Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

Manto,

Do you consider Ranjit Singh to be a Pakistani hero? By your criteria, his Sikh empire was a Pakistani empire since it was located in Lahore. Since you claim to be secular, would you consider him to be a brave Pakistani king and a hero?

Similarly do you consider Raja Porus who fought against Alexander to be a Pakistani hero? What about Raja Dahir in Sindh?

If you do not consider these men as your heros, then you are also showing the same communal mindset that you are accusing Indians about.

Salim Bhai:

Other fault lines are:

``Prithvi Raj Chauhan and Muhammad Gori`` is another soft button with India. And great humiliation for Indians. If someone will praise Gori, or degrade Prithvi Raj Chauhan, the responses will quite alike.

``Alha-Udal`` after Prithvi Raj Chauhan`s generation were two brothers. Local heros in Kannauj are where Prithvi Raj`s brother used to rule. I cannot recall the period of their appearance in Indiann history. There are very beautiful ballads written and sung in their praise. My dadi`s nani`s family was settled in Kannauj / Bundelkhand area where Alha-Udal became the folk heros. When I was young my dadi used to sing these ballads to me. I remember the opening words of the ballad.

``Attack on Somnath Temple`` by Mahmood Gaznavi.

Betrayal by Babar of Rana Sangha.
However, it is taught in the history as the beginning of great resistence, and for the oath that Rajput`s took that they will never sleep and eat at home until they have got rid of the foreigners. In fact, Nehru in a symbolic act, invited these nomads from Rajsthan after independence and asked them to accept the freedom of India as completion of their oath.

Rana Pratab and Akbar rivalry is also taught as great resistance, and the first successful guerilla movement against an empire. I have read the famous Hindi ballad ``Haldi Ghati`` and in it about Rana Pratab`s horse Chetak. This ballad was written by Maithli Charan Gupt.

``Shivaji - Aurangzeb`` fault line is vivid and alive is, because of Aurangzeb`s visible acts of imposing ``Jaziya`` and demolishing famous temples. You might recall that one the key military advisor to Shivaji was a muslim (afghan?) commander, and Nizam betrayed Aurangzeb and became the shia rulers of Deccan. Clearly, Aurangzeb`s acts were not just opposed by hindus alone.

``Guru Gobind Singh - Anuranzeb`` is another one.

Infact by Auranzeb`s time the resistance was quite strong. In fact Guru Gobind Singh (if I am not wrong died in Deccan), where Aurangzeb was the weakest.

Every humiliation by Muslims or British (gun kartoos in 1857, jallianwala bagh) had brought out reaction in India. This reaction is common to every Indian irrespective of the region they are from.

It is more than a question whether Auranzeb was Indian or not? How can we pass a judgment on his nationality, if he never regarded himself as Rajput and Indian?

Probably, Indian identity did not exist then anyway. Mughliya Sultnat was the identity, nation-states did not exist then. He certainly was Mughal. Mughliya Sultanat had rajput patrons, and never called themselves as Rajputs. Just as Shivaji was Maratha. Today, hindu-Indians associate themselves with Shivaji. Just as Vietnamese associate themselves with Ho Chi Minh.

Indians do not percieve Aurangzeb in the same light as Akbar. Just as Pakistanis will not put Gandhi in the same light as Jinnah. Neither should be expected. However, I can say that Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi`s most expensive neighborhood was named after independence, right close to Akbar Road, and Prithvi Raj Road. If this indicates anything.

Anil Kapuria

hahahahaha, you guys read marathi 4th grader textbooks? ROTFLMAO!!! seriously, get a life. and also, if this definition of aurangzeb as foreigner comes from a marathi textbook discussing aurangzeb vs. shivaji then the foreigner comment is easily explained... it simply means non-maharashtrian. sometimes things are less than they seem.

Ref # 138

Bbabu,

I know one Aurangzeb from Pakistani Kashmir in I think Forestry department when I was
studying at Oregon State University. He was a small and gentle man.
So there are some souls named after Aurangzeb.

BTW, what does name Auragnzeb mean? I know what names ShaJahan, JahanGir,
AlamGir etc. mean.

bbabu: Lots of germans have the name Heidler (from which Hitler is derived, Heidler being his mother`s maiden name). His father`s name was Shicklgruber, btw.

As for muslim names, do you have a problem with muslim names? Where precisely does it hurt when you hear a muslim name??

Ref # 98

``My own ancestors converted to Islam during his reign out of loyalty to what they considered a very brave leader. Imagine, here were Hindu Rajput warriors, who survived Ghori, the Delhi Sultanate, and after five generations of ``foreign`` Mughal rule saw it fitting to convert to the ``invader`s`` religion?``

Salim,

I do not know anything about your ancestors and why they converted, but just a guess,
may be it was somebody else`s ancestors were converting all those years during
Ghori and Delhi Sultanate and five generation of Mughal rule.
May be the edge was moving eastward and southward all the while.
May be if Aurangzeb`s rule had continued for another 100 years, some Salim from
Rajasthan/MP border would be saying what you are saying.
Just a guess.

