Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

#22 by HP on January 6, 2006 1:16pm PT

goatbrain....

Cab drivers strike today? No flying lessons?

Aurangzeb, native or invader! I think progeny of invaders always runs the risk of being called outsiders for as long as they claim to be superior and rulers. hence lot fo people view Aurangzeb an outsider...on the other hand Akbar, although ruler, tried to integrate himself with natives, hence more acceptable.

Sonia Gandhi`s kids are Indian but great great grand kids of Robert Clive even if they stayed in India would still be viewed as outsiders.

#34 if you called Aurangzeb an indian on his face, he would have slain you personally, and hung you ouside fort walls to make an example out of you ;-)

GT #17 If the writer means what salim (in #14) means, then yes I care in the sense that it is `an` important perspective...``}

GT,
Thanks for pointing that out. We can study Shivaji as a historical figure. We can study Shivaji as a regional hero. But, I find this designation of Shivaji as some great Indian hero, a freedom fighter, and a defender of India against a ``foreign`` invader very right-wing, anti-Muslim, anti-Rajput, and anti Indian.

In #27, Stuka says in response to my statement that:
{``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. ``

So, what we have here is a reinterpretation of history to justify right-wing Hindutva doctrine. If Shivaji was a rebel against Maharaja Aurangjeb (born in India with a Rajput Hindu grandmother and a Rajput Hindu great grandmother and a great grandson of Emperor Akbar, acknowledged as an Indian ruler by most), then Shivaji was a rebel against the accepted ruler of Hindustan. Therefore, by practicing hide-and-kill, hit and run, terrorist tactics, he was like the Kashmiri Jihadist terrorists in fighting Indian central rule from Delhi. By declaring that Maharaja Aurangjeb, ruling from Delhi, was a ``foreign`` invader and the terrorist and anti-Indian rebel Shivaji was a ``patriot,`` is simply Hindu chauvinism. A Hindu terrorist against central Hindustani ruler from Delhi is a freedom fighter. That is very anti-Indian. Shivaji belongs in the same category is LeT.

Jang, #34 {``if you called Aurangzeb an indian on his face, he would have slain you personally, and hung you ouside fort walls to make an example out of you ;-) ``}

Jang,
Maharaja Aurangjeb called himself Shah-en-Shah-e-Hindustan. Now, while that may not make him a dhoti-wearing Congressi netaji with a Nehru cap, it certainly translates into King (or Emperor) of India to me. While Akbar may have been of ``foreign`` blood (Mughal and Arab) born in India, there is no doubt that Maharaja Aurangjeb was the grandson of a Hindu Rajput princess and a great grandson of the famous Hindu Queen Maharani Jodabai. You can`t get more Indian than that - being directly descended from two Hindu women and all of them being born in the land of Hindustan. Any claims to the contrary are bigoted, anti-Muslim, and anti-Indian.

Theoretically speaking, we are all outsiders in India since everyone`s ancestors migrated out of Africa at some point in time. So whether someone is a native or a invader depends on that person`s mindset and willingness to assimilate. Over generations, people do get assimilated but Aurangzeb was an exception to that. Akbar was willing to assimilate, he pushed for a syncretic culture between hindus and muslims. Therefore, he was considered an insider. Even earlier, Sher Shah Suri was considered an insider. The other mughal emperors like Jehangir and Shah Jehan were also considered insiders.

Aurangzeb, in spite of his pedigree as 3/4th rajput, caused religious hatred by his anti-hindu bigotry like imposing jiziya tax etc. He was a divider rather than a uniter and was responsible for the demise of the mughal empire. So he is viewed as an outsider. His brother Dara Shikoh was a secular person and was viewed by everyone as an insider. If Dara Shikoh had been the emperor, Mughal empire may have lasted well into the 20th century due to immense backing from both hindus and muslims.

Even today, we can see that Sonia Gandhi is slowly being accepted as an insider in spite of her obvious foreign roots and foreign religion. That is because she has picked up on Indian culture and traditions and has shown good overall judgement and a willingness to assimilate.

Shivaji is worshipped as a hero primarily because he stood upto Aurangzeb. If there had been no Aurangzeb, Shivaji`s stature might have been a lot lower. For e.g. if Dara Shikoh had been emperor, Shivaji wouldnt have been considered that much of a hero to fight against a secular ruler. As an example, Rana Pratap who fought against Akbar, is considered a hero but not at the same level as Shivaji primarily because Akbar is considered our own ruler. So Indians are not all rooting for Rana Pratap over Akbar but they all root for Shivaji against Aurgangzeb.

