|
|
Society
Shivaji and the
Parochial Politics of Hate
by Saurav Basu
Shivaji was the
last great constructive genius produced by the Hindu Civilization
� Sir Jadunath Sarkar
The dalit brigades are at
it again. The house of Kumar Ketkar, the Loksatta editor was vandalized
by a NCP affiliated organization, the Shivasangram Sangathana (Militants
acting in the name of the Maratha king Shivaji) His crime was his
audacious verbal assault on an idol of Shivaji erected at a cost of 100
crores of public money at a time when hundreds of farmers are regularly
committing suicide at Vidarbha, and several thousand potential others
are on the verge of doing so having been crippled by outstanding debts
and failing crops.
This demeaning devotion to Shivaji is not new. James M Laine who penned
the controversial history book on Shivaji with research material
provided by the prestigious Bhandarkar research institute questioned
Shivaji�s traditional paternity and his hero-worthiness! Immediately,
the Sambhaji brigade, a militant dalit organization also affiliated to
Sharad Pawar�s NCP gave vent to their fury by barging into the institute
and destroying several irreplaceable and priceless manuscripts. The then
PM Atal Behari Vajpayee publicly condemned the violence and considered
any attempts to ban the book as antidemocratic. But the Congress-NCP
government in Maharashtra, eager to represent itself as the exclusive
protector of Shivaji�s legacy and for sake of petty political gains went
ahead and banned the book. The irony was that the worldwide condemnation
was directed against Hinduvta organizations when it was a Congress-NCP
backed dalit brigade which was at the vanguard of the movement. Even
James M Laine pointed out to the communist weekly, the Frontline as to
the difficulty in categorizing the Sambhaji brigade as 'Hindu
fundamentalist' when all evidence indicated its anti-brahmin
orientation.
I must concede that there were some Hinduvta sympathizers like the
journalist Sandhya Jain, who went overboard in the book�s criticism and
made the despicable remark that she did not consider the violence as
totally unjustifiable. Admittedly, some of the insinuations were in a
bad taste. But James M Laine was well within his rights to write a
critical account of a medieval Hindu king and his efforts should only
have been resisted in the academic arena. That the power of the pen is
mightier than the sword is now pass�.
The UPSC civil services examination prelims 2008 paper on History
contained a question which affirmed Sambhaji�s loose character. Sambhaji
was Shivaji�s elder son who was imprisoned by Shivaji himself when he
came to know that he had violated a young woman. But since Sambhaji has
emerged as a neo-dalit icon due to his contempt for Brahmins, such a
fact was deemed unacceptable and the UPSC board the very next day
publicly annulled the question with an apology in place.
We find that in each of these incidents, the perpetrators of violence
share some profound anti-historical values. Shivaji was an exceptionally
sensitive and caring king regarding his subjects. The historian Stewart
Gordon informs us that Shivaji encouraged taqqavi loans, low settlements
to repopulate devastated areas and carefully commanded his army when
they were in monsoon cantonments not to disturb tax collectors while
uncultivable wastelands were usually excluded from assessment. However,
M G Ranade, the nationalist statesman in his Rise of the Maratha
Power admits Shivaji�s policy inevitably caused great hardships to
the peasants situated in the border areas of neighboring states. But
despite such problematic scenario, we are confident that Shivaji would
have done anything to alleviate the condition of the peasants. Yet, the
Maratha mercy remains unmoved as farmer suicides in Vidarbha multiply.
Worse, they would not even allow the uncared Vidarbha region the status
of a separate state due to regional parochialism. But paramount is the
fact, that the unostentatious Shivaji could not have even considered his
literally idolatrous deification at the cost of his starving subjects.
Shivaji faced a slew of slanders since his career began. Aurangzeb
considered him no better than a �mountain rat�; Khafi Khan, the
contemporary Mughal chronicler used the choicest expletives against him
although he grudgingly admired the infidel Shivaji�s respect for Muslim
female prisoners of war whom he returned to the enemy camp unmolested
and his respect for religious scripture including the Islamic Quran
whose copies he returned non mutilated. The colonial historian Vincent
Smith denounced him as a robber chieftain�. who inflicted untold
misery on hundred of thousands of innocent people.
Still, the worst calumny was being charged as a degraded murderer by
Grant Duff because of his killing Afzal Khan. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the
great leader publicly refuted the charge and defended Shivaji for his
nationalist actions. The wary English pounced on the opportunity and
sentenced Tilak on the charges of sedition. However, the eminent Indian
Historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar discovered the clinching proof which
formed the basis for Shivaji�s exoneration. In his �Shivaji and his
Times�, he conscientious proves through the letter of the English
factory record (Rajapur letter, 10 Dec. 1659) that Afzal planned to
murder Shivaji by pretending friendship. Also, the contemporary Maratha
historians are all unanimous in stating that it was Afzal who struck the
first blow in the interview. This evidence rips apart the claim of
Grant Duff that Shivaji had effected a pre-medicated political murder.
So truth does triumph, although it may take time, effort and a sustained
will. Only ethically and intellectually bankrupt people resort to
violence when faced with academic challenges.
Finally, the innocent assumption of these dalit brigades that Shivaji
was anti-brahmanical and a dalit revolutionary is baseless and renders a
travesty of historical scholarship. Shivaji in his letters honestly
believed himself to be a Rajput. However, since Brahmins continued to
cast aspersions on his claims to royal lineage, he had to invoke the
services of the great Brahmin scholar Gaga Bhat, who certified his right
to the throne. Shivaji had great admiration for Brahmin scholarship and
this is the reason he replaced Persian with Sanskrit as the language of
the court. In his coronation ceremony, Shivaji spent more than a crore
and half on feeding and gifting the Brahmins. He continued indulging
brahmanical orthodoxy as is evident at Shri Shaila close to his death
where he built a monastery, a rest house, fed a lakh of Brahmins and
gave away large sums to them. Of course, the reverse attempts at
Brahmanical appropriation of Shivaji by those like Rajwade are also
incorrect.
Shivaji had a stern mind
and usually believed in independent decision making. He did make
measured checks on Brahmanical power. He even considered punishing some
intolerant Brahmins by removing them from lucrative secular duties like
the command of armies; and instead limit them to the work they know best
� worshiping god. But nowhere do we find any hint of him being endowed
with a natural aversion to Brahmins, leave alone hatred for the same.
Shivaji�s administration did envisage a society free from caste based
exploitation and which granted equal opportunities where each could be
self-reliant. It advocated toleration and justice towards all its
members. But he neither had the luxury of time, nor resources to work
towards a lasting solution for Hindu society.
Shivaji was a sagacious and constructive Hindu king in Islamic India.
But his hypocritical contemporary followers, swearing on his name, yet
following a policy of parochialism, bigotry and hatred prove the dangers
of historical ignorance. Today, it is not a question of how Shivaji�s
name survived the onslaught of the most powerful Mughal emperor but how
shall his memory outlast the malevolence created in his name by such
disruptive forces.
June 8, 2008
Top |
Society
|
|
