This article attempts to bring out the irreligiousness and
barbarism 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 and barbaric. If it exposes Shivaji’s negative
character it is because a lot positive has been said about
Shivaji and thus portraying his good character/s is a mere
repetition, nothing else.
‘Shivaji was born to Hindu parents in 1630, in the hill fort of
Shivneri, 60 km north of Pune (formerly Poona) in Maharashtra,
India. His father, Shahaji, was a jagirdar of the sultan of
Bijapur in present-day Karnataka. His mother was Jijabai, the
daughter of Lakhuji Jadhav from Sindkhedraja in present-day
Buldhana district of Maharashtra. He was one of the most
influential amongst the Yadav (lower-cast Hindu) rulers.’ (See
Shivaji: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
The Irreligious Shivaji-
‘Shivaji annexed a portion of the then dominant Mughal empire
using guerrilla tactics superbly suited to the rugged mountains
and valleys found in this region. He was formally crowned
Chatrapati (”Holder of the Umbrella”, representing the
protection he bestowed on his people) on June 6, 1674 at the
Raigad fort, and given the title, Kshatriya Kulasampanna
Simhasanadheeshwar Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Pandit Gaga
Bhatt, a Brahmin from Varanasi, officially presided over the
ceremony. A few days later a second ceremony was carried out,
this time according to the Bengal school of Tantricism and
presided over by Nischal Puri. The coronation itself was the
subject of controversy among the inner circles of Shivaji, on
doubts over Shivaji’s status as a Kshatriya (the warrior Hindu
cast), since a Kshatriya alone could be crowned a King.’ (See
Shivaji: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
Hinduism is theoretically consisted of its scriptures
categorised as Shruti and Smriti. Shruti scriptures are
essentially Vedas, including the Upanishads, and Smriti
scriptures are essentially Sutras, including the Manusmriti,
which dealt with Hindu law and conduct.
‘Dharma is an important concept in Hinduism signifying order,
law, duty, and truth. Men were expected to follow their own
dharma (their sva-dharma) according to their social class,
varna, and stage of life, ashrama, hence the term
varna-ashrama-dharma. The maintenance of social order in the
world and the relationship between humanity and the gods were
the corporate responsibility of all, though each person’s
behaviour in the service of dharma was different. The principle
text in which these duties (and those of women) were codified
was the Manusmriti.’ (See Kim Knott: Hinduism -a very short
introduction. Oxford: OUP. Pg 43-4)
‘In Rig Veda 10.90 and chapter 2 of the Bhagavad-gita we were
introduced to the idea of the four classes of Brahminical
society. Arjuna, as a warrior, was expected to do his class
duty, not being tempted to mimic the duties of others just
because they seemed more palatable or worthy, or less
contentious. This idea of social duty was discussed in greater
detail in the Manusmriti, where the consequences of neglecting
one’s duty were treated very seriously. Undutiful or a-dharmic
actions would be punished with expulsion from one’s social group
or with a lower rebirth in the next life.’ (See Kim Knott:
Hinduism -a very short introduction. Oxford: OUP. Pg 38)
In Ch 18 verses 41 to 48 clearly imply that Bhagavad-gita (in
particular, Lord Krishna) considers the cast system (constituted
of the four casts, viz Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and
Sudras) to be divine and religious. Non-Kshatriyas performing
the works of Kshatriyas are thus irreligious, according to the
Gita (see Ch 18 verses 47 & 48). ‘In modern India, caste is
determined by familial inheritance, but not all present members
of Kshatriya castes are necessarily descended from the Vedic
Kshatriyas. Many historical rulers came from other castes, or
were descended from non-Hindu foreign conquerors, and were
either granted de facto Kshatriya status by virtue of the power
they held, or they created fictionalized family histories to
connect themselves to past Kshatriya rulers. The Maratha ruler
Shivaji, for example, was from non-Kshatriya origins, but in
order to legitimize himself as Maratha king he created a dubious
genealogy that traced his family to the Sesodia dynasty of
Rajputs, and found a prestigious Brahmin to conduct a ritual of
consecration that acknowledged his kingship while absolving
Shivaji of living as a non-Kshatriya. The caste system spread,
along with Hinduism, throughout India and into southeast Asia,
but not necessarily by immigration; peoples with non-Vedic
origins may have adopted the Vedic castes as they acculturated
into Hinduism.’ (See
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Kshatriya)
The Marathas are the inhabitants of Maharashtra…Aside from a
Brahmin minority- among whom the Chitpawans are best known as
the providers of the Peshwas rulers- the Marathas belong to the
Shudra cast.’ (See Dilip Hiro: History of India: the rough
guide. London: Rough Guides Ltd. Pg 204) This suggests that
Shivaji actually belonged to the Shudra cast, not the Kshatriya
cast. (The word Shudra means inferior and the Shudra cast is the
cast of farmers or servants.)
‘Shivaji created a government with democratic structure, where
12 ministers were elected by the public- one of the first
experiments in democracy in the Indian subcontinent. The chief
of ministers (prime minister) was chosen by the public and was
called “Peshwa”.’ (See Shivaji: Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia.) However, Hinduism does not allow lower-cast
people to decide who should govern their society. In this way,
Shivaji’s democracy, and, in general, his rule was irreligious.
Thus, according to Hinduism Shivaji was irreligious. In other
words, Shivaji was an irreligious (or a-dharmic) Hindu king.
The Barbaric Shivaji-
Shivaji’s barbarism is depicted in the barbaric civic laws
practised under his rule. For example, punishment for theft was
to cut hands, for rape was to throw down from the top of the
hill (e.g. Takmaktok in Marathi) to kill, etc.
‘Small and sturdy, the Marathas are renowned for their
perseverance. As agriculturists they are sober and frugal, with
a touch of guile. As village chiefs they supplied the
administrative backbone of the kingdoms of Ahmadnagar and
Bijapur. As soldiers they were as courageous and enterprising as
Rajputs, but did not share Rajput concepts of honour, valour and
self-sacrifice. For a Maratha, victory was to be achieved by any
means, fair or foul. His adversaries therefore regarded him as a
formidable foe.’ (See Dilip Hiro: History of India: the rough
guide. London: Rough Guides Ltd. Pg 204) This speaks of the
barbaric nature of the Marathas, including Shivaji.
‘By the third quarter of the 18th century, the Marathas had
under their direct administration enough Indian territory to
justify the use of the term “the Maratha Empire”, though it
never came near the dimensions of the Mughal Empire. The
Marathas also never sought to formally substitute themselves for
the Mughals; they often kept the emperor under their thumb but
still paid him formal obeisance. Their ruthlessness in the wake
of their battles against Aurangzeb’s armies, especially towards
Muslim populations meant they were not trusted to the same
degree as the Mughal administration had been, a further factor
in their inability to form an extensive empire.’ (See India.
London: Insight Guides. Pg 40)