If you accept that Maharaja Aurangjeb was a ``foreign`` invader and Shivaji was an Indian ``patriot,`` then you have just lent credence to the TNT proposed by Mr. Jinnah. Manto will be very proud of you for agreeing that Muslims, no matter how much Hindu blood they have, are a seprate nation and people. Then, of course, you go and justify Pakistan once you accept TNT.

Shivajis first action was to get back (Pune). Shahji (Father of Shivaji) who was forced by Bijapur Sultanate to leave his region Pune. Shivaji, by fighting Mughals, took what belonged to his family.
I dont know exactly whether you are being sarcastic or serious when you cast Shivaji in category of LeT. But #33 explains why Aurangzeb is considered outsider even though he was born in India.

Re:salim_chauhan#38

Salim bhai, you are making a wrong conclusion. The right 2 people to compare are Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb. Indians consider Dara Shikoh to be an insider and Aurangzeb to be an outsider although they both were brothers and 3/4th rajput. That is primarily because Dara Shikoh was secular and a tolerant person while Aurangzeb was a rabid fanatic who persecuted hindus with jiziya tax etc. Also Aurangzeb`s ruthless actions against his brothers and father does not earn him any brownie points either. If Indians considered both as outsiders then you have a right to say the TNT is correct, but that is not the case.

I personally believe that Aurangzeb was the worst thing that happened to muslims in the subcontinent before Jinnah showed up (no offence, manto). He single handedly destroyed the tremendous empire built by his forefathers by destroying the secular fabric of society. Any ruler that discriminates against majority of his subjects is a fool and is guaranteed to destroy his kingdom. Everyone hated him, there were revolts all over and basically the empire lost the support of the people.

Salim bhai,

Hope you are doing well,

I think the primary consideration here is that Aurangzeb considered himself a foreigner (he said some pretty horrible things about Indians) he ruled over the natives like the British (possibly a lot worse). Correct me if I`m wrong but didn`t the British viceroy not have a title that labeled them as Governor Generals of INDIA, that didn`t make them Indian either. So would an armed struggle against the British also not have been tantamount to terrorism? Regardless, imo their would only be a right wing hindutva bias if all mughal emperors were considered outsiders, which is clearly not the case.

Cheers,

salim, i feel like its a deja-vu all over again ;-)
aurangzeb is indian, and so is king george the V. happy?
i think aurangzeb is very indian (hope that makes you and some of my muslim brothers happy) but fact remains that sivaji was able to get his fighters from local peasantry and brahmins and kayasthas, (noone from traditional surajvansi rajput unionised miltry labor), who all seem to agree that aurangzeb was a turki ferner and additionally a bad ass. their is evidence of this ferner feel from folk-poets of that era in this regard.

as indians in general should feel comfortable in critically analysing sivaji, so should you and other muslims should feel comfortable that a lot of indians think (since late 1600s) sivaji was a great hero. that does not translate directly into hatred or fear of suntan ;-)

e.g. consider the gujju merrchant, who were happy in surat under a drunk mughal guvnor, and absolutely did not like sivaji asking for payola every once-in-a-while. but they apparently hate muslims plenty (example: post godhra riots) while considering sivaji a bandit and a nuisance.

even in your land of ancestors rajasthan, go any village. its either a hindu village or a muslim. my hindu driver, a rajput, ex-rajputana rifles subedar, would not stop for chai-pani at specific villages..it took me a while to figure out.

its perfectly fine for you or anyone consider LeT to be their idols, its your choice, made in good consciounce (sp?). we have a whole nation in the neighborhood who thinks that way, welcome aboard

#40, Ranjit {``Indians consider Dara Shikoh to be an insider and Aurangzeb to be an outsider although they both were brothers and 3/4th rajput. That is primarily because Dara Shikoh was secular and a tolerant person while Aurangzeb was a rabid fanatic who persecuted hindus with jiziya tax etc. ``}

Ranjit Bhai,
Sorry to disagree, but since when did job performance and character start affecting one`s designation as a ``foreign`` invader or ``patriot?`` If Dara Shikoh was an Indian then so was Maharaja Aurangjeb. BTW, their mother was Iranian and father was 75% Hindu Rajput.
Whether people like him or not and whether he was good for India or not, Maharaja Aurangjeb WAS a Hindustani ruler, ruling from Delhi. Just because Indira Gandhi was wrong in attacking the Golden Temple and repressing Sikhs, you cannot say that she was a ``foreign`` invader. She ruled India from New Delhi and was definitely Indian. Whether good or bad is subject to one`s prejudice and bias. So, if Laloo Parsad is secular and Modi and Bal Thackeray are right-wing Hindutvas, may I claim that Laloo is an Indian while Modi and Balthackery are ``foreign`` invaders?

