Sycophancy
in Action: Comparing Modi to Shivaji
Ram
Puniyani
Shivaji
is a great icon in Maharashtra. Different sections of society have given him
very high status, though for diverse reasons. Folklores about him abound in the
state. His statues, popular songs on him are very prevalent. These folk songs (Powadas)
praise his multifarious actions. So it was no surprise that when Jayabhagwan
Goyal, released his book, ‘Aaj ka Shivaji: Narendra Modi’, at
religious-cultural meet organized by Delhi BJP, there was a strong resentment
in Maharashtra. Various leaders from Maharashtra were furious. The Shiv Sena
leader Sanjay Raut challenged the Shivaji’s descendent, Sambhaji Raje who is in
BJP and is member of Rajya Sabha, to resign on the issue. Sambhaji Raje in turn
stated that "We respect Narendra Modi, who was elected as the prime minister
of the country for the second time. But neither (Narendra) Modi nor anybody
else in the world can be compared with Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,"
Not
to be left behind Jitendra Awhad of NCP felt Modi-BJP are insulting the pride
of Maharashtra. It is not the first time that controversy is erupting around
the Maharashtra warrior of medieval period. Earlier we had seen Sambhaji
Brigrade demanding the ban on James Laine book, Shivaji: ‘A Hindu King in an
Islamic Kingdom’, for its objectionable content. Bhandarkar Institute in Pune,
which had helped James Laine in his research, was also vandalized. At another
level there was a talk that Babasaheb Purandare, a Brahmin, who has written
some popular material on Shivaji will be made as the Chairman of the committee
for statue of Shivaji. Maratha Mahasangh and Shiv Dharm officials objected to a
Brahmin heading the committee for a statue for the Maratha warrior. The caste
angel in Shivaji’s case is coming to the fore from quite some time.
While
there is no dearth of controversies around Shivaji, it is also true that each
political tendency has created Shivaji’s image from their political point of
view. Who was the real Shivaji, is the question. One can see two clear streams
of projection in this matter. On one hand there is an attempt to present
Shivaji as the anti Muslim King, a king who was respecting Cows and Brahmins (Go
Brahman pratipalak). This view was brought forward from the times of
Lokmanya Tilak and picked up by Hindu nationalists, who have been looking for
icons in history to suit their political agenda. Nathram Godse, while
criticizing Gandhi says that Gandhi’s nationalism was dwarf in front of the one
of Shivaji or Rana Pratap.
In
tune with this the Hindu nationalists are promoting both these as icons of
Hindu nationalism and giving anti-Muslim slant to the whole discourse. This
discourse also hides in this the Brahmanical agenda of Hindu nationalism as
Cows and Brahmins are presented as the central object of veneration by Shivaji.
This image of Shivaji fits well into the current agenda of Hindu nationalists,
being spearheaded by RSS Combine.
It
is because of this that for seeking votes in Mumbai Narendra Modi on the eve of
2014 elections stated that Shivaji attacked Surat to plunder the treasury of Aurangzeb.
This also presents Shivaji-Aurangzeb, Shivaji-Afzal Khan interactions as battle
between Hindus and Muslims. The truth is that Surat was plundered for its
wealth as it was a rich port city and Bal Samant’s book on the
topic gives in depth description of the same. It is noteworthy that Shivaji
began his real career of conquest in 1656 when he conquered Javli from the
Maratha Chief Chandra Rao More. He took over the treasures of this kingdom.
That it was not a Hindu Muslim battle becomes clear when we know that in
confrontation with Aurangzeb it was Mirza Raja Jaisingh who was negotiating and
engaging with Shivaji on behalf of Aurangzeb. And Shivaji had Muslim officers
like Kazi Haider as confidential secretary and many Muslim Generals in his
army.
Darya
Sarang was chief of armor division, Daulat Khan was in-charge of his naval
division; Ibrahim Khan was another general of significance in his army. This
mixed up administration just shows that the kings were not having Hindu or
Muslim administration depending on their religion. In the confrontation between
Shivaji and Afzal Khan, Rustam-e-Jaman was Shivaji’s side and Afzal Khan had
Krisnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni on his side.
As
far as Shivaji’s popularity is concerned it was due to his being a King with
welfare of his subjects in his mind. He lightened the burden of taxation on the
average peasants, and reduced the domination of landlords over the serfs. This
picture of Shivaji is well documents in the booklets by Com. Govind Pansare
(Who was Shivaji) and Jayant Gadkari (Shivaji: Ek Lok Kalyankari Raja-
Shivaji: King doing People’s Welfare). He did not belong to the warrior caste
so Brahmins had refused to coronate him, for which purpose Gaga Bhatt a Brahmin
from Kashi was brought in with heavy fees. Teesta Setalvad’s hand book on
History for teachers underlined this fact.
Today
while BJP-Brahmanical forces want to present Shivaji as worshipper of Brahmins
and cows, the non upper caste have seen through the game. As such it was
Jotirao Phule who brought forward the caste angel of Shivaji as he wrote Powada
(Poem) in his honor and today dalit Bahujan are not toeing Hindu Nationalist
projection on the issue.
The
likes of Jayabhagwan Goyal of BJP as such are trying to give two messages
through such attempts. One hand they want to paint Shivaji in anti Muslim and
Brahmanical color, they also want to give the subtle message of similarity of
this presentation of Shivaji with what Modi is doing. Non BJP forces have seen
this game and want to present the other picture of Shivaji, which was
highlighted by the likes of Jotirao Phule and which today many of those
standing for rights of dalit-Bahujan are trying to articulate. The criticism of
the said, book, since withdrawn is on these twin aspects. One about the picture
of Shivaji who was concerned about welfare of the farmers, and two his respect
for people of all religions.