Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian It is point that needs to be thought, yes indeed if the gita says that u should do your job even though imperfectly, rather doing some one elses job perfectly, then that would make Shivaji irreligious, according to their own doctrines, what i would like mention at this point of debate is why is Shivaji called the King of Maharashtra? or was it that time Maharashtra, Maharashtra came into existence after independence. and as far as i am concerned Shivaji was no where gutsy enough to enter the areas of Marathwada right upto parbhani or vidharba right upto gadchiroli, he was merely roaming the western maharashtra(not fully) and Kokan, places which suited his combat of guirella warfare, fair enough. But for heavens sake dont name his as King of Maharashtra, he was a small time ruler, who still ended up paying the main rulers the mughals their dues and even requested them many times to entitle him with the tag ``Raja``. he was a ruler in his own right. but if you compare him to the Mughal Emperor, the difference would be as vast as comparing a local corporator or at the most a MLA to the Prime Minister of India, they both are publically chosen agreed, but then there is a vast difference, same was the case if u compare Shivaji or any Mughal Emperor. The whole thing of presenting Shivaji as a Hindu king or Mughals as Muslim rulers is purely waste of time and energy (as far as i am concerned) because i see the tussle between these two merely for power,land,wealth,increase of stature in society. nothing related to religion. Lets us sit back and count how many religious monuments were funded by Shivaji or what did he do to spread Hindu religion outside India? nothing absolutely nothing he was way too busy fighting wars, winning and losing lands.plotting schemes against his own brother Vyankoji Bhonsale by shaking hands with Muslim rulers (now what did suddenly happen to this so called Hindu King?) because does Hindu religion allows you to fight and kill your own real brother (for god`s sake dont mention Pandavas and Kauravas and the MYTH, it is just a Myth no proven records for same are found) so was the case with the Mughal rulers, their sons fought them, and sons imprisoned fathers, AN idiot like Akbar could go on and establish his own religion when he has nothing better to do. so Please dont label them as a Hindu King and Muslim ruler, they were power thisty rulers and nothing else. I am certainly not inspired by them as many of my generation are, because i dont beleive in snatching something which belongs to some one already, not would i attack my own brother for land money and power even though he is my half brother, and certainly not imprison my father for being a King.