I have always admired the personality of Shivaji, the local boy who made good in the time of the despotic Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Fighting for the right to self determination, rebelling against the narrow minded Emperor, Shivaji is the Zorro of the Maharashtrian people.

Unfortunately, his swashbuckling image has been exploited by sectarian groups like the Shiv Sena who insist on portraying him as a separatist Marathi manus (the Maharashtrian Man) imbuing him with vices of communalism and religious fundamentalism, which he did not possess.

Few know that Shivaji was a Shudra (low caste) who dreamed of being king and for his coronation, the Brahmin priest who condescended to bless him did so by anointing his forehead with a tilak (mark on forehead given as a blessing) using his toe rather than his thumb.

Shivaji on the other hand, was a man millenia ahead of his time. A brave, compassionate and innately mischievous man he stayed away from bigotry and discrimination. His personal secretary in his campaign of harassment against Aurangzeb was none other than Maulana Hyder Ali. The supreme commander of his navy was Siddhi Sambhal and the Muslim Siddhis were in his navy in large numbers.

Moreover his major battles were fought with the Rajput king, Raja Jaisingh who fought on behalf of Aurangzeb. He gave a life pension to the Muslim seer, Hazarat Baba Yaqut bahut Thorwale and protected Father Ambrose during the attack on Gujrat.

During his miliatry campaign he gave strict instructions that Muslim women and children, mosques and dargahs were to be protected and treated with respect. The story of his bowing to the daughter-in-law of Bassein’s Nawab is well known to all. When she was brought as a part of the loot and offered to him, he respectfully begged her pardon and asked his soldiers return her back to the place from where she was forcibly brought in.

Unfortunately in modern day Maharashtra, Shivaji has become the symbol of anti-Muslim elements and rational efforts to counter this smearing like the book by Govind Pansare, Shivaji Kon Hota (Who was Sivaji?), Havavate’s book, Shivrayanche Nishthavant Muslaman Sainik (Shivaji’s Loyal Muslim Soldiers) and Jayant Gadkari’s enlightening in book on Shivaji all gather dust unread.

Hopefully, efforts by those who attempt to protect this brave, magnificient man from the clutches of extremists will succeed and he will go down in history as what he was and not what he was made out to be.

References:
Abusing Shivaji For Sectarian Goals (http://indianmuslims.in/abusing-shivaji-for-sectarian-goals/)

http://moralstories.files.wordpress.com/2006/07/shivaji.jpg?w=450&h=600

perhaps in the site of current acts performed by muslims, he would not have being so moderate towered islam.

Don't know much about Aurangzeb do you?

It was no good at his time, but I never knew he was so moderate.

On Shivaji, the much maligned

I was not aware that Shivaji was maligned, unless you consider naming the third rate Mumbai airport after him to be maligning him.

I was not aware that Shivaji was maligned, unless you consider naming the third rate Mumbai airport after him to be maligning him.

I think making him out to be a Hindu fundamentalist is maligning him, considering the breadth of his vision.

Don't know much about Aurangzeb do you?

I think people are always naturally inclined to say he was a despotic tyrant. To me, his only downfall was his timing. If he were King before Akbar, there wouldn't have been so many objections to his policies by Indians. However, it is understandable how people would be intolerable to rigid Shariah laws being implemented immediately following a "secular" (I should say religiously "open") society.

However, if I recall correctly, he did expand the Mughal empire quite a bit, and proved that he was better than most other options for King (considering he was the last of the great Kings).

Or, perhaps, Aurangzeb's image has been permanently tarnished by the lies of Hindus. Just as you say Shivaji was misrepresented by Hindus, the same could possibly be said of Aurangzeb. There are lots of debates amongst scholars concerning Aurangzeb, and whether or not he was really as bad as advertised. I mean, his policies for the empire's treasury was much fairer and more beneficial to the public than his predecessors, who were usually representative of the image you posted of Shivaji (surrounded by solid gold).

What do Indians dislike about him more: the fact that he nearly drove his empire to bankruptcy with constant, relentless warfare (this part is well-known fact), or that he supposedly cramped religious freedom?

**Please bear with me, this is fuzzy memory at work here.

Or, perhaps, Aurangzeb's image has been permanently tarnished by the lies of Hindus.