Salim_Chauhan #102

`` Thank you for understanding what I am trying to do here. Now I can see why you enjoy duelling with Sadna so much. It is very easy to dismantle irrational and emotional viewpoints by using your adversaries` own logic. The bottom line is that one can`t declare Aurangzeb to be a ``foreign`` invader and SHivaji to be an Indian ``national`` hero. I saw a few episodes of ``Bharat Ek Khoj`` some time back, and yes, Nehru was all praise for Shivaji as a great Indian freedom fighter. If Shivaji was a hero, he was a hero for Maharashtra and not for the rest of Hindustan which was firmly on the side of the Mughals, including the largely Rajput Imperial Army. So, if today`s Shiv Sena and RSS from Gujarat, UP, Delhi, Bihar, and MP marches around shouting Shivaji`s name in jingoistic slogans and cursing Aurangzeb as that foreign invader, they are merely rewriting history according to their current bias. Once you tamper with reality, the whole facade starts to crumble. I support Indo/Pak unity despite the irrational, yet dangerous, views of these fools. But I will not succumb to the triumph of falsehood to win their favor. ``

How come we do not see Muslims with the name ``Aurangzeb`` ? I have seen plenty of Pakistanis and Indians with names like Humayun, Akbar, Jehangir

I wonder how many Germanic people have the name ``Hitler`` ?

I think Aurangzeb was Indian. He has a passport to prove it. Unfortunately it is buried
with him in Khuldabad.

Salim_Chauhan #98

`` Before we get all riled up in emotion, let me explain the importance of this discussion. I think that DM Sahib, GT, Ranjit, Kaal Bhai, Tahmed, Manto, and many others have got the point. This is not a ``my mom`s better than your mom`` altercation. This is about the TNT. If after 200 years of existence in India, if after having a Rajput Hindu grandmother and a Rajput Hindu great grandmother, Shri Maharaja Aurangzeb cannot be considered a Hindustani, then Mr. Jinnah had a valid point about the TNT another 250 years later. People like Sadna, Stuka, and others are introducing various definitions to essentially declare Aurangzeb to be a ``foreign`` invader and Shivaji to be an ``Indian`` hero. That is exactly the problem and the reason for many Muslims to run for the hills, praise Ghaznavi and Ghori, and demand a separate Pakistan. Let`s discuss the viewpoints a little:

Sadna says that the boundaries of India in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries were shifting like sand and there was no real India. Therefore, Aurangzeb was just a Mughal and not an Indian. Then, I ask, how could Shivaji become an Indian hero? In fact, Aurangzeb was more Indian (being the Shah-en-Shah of Hindustan) than Shivaji who was identified with just Maharashtra. If Aurangzeb was a foreign invader from the Mahratta perspective, then he must not be seen as a foreign invader by Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, UP, MP, Sindh, NWFP, Kashmir, Baluchistan, Bihar, and Bengal. These had all been a part of ``the Empire of Hindustan`` for several centuries and therefore their long-time ruler, Aurangzeb, was their person and not Shivaji, who was the real foreigner. If Shiv Sena is purely a Maharashtran party, I can understand thaat. I can even understand Shivaji being declared a ``provincial hero.`` But as Manto pointed out, Nehru (from UP and leader of Indians) should not praise Shivaji as a national hero - unless of course, we are ready to accept the TNT and identify Qasim, Ghaznavi, Ghori, Aibak, Razia, Khilji, Tughlak, Lodis, Babar, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jehan, Aurangzeb, and all the way to Farrukhsiyar, Ahmad Shah, Shah Alam, and Bahadur Shah Zafar as early ``Pakistanis.`` We would have to include Tipu Sultan, Sirajuddaulah, and even Maulana Azad as unsuspecting Pakistanis. Of course, whether there was an India then or not, it is obvious that many of our Indian friends, especially the right-wing Hindutva type, would consider Chandragupta, Maharaja Pithviraj Chauhan, Rana Sangha, Jai Singh, Shivaji, Simbhaji, Gandhiji, Nehru, to be the real ``Indian`` heros. All this does is prove Manto to be right about Mr. Jinnah being compelled to join the TNT and advocate Pakistan as a separate homeland and identity for Indian Muslims. I don`t subscribe to that theory, but strangely, the right-wing gallery of Indian Hindus is supporting that logic.

Stuka and others contend that because Aurangzeb was cruel to Hindus (imposing jizya, fighting with Hindus, and forced conversions to Islam), he cannot be considered an Indian ruler, despite his Rajput ancestry. Well, Aurangzeb was cruel to many Muslims, especially Shias in the Deccan (because they were loyal to Iran and sent some tribute to that country), he was cruel to his own brothers, and treated Sikhs with cruelty. But then he also built Hindu temples, had a largely Hindu Rajput Imperial Army, and included many Rajputs as his personal guard. My own ancestors converted to Islam during his reign out of loyalty to what they considered a very brave leader. Imagine, here were Hindu Rajput warriors, who survived Ghori, the Delhi Sultanate, and after five generations of ``foreign`` Mughal rule saw it fitting to convert to the ``invader`s`` religion? Is it possible that some really bad press has been given to Shri Aurangjeb and some slick marketing has been performed to favor Shri Shivaji? ``

My knowledge of Aurangzeb is primarily from Indian history textbooks. There is no doubt the guy was cruel to everyone. Aurangzeb was a lousy ruler by any definition. He was a loser by any definition. The Maratha army was more powerful than the Mughal army within 10 years of Aurangzeb`s death.

