The Greatest Hindu King - A Translation and Analysis of Maratha Fury and Shivaji

salim

``I hope that we can honor ALL Indians and forgive them their mistakes.``

That`s the spirit. When we learn to insist on goodness but never on perfection, we will go wrong less often. And when we do, we will correct course more readily than we would otherwise.

``In the past few years, hindu nationalism is slowly evolving back to the secular nationalism of pre-1947 days.``

Maulana Azad confesses in ``India Wins Freedom``

The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where ``the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.`` [p. 16]

``Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman`s appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal`s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.`` [p. 16-17]

``Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel`s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.`` [p. 17]

``A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.`` [p. 17]

``These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.`` [p. 18]

#87, Ranjit Bhai.
Thank you for your kind concern. I have avoided all things with feathers, including pillows with feathers in them. I too am very proud of the the commitment to democracy and the significant economic growth that India has demonstrated in the last decade. I hope that we can honor ALL Indians and forgive them their mistakes.

Re:Salim_Chauhan#85

Salim bhai, first of all I hope you are going easy on the tandoori chicken in Turkey. From what I am hearing about the bird flu and all, things are not exactly hunky dory over there.

Secondly please understand that nationalism is a recently reemerging phenomenon in India. Indian nationalism, which was primarily secular in nature before 1947, became dormant after 1947 until the early nineties. In fact, I would say that inspite of the rotten economic scenario and the lack of national unity (khalistan movemet, other insurgencies), India was lucky that it did not disintegrate in the eighties.

The new nationalism in the nineties came from hindu nationalism along with economic growth. This phase lasted for nearly 10 years characterized by the BJP rule, the jihad in Kashmir, economic resurgence, Ayodhya etc. It is during this phase that Shivaji and other hindu kings became a rallying point for hindu nationalism.

In the past few years, hindu nationalism is slowly evolving back to the secular nationalism of pre-1947 days. It is primarily happening due to robust economic growth and the recognition of large scale economies of scale among the various constituencies in India. This new nationalism is moving away from a hindu-centric orientation to a India-centric orientation. I am myself one of those people who is very pro-India but I do want to see a secular nation, since muslims need to be successful for India to be successful. I think over the years, you will see a decline in hindu sectrianism to a large extent. In fact shiv-sena itself is not doing all that well and BJP has been out of power for a quite a while now. However, real nationalism is on the rise across India. We are very proud of how far India has come in the past few years.

Nishchaya-cha MahaMeru   ==  Man with Himalayan Determination
Bahut Janaasi Adharu          ==  Who Empowered Multitude
Janata Raja!                           ==  Wise Leader
.-
Sant Swami Samarth Raamdas (bramhin by birth)

You will see this witing on Pune Airport, Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus and Airport in Mumbai.  The reasons for this depiction
by a saintly sanyasi are plenty.

Shivaji`s social contributions are tremendous, eg,

1. caste divisions are minimal in Maharashtra compared to rest of India - so you see
   
• Dalit Shushilkumar  Shinde as Chief Minister in 90s and also few dalit deputy chief ministers from 70s,
  
• Ambedkar`s education sponsored by Maratha sardar Sayaji and Chatrapati Shahu,
  
• Satya Shodhak Samaaj established in 19th century for removing caste division and education of lower castes and women.
  
2. Muslim minority is more integrated compared to rest of India .  You see
• Muslim Antulay can be a Chief Minister in mid seventies,
  
• Muslim Satya Shodhak Samaaj  of Dalwai,
  
• Chatrapati Shahu Maharaj Kolhapur descendent of Shivaji, a Sanskrit scholar  establishing hostels for Muslims  in  1910s so that they attend highschools and colleges,
3. Shivaji was against feudalism.  He never gave watans (land titles) to his Sardars or Army officials.  Watangiri  the way it was practiced by Rajputs, Mughals, southern Muslim kingdoms and later by British made large portion of masses kandless.  That is why cooperative movement cpuld happen in Mqaharashtra, atleast in western , central part of it.  Cooperative movement has made tremendous dent in rural poverty in Maharashtra.  There is some parallel to west Punjab because of Khalsa of Gurugovindsingh.
4. Treatment of women is much better in Shivaki`s rule - he was a Mama`s boy, episode such as daughter-in-law of Kalyan`s Subhedar, cutting of legs  of a Patil who molested a girl

History is still in making!  If Shivaji had not happened ... Guru Gobindsingh ji could not be able to achieve his life mission and Sikhism as a Panth would not have survived ... today most of India would be Muslim.  Nothing wrong in being Muslim, but we would have lost our Asmita our Indianness, ... there would not be India to talk about ...India the land of Yoga, samadhi, the true spirituality.  India would have died in the her loong slumber.  We would not be talking of coming meteoric rise of India of 21st century as an economy, leader in science and technology and democratic governance which promotes social justice.

Burpinder #82, {``I have no idea. I have never used the word ``privateering`` in my life.
...Yeah beeyatch, you got a problem with that???? Lashkar e Toybaba is a bunch of fukking terrorists, you better believe that. ...
Yo freak, stop displaying your ignorance. It was a Mutiny because the **British** army (composed of Indian soldiers) revolted. And pray tell me how ``resistance`` is antithetical to ``mutiny`` ...Nobody in India thinks of 1971 as a civil war. What`s so civil about a forced union of lands half a continent across with one side trying to bully the other? I don`t give a fuk about the Bosnians and the Serbs, that`s just another war to me, like Cote d`Ivoire or Chechnya. ...
``When Aurangzeb destroyed Hindu temples, it was religious persecution, when Indira Gandhi destroyed a Sikh temple, it was fighting terrorism``
Yes. What`s your point?


Burpy of the semi-digested crap fame,

Sir, you are really on a roll - downhill. Not only have you established your childish jingoism, you are also telling us that you have graduated from the School of Ebonics and were personally tutored in English by the steamed and extinguished Professore Lavatore from the Bronx. Somehow, the words ``beeyatch`` and ``yo, freak`` are exactly what I expected from a person of your intellect and education. If you don`t know ``privateering`` and don`t understand the comparisons I am making, then you need to be doing some reading instead of burping away on Chowk.

BTW:
``Privateering was a wartime practice in which a belligerent power would authorize its citizens to operate privately owned ships in campaigns against enemy shipping. Motivation for participating in these ventures was partly patriotism, but most the allure came from converting the prizes (captured ships and cargo) into money. Privateers were distinguished from pirates in that the former were issued ``letters of marque and reprisal,`` official government papers authorizing these campaigns.``

Burpinder #81 {``Salim chuhay,
Equate the Shiv Sena to Lashkar e Toybaba or Jam E Mohammed or whoever, but leave Shivaji out of this. He was a hero and 10 Pakis getting their pants itchy on this website is not going to change that.
Jai Shivaji! ``}

Burpy,
Thank you. All your oral flatulence has proved my point. Shivaji is the hero of anti-Muslim fanatics like you. Please stop the personal insults, you are betraying your sophomoric jingoism.

Its a matter of fact that if Shijai Jayanti Function is held in India today then except in Maharastra, nobody would turn up anywhere else, barring BJP/Shiv Sena & Company.

But nevertheless Shivaji does have a special place in India and Indian nationalism. Not because of Aurangzeb. Its because of something else.

When Independence Movement against the British was picking speed, Shivaji did work as an icon to awaken the otherwise sleepy Hindu masses. Hindus had presumed that all kinds of battles, combats etc. were to be fought by the Muslims and their job is to either support them or not support them.

However, Independence Leaders wanted Hindus masses also to take place actively in the Freedom Movement which was mass-movement in character. Otherwise, it would have failed.

So they projected Shivaji as a kind of Hindu Hero who was capable of taking on his mighty adversary well. What the leaders wanted to project was though he was a small-time king then, yet he was brave enough to take on Aurangzeb, the Badshah of Hindustan, who was many times powerful than Shivaji.

However, unfortunately, Aurangzeb-Shivaji episode has turned communal over the years losing its nationalistic meaning altogether.

``When the English looted ships, it was privateering. When their enemies did it, it was piracy.``
I have no idea. I have never used the word ``privateering`` in my life.

``When Bhagat Singh killed people, it was freedom fighting, when LeT does it, it is terrorism.``
Yeah beeyatch, you got a problem with that???? Lashkar e Toybaba is a bunch of fukking terrorists, you better believe that.

``When the French fought against Nazi occupation it was Le Resistance, when Indian fought against British occupation, it was The Mutiny.``
Yo freak, stop displaying your ignorance. It was a Mutiny because the **British** army (composed of Indian soldiers) revolted. And pray tell me how ``resistance`` is antithetical to ``mutiny``

``When Sadman Houston tortured people, it was an internal affair, when American soldiers tortured people, it was ``war crimes.``
You`ve lost me again. How are they opposites?

``When Pakis killed Bengalis, it was a ``civil`` war, when Serbs killed Bosnians, it was a genocide.``
Nobody in India thinks of 1971 as a civil war. What`s so civil about a forced union of lands half a continent across with one side trying to bully the other? I don`t give a fuk about the Bosnians and the Serbs, that`s just another war to me, like Cote d`Ivoire or Chechnya.

``When Aurangzeb destroyed Hindu temples, it was religious persecution, when Indira Gandhi destroyed a Sikh temple, it was fighting terrorism``
Yes. What`s your point?

Salim chuhay,

Equate the Shiv Sena to Lashkar e Toybaba or Jam E Mohammed or whoever, but leave Shivaji out of this. He was a hero and 10 Pakis getting their pants itchy on this website is not going to change that.

Jai Shivaji!

#78, sadna {``in what way does Jaish E Mohammad, an organisation which declares itself to exist solely for the purpose of killing, try to `masquerade as peaceful`? ``}

Sadna,
By using the name of Mohammad (PBUH), JeM is trying to gain the support of mainstream Muslims, who associate this name with honesty, compassion, sincerity, love, truth, serenity, and yes, peace. You are totally right. I don`t think that JeM is even trying to masquerade as anything other than violent and murderous - far from ``peaceful.`` My apologies for the misunderstanding. Peace.

#78
You still haven`t explained, in what way does Jaish E Mohammad, an organisation which declares itself to exist solely for the purpose of killing, try to `masquerade as peaceful`?

#66 jang, #77 sadna, and #73 bongdong,

Jang, Sadna, Bongy,
I had some time to reflect on the comparison of Shiv Sena using Shivaji`s name and Jaishe-e-Mohammed using the Holy Prophet`s (PBUH) name - both to gain acceptance for their respective violent organizations. You are right - it`s almost the same thing. Infact, there are murderers, possibly even more violent and deadly than JeM, using the Holy Prophet (PBUH), Allah, and the Koran to justify their deeds and they proclaim that they do their heinous acts for the faith. Much as their misdeeds hurt the image of Islam and the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the fanaticism of Shiv Sena damages the image of Shivaji. Thanks,

#68
``JeM wants to masquerade as peaceful.``

Calls itself Army of Mohammed, has been unapologetically beheading foreigners and Indians since the early 90s, but is given the benefit of doubt that it wants to `masquerade as peaceful`. JeM declares themselves to be mass murderers so where the heck is the masquerade one wonders. I am curious, by which value system does one`s declared purpose of killing kafirs get labelled as one `masquerading to be peaceful` ?

#74, bongdongs {``Who gave you such an idea. I have never in my life heard of any Maratha-Rajput antoganism. ...The Maratha`s fought Abdali at Panipat, Wellington at Assaye, Wadgaon. Why does posession of Delhi grant legitimacy? I say, Prithiviraj did not rule Pune so he was an illegitimate ruler.``}

Bongy,
All I know is that the mass looting, rape, and massacres conducted by Mahrattas in Gujarat, southern UP, and Rajasthan gave them a very bad name. To this day, people in these areas don`t consider Mahratta as a positive word.

Yes, you are right Mahrattas fought Abdali at Panipat in 1761. But, then they also supported the British against Tipu Sultan later. At least, one could say that they were more patriotic than the Nizam. After all, Nana Sahib, JhaaNsi ki Raani, and Tatya Tope were Mahrattas and they did fight the British in 1857.

As for ruling Delhi constituting legitimacy as an Indian ruler, Ranjit Bhai came up with that. He said that India has Delhi and therefore is the proper heir to Hindustan - and he is right. Dilli door ast. :)

Ruling Pune has never been synonymous with ruling Hindustan. :) Neither has Bombay. But Aurangabad is another matter. You see there is something good in Maharashtra after all.

#73, bongdongs {``What I was pointing out that Masood Azhar (or others like him) feel this is as glorious a chapter in Muslim history as any other. They identify with a philosophy of violence as an integral part of religion. They do not identify with Islam solely for the peaceful aspects but for the whole deal which includes violence in generous measure. ``}

Bongy,
You are right. Along with Masood Azhar there are UBL, Zarqawi, Salhuddin, and numerous such imposters. But then Christianity had Crusaders, Templars, Conquistadores, Phalangists, not to mention ``onward Christian soldiers....`` You already know about the Hindus who love violence (as long as they themselves don`t get hurt :) ). We should always expose these hypocrites and take away their mascots and facades.