja in the tradition of a Marathi shahir.[4] Phule’s Chhatrapati Shivajiraje Bhosle Yancha Powada describes Shivaji as an ideal king who lived in the saddle and fought both the Yavanas and the traitors within Maharashtra. Though Phule’s powada calls Aurangzeb a “sachcha harami shaitan” (“a real devil”), more because of what he did to his brothers and father and less because he was Muslim, it can be read alongside his larger treatise on the caste system Gulamgiri (Slavery) which was published in 1873. The anti-savarna imagination of Shivaji as a sovereign who suppressed the Brahmanical descendants of the Yavanas and elevated the social status of the dalit-bahujans crafted by Phule and his followers active in the Dalit-Bahujan movements in the twentieth century provides a part of the epistemological context of Pansare’s Who was Shivaji?

Shivaji turned the commoners into great people. They, in turn, made him a great king. Both came together to fulfill a tremendous task.

Shivaji treated Muslims and Islam with respect and was not averse to establishing relations with those Hindus who had converted to Islam and wished to re-convert to Hinduism; no Nazi-style final solutions to the fluidity and co-existence of religious identities were to be found in the seventeenth century. Religion was important to pre-colonial Indians like it was to all pre-modern societies in general, but unlike sixteenth-century Europe, the wars of religion were not to be found in India.

Shivaji’s attitude even towards the Europeans was not governed by a frog-in-the-well approach which is the hallmark of religious nationalism. He was happy to take Portuguese assistance when it came to developing his artillery and building his forts. Even the sword which he is said to have used regularly was forged by the Portuguese whose military reputation in India during the seventeenth century was quite high; Pansare dilates a little on this in the context of the Goddess Bhavani myth associated with Shivaji’s sword. In the light of these facts it is perhaps apt to describe Shivaji as a kind of “equal opportunity employer” in the seventeenth century.

Muslims fought in large numbers in the “Maratha” armies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries only to be exiled from Maratha history due to the painstaking efforts of the modern historians of Maharashtra during the colonial period.

The Maratha-Muslim military co-operation continued in the nineteenth century and was demonstrated in the desperate resistance offered to the British by the Afghans in the service of the Rani of Jhansi from within the besieged Jhansi fort in 1857.

There were at least 13 major Muslim commanders or soldiers in Shivaji’s army: Siddhi Hilal, Daulat Khan, Ibrahim Khan, Kazi Haider, Siddi Ibrahim, Siddi Wahwah, Noorkhan Beg, Shama Khan, Hussain Khan Miyani, Siddi Mistri, Sultan Khan, Dawood Khan and Madari Mehetar.

Shivaji belonged to an elite military family but his power rested on various sections of the peasantry whose affections he gained by curbing the power of the saranjamshahi jagirdari feudal ruling class of Maharashtra — the oppressor-in-chief of the peasants.

Unfortunately for the lower castes, the state established by Shivaji did not last very long after his death and the jagirdari class he had suppressed reasserted its power during the period of the Peshwai. In fact the Peshwai undid what Shivaji had accomplished in the seventeenth century and re-established the dominance of the saranjamshahi class in Maharashtra with great force.

From Shivaji Kon Hota? we come to know that the state set up by Shivaji created numerous opportunities for the upward social mobility of the lower castes denied them by the traditional caste system of India.

More than a century after Phule first questioned the Brahman appropriation of Shivaji to the cause of a largely savarna hegemonic nationalism, Pansare wrote Shivaji Kon Hota? to separate the facts from the fictive biographies of Shivaji which comprise the dominant narrative of that admirable seventeenth century ruler.

A king who inherits sovereignty does not have to do anything to earn it. He merely is born and succeeds to his legacy. There is nothing admirable about that. Most kings become regal by sheer birthright. Shivaji did not inherit his throne. He was not one of those kings. He founded a new state. It is never easy to found a state — more difficult in Shivaji’s case. Yet, he did it. There is a great difference between ascending to a pre-existing throne and creating a new one by one’s own efforts.

When Shivaji founded his state, his contemporaries were not even thinking about such a thing; let alone bring it into reality. A common mission was to earn a place in the court of this or that emperor and king and to serve them loyally. The point was to sell one’s honour and win their confidence. In this context, Shivaji thought of establishing an independent state, ruled by him. He made a proper plan for his ambition, implemented that plan and finally founded a state.

There is a good definition of modern state: a state is one that “emerges from people but is also increasingly alienated from them.”

When people participate, then only can Swaraj [self-rule] emerge. This historic truth is recorded in a ballad, whose direct appeal is captured in simple language: “Be warned. A gallop ahead, and I finish you in smithereens…”

The way the ryots deal with a king depends on how the king deals with them. If the king truly cares for the ryots, then they in turn care ten times for their king. If the rulers treat the state as the people’s property and not their private property, then the ryots accept that state as their own. And if the rulers treat people as insignificant, then they hold the state as though it were inherited from their forefathers. Ryots rise to dethrone such rulers. Such is the history of the world.

The story of the Patil of the village Ranjha is well-chronicled. In broad daylight, the officer Patil of the village picked up a poor peasant’s young daughter and raped her. Instead of living the rest of her life in humiliation, she chose to die. She committed suicide. The whole village cried mutely. Shivaji heard the news of this crime and tragedy. He had the Patil arrested and brought to Pune. The Patil’s arms and legs were cut off — as per the decreed punishment. The sentence was not only pronounced; it was implemented without delay. The people of Maval province could not believe their eyes or ears. The ryots gave their heart to Shivaji — the king who did not hesitate to punish a Patil, a feudatory, for raping a poor peasant’s daughter.

General Sakuji Gaikwad laid siege to the Belawadi fort in 1678. The chief of the fort was a woman. Her name was Savitribai Desai. This woman warrior defended the fort for twenty-seven days. But finally Sakuji succeeded in conquering the fort and, inebriated with victory, he raped Savitribai. Shivaji heard this and was so angry that he punished Sakuji by blinding him and imprisoning him for the rest of his life. He did not pardon a rapist even though he was his own victorious General. He could do so because he sincerely believed, “a woman’s modesty, whoever she may be, must be protected at any cost.” This was the height of progressive thinking of his time.

This beautiful young Muslim woman was presented to Shivaji in his court as a gift by one of his victorious warriors. Shivaji looked at her and said, “If only my mother was so beautiful!” To utter such words — again limited by his day — one needs to have rich character and a healthy attitude to beauty. Can we imagine what would happen if such a woman had come in front of today’s uncivilized so-called Shivabhaktas? The difference lies between the real Shivaji and false Shivabhaktas.

The relations between the army and the ryots need to be based on unity for running the state for their welfare. The people should not fear their own army. One succeeds in one’s cause only if the army and the ryots are supportive of each other. There are modern examples where the people and the army share such relationship. The experience of Vietnam is fresh in our mind.

Shivaji’s order of 1677 contained a vital clause, which has remained unnoticed thus far. It says, You were permitted without hindrance, in the Musalman rule, to purchase or sell men and women as slaves. But under my rule you are not allowed the trade of men and women as slaves. If you try to do so, my people will stop you. This clause is to be strictly followed.

The Konkan coastline is very long, and a well-equipped navy was essential for its defense. Shivaji installed such a naval force, with its leader being Darya Sarang Daulat Khan.

Shivaji’s personal bodyguard included a Muslim youth called Madari Mehtar. He was a trusted servant. Why should he, a Muslim, have helped Shivaji in his most dramatic and legendary escape from Agra? Would it have been possible if Shivaji had been a hater of Muslims?