It is well recorded history :

how he finished off his own brothers Darah, Murad and others to capture the throne;

how he tortured and killed sikh gurus ;

how he treated & imprisioned his father Shahjehan just opposite to his wife's tomb, Taj Mahal;

how he imposed Jizya (Tax on Kafirs) back on non-muslims ;

how he imposed ban on building hindu temples ;

how he was constantly at war with kings of deccan who were also muslims ;

the list is quite big. .

However, if I recall correctly, he did expand the Mughal empire quite a bit, and proved that he was better than most other options for King (considering he was the last of the great Kings).

Hindus cannot regard him with the same respect that they have for Akbar. It is surprising to read what is there to take pride on Aurangzeb & denounce Akbar by some muslims in India and most muslims in Pak. Perhaps, Aurangzeb was an ardent muslim and his personal life was simple and austre that includes hatred towards music & fine arts. But towards others, he was fanatical. That makes him a typical taliban style mullah than an emperor.

Just as you say Shivaji was misrepresented by Hindus, the same could possibly be said of Aurangzeb.

'Hindus' do not equate to 'Shivsena'. Shivaji is far more tolerant than any of the mughal emperors. His army and navy had many muslim commanders. Saving Hindu rights (and muslims' too) from tyranical rulers was Shivaji's mission ; subduing muslims was never on his agenda.


What do Indians dislike about him more: the fact that he nearly drove his empire to bankruptcy with constant, relentless warfare (this part is well-known fact), or that he supposedly cramped religious freedom?

Aurangzeb scores on both accounts and more..!

I think people are always naturally inclined to say he was a despotic tyrant. To me, his only downfall was his timing. If he were King before Akbar, there wouldn't have been so many objections to his policies by Indians. However, it is understandable how people would be intolerable to rigid Shariah laws being implemented immediately following a "secular" (I should say religiously "open") society.

Any man who thinks killing his brothers and imprisoning his father for life is Islamic should take a running leap off a cliff.

Few know that Shivaji was a Shudra (low caste) who dreamed of being king and for his coronation, the Brahmin priest who condescended to bless him did so by anointing his forehead with a tilak (mark on forehead given as a blessing) using his toe rather than his thumb.

It seems another tale to malign Shivaji's image by some for what-ever-reason.

No priest would dare to touch tilak material with his toe let alone daring to touch the forehead of Shivaji with toe..!

The character of Shivaji would not allow such act. In fact he got furious, ( before his coronation, when brahmins objected to teaching of gayathri mantra to Shivaji stating that no 'kshatria' at that time entitled to chant gayathri mantra ) ordered that brahmins should then not to perform duties in army & government but to return to their vedic duties. He started appointing kayasthas in their place. One, Moro Pant, interceded for the brahmins to withdraw that order.

It seems another tale to malign Shivaji's image by some for what-ever-reason.

No priest would dare to touch tilak material with his toe let alone daring to touch the forehead of Shivaji with toe..!

The character of Shivaji would not allow such act. In fact he got furious, ( before his coronation, when brahmins objected to teaching of gayathri mantra to Shivaji stating that no 'kshatria' at that time entitled to chant gayathri mantra ) ordered that brahmins should then not to perform duties in army & government but to return to their vedic duties. He started appointing kayasthas in their place. One, Moro Pant, interceded for the brahmins to withdraw that order.

He was "converted" to a Rajput by a special ceremony (don't know details of toe ceremony) The Marathas themselves belong to the Shudra caste -according to Dalit articles anyway

Who then are the Hindu? They are a micro-minority of less than 15% comprising the Brahmins who are just 3%. The others are Kshatriyas (Thakurs) and Banias who together may not be even total 2% of India’s population. The bulk of the “Hindu” population comprises the shudra castes like the Jats, Marathas (Maharashtra), Kayasths, Lingayats and Vokkaliga (Karnataka), Reddy and Khamma (AP), Vellala, Chettiar, Gounder (TN), Nair (Kerala), Patel (Gujarat).


http://www.dalitvoice.org/Templates/jan_a2007/articles.htm

Personally, I don't care about his caste. He was a great guy. :)

If he indeed was a dalit, it is all the more to his credit that he could beat through the adversity to rise to the position he rose to!

If he indeed was a dalit, it is all the more to his credit that he could beat through the adversity to rise to the position he rose to!