The teaser raised expectations of a serious reassessment of Shivaji, but it turned out to be a great disappointment. The author would have done a better job by reproducing from James Laine`s book.

An outstanding article on War Dispatches by Feroz Khan gets only 4 interacts and there have been almost ten times as many interacts on this trivial piece in four hours. Pity!

Salim_Chauhan:

Aurangzeb was definitely an Indian but whether or not he considered himself one is another matter (Remember, the monarchs who sat in London also called themselves the king/queen of India!).

While his being an Indian is not in doubt, you might want to be careful about making him a hero unless you want your campaign for reunification of India to be dead at start :-). Aurangzeb, though 3/4th Rajput, will always be a villain and Shivaji, though a Shudra, will always be a hero, to the overwhelming majority of the Sikhs and Hindus; the exceptions being a few Marxists. For a majority of Muslims, the opposite will be the case. Therefore, it would be best to keep silent on this issue.

BTW does Maasir-i-Alamgiri anywhere mention Aurangzeb calling himself a Rajput?

#41 Che {``I think the primary consideration here is that Aurangzeb considered himself a foreigner (he said some pretty horrible things about Indians) he ruled over the natives like the British (possibly a lot worse).``}

Che,
How are you, my friend?
I am not comparing the good natures of Shivaji and Maharaja Aurgangzeb. I am just saying that you cannot call him a ``foreign`` invader. He may have been a terrible ruler, a cruel king, but he definitely was an Indian, a Hindustani, and saw himself as a native of Hindustan. Morever, if he had a Hindu grandmother and great grandmother, we can even say he had Indian blood. He ruled Hindustan from Delhi.

The British had come from another country and owed their allegiance to that country. They ruled India as Viceroys or Governors and therefore were not Indian. Maharaja Aurangjeb was a sovereign ruler of Hindustan and did not owe any allegiance to Turkey, Persia, or Uzbekistan. Can`t you see the logic in that?

#44, DM Sahib,
I am just trying to restore logic into our designation of people as Indian or not. I am glad to see that you agree that Maharaja Aurangjeb was an Indian, a Hindustani - that`s all. I agree that this Rajput Moghul was not the most popular ruler among many Hindus, Sikhs, and Shias. He was ruthless in his suppression of Muslim enemies as well. Infact, the only people he was quite lenient with were the Rajputs - mostly Hindus, and that is a fact. He was certainly not very kind to his brothers, his own father, and the kingdoms of Bijapur, Golconda, and Ahmadnagar. He objected to their loyalty for Iran rather than to him as ruler of Hindustan.

Now, I am not evaluating Aurangzeb as a hero. But I think that considering Aurangzeb a ``foreign`` invader just because he was hated by Sikhs is the same as considering Indira Gandhi a ``foreign`` invader, just because she was cruel to Sikhs. I hope you see the logic.
There are many people in Pakistani Punjab who hate Sikha Shahi and the rule of Ranjit Singh. But they cannot declare him to be a non-Punjabi.

jang #42, {``even in your land of ancestors rajasthan, go any village. its either a hindu village or a muslim. my hindu driver, a rajput, ex-rajputana rifles subedar, would not stop for chai-pani at specific villages..it took me a while to figure out``}

Jang,
Please expand on this anecdote. I don`t fully understand.
Yes, this is deja vu all over again. You just gave me the right answer. Maharaja was a Hindustani ruler and therefore an Indian. Now, whether he was a good or bad ruler or person depends on the interpretation of history, your own likes/dislikes, and the demands of his period. I personally think that he was too arrogant, self-centered, not trusting enough, too ambitious, and very myopic. Oh, yes, from what I have read, he was very brave - but there have been a lot of stupid brave people in history.