The third battle of Panipat was fought between Marathas and Afghans in 1761. What was the Maratha army doing in Panipat north of Delhi ?

I fail to understand why many Pakistanis are losing sleep over whom we Indians (Hindus specifically) consider Heroes and whom we consider Evil. We hate all kings/common folk who are anti-Hindu and don`t consider them Indian. That applies even to the modern day Hindu-haters, whether they are born in India or not.

And yes, we don`t apply this logic consistently and this amounts to hypocricy. But who cares? The world is not perfect and esp. most of you who are ranting about this point.

Thanks,
Avkrishna

#133 he is a very devoted guy, he also wrote a review on amazon on laines book. wonder where ferzana found him ;-)

This is a hilarious article. No point in even condemning this guys` theories. He does it himself

i could not find nehrus letter on the net, so i have type this in from the book with some of edits..

``shivaji did not belong to maharashra alone; he belonged to the whole indian nation.

shivaji was not an ambitious ruler anxious to establish a kinddom for himself, but a patriot inspired by a vision and political ideas derived from teachings of the ancient philosophers. he studied the merits and faults of the system of administration in kingdoms existing at the time and determined his own policies and administration in the light of this knowledge.

a devout hindu, he was tolerant of other religions and established a number of endowments fo maintening sacred places belonging to them. as a general he was undoubtedly one of the greatest in indian history; he was the need for and raised navy to guard (my ed: against ferners) his coast-line and to fight against the british and the dutch. pratapgad fort built in 1656 stands today as a monument to his military genius. (ed. i think nehru meant the sindhudurg, which was a naval fort, a novelty then..mughals or other indians did not have such forts..there was an inspiratinal fort belonging to the habsis who were kind of pirates/maritime adventures..sivaji could never take over their fort so he made one of his own).

shri shivaji is a symbol of many virtues, especially of loveof country.

Chowkies you can thank me later ;-)

i have a copy of the book manto and prof laine talk of. its a history, civics and administration book, std IV, and is from maharashtra state beuro of textbooks, first edition 1992. pages 1-75 is history, pages 78-84 civics.

chapter 19 spells out why is sivaji an inspiration after the history
- devotion to father (unlike the ferners i guess ;-) )
- respect for saints and holy men (protector of temples, churches and mosques)
- patriotism. he fought against powerful enemies and made his country free (Yeah). he did it so that everyone could live in peace and follow his religion in peace without ferner interference. so that marathi language and hindu religion will aquire its due place and honor. (he established his admin in marathi instead of ferner language-farsi as was the custom, and made it a point to send letters-farmans in marathi..he prepared a dictinary of marathi admin terms for government work).
- hindvi swaraj was his dream. anyone who lived in hindustan (incl moinuddin burhanpurwala) irrespective of community or religion was a hindvi, and their self-rule was `Hindvi Swaraj`

civics chapters are

20. our national objectives
-democracy
-equality
-secularism with a twist (all religions are equally important..)

21. rights and duties

there is a picture of a church-mosque-temple etc
- right to equality
- right to freedom (thought, expression, travel, occupation etc)
- righth to religion
- right to couurt of law
- duty to respect the flag, the anthem and constitutoin
- duty to defend the country and protect its unity
- duty to behave with affection and brotherly feeling

22 our national symbols (flags etc)
- Flag
- Motto: Satyameva Jayate (Only the Truth shall Triumph)..sound bilblical to me ;-)
- anthem
- natinal emblem: Asokas pillar from Sarnath

NO MENTION OF GANDHI ANYWHERE

salim
[....I will feel better if we concentrate on current problems,....]

Now you are talking :)

122 salim
[....Declaring Shivaji as a hero and Aurangzeb as a villain and worse a ``foreigner,`` sends a real message to me. Forget the fact that you love India...... Forget the fact that your Hindu ancestors..... ...]

Chill out man - you are taking this way out of scope :)...... Are you hanging out with YLH these days .... because you have started whining like that fool...... So what somebody said Azeb is a bad man and a foreigner? Or Shivaji or whoever is a hero? who gives a f**k, except for a few good-for-nothing ``historians`` and the RSS jacka$$es.....

If you want push forward your unionist agenda - then you will have to keep your head above this bullsh!t - you have to stand taller than the pygmies and fools - .... you have to stop over-reacting to two-bit comments and you have to stop rummaging thru the history pages and reproduce who said what and when.... like that fool YLH does - nehru p!ssed here, gandhi cr@pped there , jinnah sucked a$$ - who cares?......

Look ahead man - f**k shivaji and azeb.....