In some other place in India maybe. The classification system is a bit wacky. Maharashtra (except for the odd Brahmin) is mostly dalits. :p

Which explains why the Brahmins (who really did not like to fight) were "willing" to convert him to a Rajput (Ksatriya). ;)

I don't remember the last time anyone crossed jati or varna like that
One more first!!!

Some of the vitriol against him is really astonishing

This article attempts to bring out the irreligiousness, barbarism, and dishonest nature of the Hindu king Shivaji Bhonsle, also known as Chhatrapati Shri Shivaji Maharaj (February 19, 1630 - April 3, 1680), who was the founder of the Maratha empire in western India
in 1674. It does not claim that Shivaji was absolutely irreligious, barbaric, and dishonest. Also, irreligiousness does not necessarily imply immorality. If it exposes Shivaji’s negative character it is because a lot positive has already been said about him and thus portraying his good character is a mere repetition, nothing else.:crazy:

http://www.chowk.com/articles/10119

I am so glad I learned my history at a time when dry unemotional facts were the norm of presentation.

Can't imagine what the kids learning stuff in this way will grow up thinking.

He was "converted" to a Rajput by a special ceremony (don't know details of toe ceremony) The Marathas themselves belong to the Shudra caste -according to Dalit articles anyway

'toe ceremony' was an imagination of Shivaji haters.
There was a ceremony to convert Shivaji into kshatria before coronation.

It strikes to me, give some money to brahmin-high-priests and convert all 'shudras' and 'dalits' in india into kshatrias in one grand ceremony. Caste difference is gone..!!! or would it be.???!!!

http://www.dalitvoice.org/Templates/jan_a2007/articles.htm

In India, only 15% are hindus??!! no comments.

Personally, I don't care about his caste. He was a great guy. :)

Me too don't care about anyone's caste, but caste determines election outcome hence it is obvious that more people care about caste..!!!

Me too don't care about anyone's caste, but caste determines election outcome hence it is obvious that more people care about caste..!!!

Not in Maharashtra.;)

Some of the vitriol against him is really astonishing

:crazy:

http://www.chowk.com/articles/10119

I am so glad I learned my history at a time when dry unemotional facts were the norm of presentation.

Can't imagine what the kids learning stuff in this way will grow up thinking.

The article is a crap. It does not deserve a link here.

how he tortured and killed sikh gurus ;

Didn't his wars make many Sikhs rich? Or something along those lines...

(I'll try to look it up later).

how he imposed Jizya (Tax on Kafirs) back on non-muslims ;

As I said, this is a matter of timing. Wasn't the jizya in place prior to Akbar? If so, then clearly the Indians didn't have that big of a problem with it. They seem to have revolted because the tax was imposed, relieved, and then imposed again.

the list is quite big. .

I'd imagine.

Any man who thinks killing his brothers and imprisoning his father for life is Islamic should take a running leap off a cliff.

:confused:

Where did this come from?

Didn't his wars make many Sikhs rich? Or something along those lines...

(I'll try to look it up later).

He was the biggest contributor in transforming Sikhs into warriors.


As I said, this is a matter of timing. Wasn't the jizya in place prior to Akbar? If so, then clearly the Indians didn't have that big of a problem with it. They seem to have revolted because the tax was imposed, relieved, and then imposed again.

Paying jizya is not a devine obligation for indians.

Prior to Akbar there was no empire in proper sense. Peace was short lived if not elusive. Akbar could enlist the cooperation of non-muslims by his secular policies and the empire was strengthened and almost remained strong till Aurangzeb started pulling the pillars.

Is the maligning of Shivaji a North Indian thing? I did a quick tourist pass through of North India but Maharashtra is the only state that I have spent extended time in. In Maharashtra I thought Shivaji was popular.

Is the maligning of Shivaji a North Indian thing? I did a quick tourist pass through of North India but Maharashtra is the only state that I have spent extended time in. In Maharashtra I thought Shivaji was popular.

I'm from Maharashtra too, Mumbaikar in fact and I grew up on movies and songs about Shivaji, but post Shiv-Sena, I've been hearing and reading a lot of negative stuff about him. Sometimes even from Muslims who think he was some sort of Islamophobe. Which makes me very sad. Shivaji Raje was such a local legend. :bawl: