Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

# 13, amrita

If the writer means what salim (in #14) means, then yes I care in the sense that it is `an` important perspective.....But then salim does a much better job in one paragraph.

#10 by HP on January 6, 2006 12:24pm PT

Goatbrain...

chitpawans, my dad`s people, are marathi..marathas are marathi....marathi is the language..marathas are a caste or something..

``However, Hinduism does not allow lower-cast people to decide who should govern their society. In this way, Shivaji`s democracy, and, in general, his rule was irreligious.

Thus, according to Hinduism Shivaji was irreligious. In other words, he was an irreligious (or a-dharmic) Hindu king. ``

In an ideal world Kshatriyas were kinds but that hardly ever happened in practice. Lets do a quick recap of famous Indian rulers

Chandragupta Maurya (tribal)
Asoka (tribal)
The Guptas including Vickramaditya (Vaishyas)
Harsha (Vaishya who became Buddhist)
Rajaraja and Rajendra Chola (the Brahmins)
The Senas of Bengal (vaidyas)

Not too many Kshatriyas out there. Hinduism and the caste system are fluid religions and are able to absorb outsiders. The Rajputs themelves are descendands of Huns.

As someone who isn`t very impressed with Shivaji, I still find your article bigoted, badly researched poorly argued and in places down right moronic. By your logic most governments today and all rulers before the second world war were barbaric.

Some of your points are just stupid. Their foes considered them formidable foe thus he is barbaric. ??? WTF.

Your test for hinduism is one ossified in something century B.C which even in its heyday was never practiced. Your article can be summed up in one word, ``bah!``

#14 no no salim, we indians an be anti-muslim without even without knowing anything about sivaji or aurangzeb..give us some credit.

``Shivaji`s barbarism is depicted in the barbaric civic laws practised under his rule. For example, punishment for theft was to cut hands, for rape was to throw down from the top of the hill (e.g. Takmaktok in Marathi) to kill, etc.``(writer)

````Muslim Dharam Rakshak Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki jai``....any lineage to Abdul Wahab..?

#18 by arjun_m

So now Shura is saying that he is not a shudra but almost a Brahmin or Brahmin...Abey Shudray then why do clean bathrooms in DC? Pleath!

Upto about a 6 months ago I would have protested at the quality of this article.

For now, its pretty par for the course :-). This article can stand tall and hold its head high among the Yasser`s and Farzana`s.

jang #15
``Sadna, the argument presented makes sense from the view point of abrahamic religions.``

True but Hinduism is not an abrahmic religion. Even Rama became dharm bhrasht for instance by this author`s so-called ``abrahamic`` standard when he(Rama) ate Sabari`s berries which she had previously tasted.

(And frankly I think the ``abrahamism`` of the abrahamic religions is mostly the accumulated compulsions of centuries of religious politics).

The article is informative and provides some knowledge about Maratha and Shivaji...I had read about him but did not know a whole lot but now I know and many like me on this site would know more about the hindu society and how it operates.

Every society has its good and bad areas and only people with insecurities try and not look at the bad areas of their society and culture.

So what if shivaji was almost a criminal and barbarian. He played a role in Indian history and there is no need to always eulogizes him.

Articles like this should be encouraged so people would know more about India and its history. Contrarian point of view is always good.

Jang!

Does CHHATRAPATI mean patiji(husband) of umbrella or the pitta ji(father) of umbrella or just the umbrella or under the umbrella?

Or is it similar to Saya zooljalal of shehenshah Akber!

``If Shivaji is a patriot and Maharaja Aurangjeb is the ``foreign invader,`` then being an Indian is tantamount to being anti-Muslim and a right-wing Hindutva advocate.
``

So be it.

#25 by HP,

`Contrarian point of view is always good.`

Yes, but points should be well made. Learning a `lot` from such an `article` is a matter of choice, your choice in particular. But if I am correct in assuming that you have learnt a lot from this article then I shall be wary of your knowledge in future.

that sivaji legitimized his rule by an authentic crowning ceremony is actually a very important point, consier.

indian society considered authentic rulers to be direct descendents from god. akbar and shehjehan has standard ``darshan`` hours for example. the act of an authentic crowning ceremony during the time when most great rajput kings were in a competetion of who can send the most to mughal harems, is very symbolic. clearly this was a very hindu act steeped in sanatani hinduism. for example, later usurpers of power, the peshwas who were brahmins never declared themselves as kings. they were always the token peshwas (meaning prime-minsters) of the descendent of shivaji, who was the legitimate crowned king. All other maratha principalities of Nagpur, Baroda, Gwalior, Indore etc pledged allegiance (in token offcourse) to the only crowned king family, the bhoslas.

#27 by GT
``I shall be wary of your knowledge in future. ``

Like I care about your views....You don`t mean much to me and neither does your opinion.

I would never have googled shivaji or gone to wiki for this information. This is good enough information. I don`t need a phd in Shivaji studies!

#26 unbrella is symbol of being a king, the protector. pati (or master) of the umbrella is a standard way to refer to a big-shot king. e.g. a king of village and its 200 acres of land is prolly not a chattrapati.

#29 by HP

Come on,........I didn`t mean to lecture you. Sorry for the tone.