After the battle of Saleri, Aurangzeb’s lieutenants in the South sent a Hindu Brahman ambassador so as to establish amicable relations with Shivaji. Shivaji in turn sent Kazi Hyder as his emissary. Thus a Muslim ruler had under him a Hindu ambassador and a Hindu ruler had a Muslim. If society were vertically split between the Hindu and Muslim communities this could not have happened.

Siddi Hilal was one such Muslim working for Shivaji. Shivaji defeated Rustum Zama and Fazal Khan near Raibaug in 1660. Siddi Hilal fought on Shivaji’s side. Adil Shah II’s uncle Siddi Jauhar came to lay siege against Shivaji at Panhala Fort that same year. Shivaji’s trusted aide, Netaji Palkar, used his armed detachments to dislodge the siege. Siddi Hilal and his son were at Netaji’s side at the time. Hilal’s son Siddi Wahwah was wounded and captured in this battle.

V.K. Rajwade points out in his Marathyanchya Itihasachi Sadhane (“Sources of Maratha History”) that Shivaji’s Sarnobat or chief of infantry was Noor Khan Beg. These were not isolated individuals. Muslim sardars worked for Shivaji along with the anonymous Muslim soldiers under them.

his military advisor. Gomaji said, “These people have come hearing about your reputation. It will not be proper to turn them away. If you think that you should organize Hindus alone and will not be bothered about others, you will not succeed in establishing your rule. The one who wishes to establish rule must gather all the eighteen castes and the four varnas and assign to them their functions.”

Grant Duff, in his History of the Marhattas (1830) mentions Gomaji Naik’s advice to Shivaji and then notes, “After this, Shivaji enlisted a large number of Muslims also in his army and this helped a great deal in founding his rule.”

Shivaji’s lieutenants, soldiers and chieftains were not Hindus alone. They were Muslims as well. If Shivaji had undertaken the task of eliminating Islam, these Muslims would certainly not have joined him.

He had set out to bring in a rule that cared for the ryots. This is the reason why the Muslims too joined him in his cause.

The question of religion was not the main question. The main question was of the state. Not loyalty to religion, but loyalty to the state, to a master was more important.

There were about 500 Sardars holding different mansabs under Akbar. Out of those 22.5 per cent were Hindus. In Shah Jahan’s empire, the ratio stood at 22.4 per cent. Aurangzeb is supposed to be the most fanatic of all the Muslim rulers. When he took over the empire, Hindus accounted for 21.6 per cent of the Mansabdars. When his reign ended, this figure rose to 31.6 per cent. It was Aurangzeb who had appointed Raja Jaswant Singh, a Hindu Rajput, as the Subedar (governor) of the Deccan. Aurangzeb’s first Minister too was a Hindu, Raghunath Das. He was a Rajput and yet fought against Rajputs on behalf of Aurangzeb. One of Rana Pratap Singh’s generals was Hakim Khan Soor, a Muslim. The Chief of the Peshwa’s artillery in the battle of Panipat was Ibrahim Khan Gardi.

In ancient or medieval India wars were not waged on the grounds of religion. The main motive behind wars was to capture or to strengthen power. It was true that religion was temporarily used to support the main purpose. But it never was the sole or main motive.

Babar, a Muslim, became the Emperor of Delhi by defeating Sultan Ibrahim Khan Lodhi, a Muslim. Babar founded the Mughal dynasty. Both Sher Shah and Humayun were Muslims yet they fought a bitter war against each other. The rulers of Bijapur and Golconda were both Muslims. Aurangzeb fought a protracted war against these so-called Muslim rules. This shows that what was important was not religion but power.

The legendary battle of Haldi was fought between Rana Pratap and Akbar. This battle had a great importance for Rana Pratap in particular, and for Rajputs and Rajasthan in general. But can this battle of Haldi be described, by any stretch of imagination, as a battle between Hindus and Muslims? Akbar’s army was led by the Rajput Man Singh. That army consisted of 60,000 Mughal troops and 40,000 Rajput troops. Whereas Rana Pratap’s army had 40,000 Rajput soldiers, it consisted of a large division of Pathans under Hakim Khan Soor. It also had a cavalry under a Pathan called Taj Khan. The chief of Rana Pratap’s artillery too was a Muslim Sardar.

Guru Govind Singh too fought against the central Muslim power. His army also had, along with Sikhs, thousands of Muslims. After Aurangzeb died, there was a fierce struggle for succession among his heirs. Guru Govind Singh helped Bahadur Shah in that feud.

It is true that the invading Muslim armies, while expanding their rule, looted and destroyed temples. But this is not the whole truth. It is a half-truth. The tribe-like armies of Arabs, Turks and Afghans were not regularly paid. It was an accepted practice for them to loot and keep their share with them as wage. Certain Hindu temples used to be very rich. While looting, the invaders destroyed some temples and divided the booty. These armies would not care to touch the temples situated atop mountain peaks or deep inside the ravines. What could be the reason for this? The main purpose was to loot the wealth in temples and not to destroy them. Looting wealth was the prime concern; religion was secondary. Destruction of temples was a means of achieving this purpose. A major portion of this loot went to the king. It was the chief source of the king’s revenue.

A second motive of attacking temples was to discourage the people who live in areas surrounding the temples. The violence was intended to create fear among them, to break their fighting spirit. People believed in religion and in god. It was easy for the invaders to make them believe that those who had looted god would easily loot them too. “Such a powerful god could not do anything; what can we mortals do?” This kind of helplessness and panic would spread all over. This would make it easy for the invaders to conquer the enemy.

Aurangzeb, who is known as a religious fanatic, destroyed many temples while invading kingdoms to expand his own empire. But the same Aurangzeb donated money to temples. He awarded two hundred villages to the Jagannath temple of Ahmedabad. He donated money to Hindu temples at Mathura and Benaras too.

when Afzal Khan supposedly destroyed the Bhavani temple at Tuljapur, he was accompanied by Pilaji Mohite, Shankarraoji Mohite, Kalyanrao Yadav, Naikji Sarate, Nagoji Pandhare, Prataprao More, Zunjarrao Ghatge, Kate, Baji Ghorpade and Sambhajirao Bhonsle.

It is well known that Goddess Sharada temple at Shringeri was damaged while the Marathas looted it in 1791 and the Muslim King Tipu Sultan restored it later.

Shivaji had looted Surat on two occasions. The detailed accounts of both are well recorded. There are also records of the looting of the market at Junnar and other places. However, is there the tiniest of evidence that he demolished a single mosque? Or is there any evidence of him having constructed a temple in place of a mosque, which was supposed to have been built by demolishing a temple? Not at all. On the contrary, there are records that he donated money and land to mosques. Sabhasad’s Bakhar notes, “There were places of worship all over. Proper arrangement of their worship and care was made. He also looked after the arrangements in pirs and mosques.”

Shivaji and his contemporary Marathas and Hindus worshipped and donated money to dargahs. They respected Muslim sadhus, pirs and fakirs. Shivaji had many gurus. They included a Muslim saint called Yakut Baba.

Khafi Khan’s Muntakhabu-l Lubab notes, “Shivaji had made a strict rule that wherever his soldiers went they were not to harm mosques, the Quran or women. If he found a volume of Quran, he would show respect to it and hand it over to his Muslim servant. If any helpless Hindu or Muslim were found, Shivaji would personally look after them until their relatives came to take them.” Shivaji’s chief justice, Raghunath Pandit Rao, in a letter of 2nd November 1669 writes, “Shrimant Mararaj has ordained that everybody is free to follow his religion and nobody is allowed to disturb it.” Those who try to appropriate Shivaji for their narrow purposes will have to answer for the historical record.

If there are any buyers for their hatred for Islam they should sell it on their own merit. They should not sell their commodity in Shivaji’s name.