Shiva Chhatrapati: an estimate

PROF. SUDHANSUBIMAL MOOKERJI

The name of Shivaji is one to conjure with even today, more than 250 years after his death. We have yet to know the lover of freedom who does not bow his head reverentially before this petty Jagirdar’s son who carved out an independent kingdom for himself and more than held his own against the Mughal Empire at the height of its power.

The Deccan had long felt the impact of the arms of Islam. By the beginning of the 17th century a compromise had been already patched up between the Muslim rulers and their Maratha subjects. The Muslim princes reposed confidence in their Deccani subjects and received faithful service in return.

In the 17th century, says Ranade, “The ground was prepared partly by nature, partly by the religious revival, but chiefly by the long discipline in arms which the country had undergone under Mussalman rule for three hundred years.” A change had already taken place in the mental outlook of Maharashtra. The ‘Bhagabata’ cult placed a high ideal before the country. Heart within and ‘Vithoba’ overhead, the Marathas had learnt to suffer and sacrifice like true heroes. A new life had begun to pulsate. The great Samartha Ramdas effected a synthesis of the ‘Bhakti’ and ‘Karma’ cults. He infused new hopes into the popular mind by the introduction of the worship of Ramachandra and Maruti, the birthday celebration of Ramachandra and similar other methods. People began to believe that Ramachandra had been re-born and that the millennium was at hand.

The latter half of the 16th century and the 17th saw the heyday of Mughal Imperialism, a great foe of Indian nationalism. Northern India ad been engulfed. Southern India was seriously threatened by the advancing tide of the Mughal hordes. The reflective section of the population in Maharashtra must have realised the magnitude of the menace. Success of the Mughal arms would lead to a repetition of the 14th century history. When the last efforts of Shahji Bhonsle to save Ahmednagar failed, everyone realised that the danger was already upon him.

It was at this juncture–in 1627 according to some and 1630 according to others–that Shahji Bhonsle’s first wife bore him a son. The boy was named Shivaji. The ‘Chhatrapati’ of future years spent his early life at Poona under the guardianship of his mother and a trusted Brahmin officer of his father, Dadaji Kondadev by name. It is very difficult to say what literary education he had. Inspired by the stories of the exploits of the heroes of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata he began to dream of the restoration of Hindu suzerainty in India. Step by step, slowly but surely, he built a kingdom, fierce opposition of the Sultan of Bijapur, Emperor Aurungzeb, the Portuguese and the English no withstanding. He was crowned at Raigarh in 1674 and assumed the titles, “Shiva Chhatrapati” and ‘Go-brahmana Pratipalaka.’

The independent kingdom founded by Shivaji was not a very extensive one and it came to an end within nine years of his death in 1680. Kingdoms equaling or even exceeding his in extent were carved out in later years by Hyder Ali and Ranjit Singh, ‘The Lion of the Punjab.’ Yet Shivaji is more remembered and respected than either.

Shivaji’s character, immaculate as it was not, was far above that of his contemporaries. An affectionate father, a dutiful son, a loving husband, a devoted son he undoubtedly was. Yet he could not rise above the practices of his age when plurality of wives and concubinage were quite fashionable. Shivaji, by the way, had as many as eight wives.

Shivaji was intensely religious. Devotion to his own religion, however, did not make a bigot of him in an age when bigotry and intolerance were rampant, more specially in the rulers of the land. Freely did he give money and rent-free land for the construction and maintenance of temple and mosques. He respected Hindu and Muhammadan holy men alike and was as much loved by Tukaram and Ramdas as by the Muhammadan saint Sheikh Muhammad. His standing orders to the soldiery were that, if ever a copy of the Koran fell into its hands, it must be returned respectfully to the Muhammadans. At the time of the raid of Surat Shivaji made it a point not to molest the Capuchin missionaries there. This catholicity is a fundamental characteristic of Hinduism, one of the finest flowers of which the Chhatrapati undoubtedly was. He engaged in a life-long struggle for the protection of the Vedas and the brahmins, and the defense of holy places, temples and the honour of women. A Hindu king as he was, he granted complete religious toleration to all classes of his subjects. He did not hesitate to appoint suitably qualified Muhammadans to high posts under him. Of the Muhammadan officials of Shivaji mention may be made of Munshi Hyder, who later on became the Chief Justice of the Mughal Empire under Aurungzeb, Siddi Sambal, Siddi Misri, Daulat Khan–all Admirals, and Siddi Halal and Nur Khan–both Captains.

Shivaji had a strong strain of mysticism in his mind. Thrice he made up his mind to renounce the world. Tukaram and Samartha Ramdas–the former twice and the latter once–dissuaded him from such a course. On his Way to Karnatak later in life (1677), he made ready to cut off his own head as an offering in the temple of Mallikarjuna. Tradition his it that Bhawani herself appeared before him and prevented him from taking this step.

Respect for women was one of the noblest traits of Shivaji’s character. The Bengali poet Yogindra Nath Basu gives a vivid pen picture of this aspect of his character when he represents Shivaji taking an oath before his mother:

“From today every Hindu in Maharashtra is a brother unto me,

“And every woman this my mother Jijabai.”

When after the conquest of Kalyan, Abaji brought the daughter-in-law of its Governor, Maula Ahmed, as a present for Shivaji, he told her, “How divinely handsome you are, mother! Had I been a son of yours, I would have been as beautiful.” The lady was sent to her relatives and Abaji reprimanded. His eldest son Shambhuji once outraged the modesty of a brahmin lady. The matter was reported to him and the offender had to run away for his very life. Shivaji had no mercy for offenders against women and in his kingdom offence against female modesty was a capital crime.

Shivaji’s devotion to his mother was unique and without a parallel. He would obtain beforehand her approval for all serious and important work undertaken by him. It was from her lips that he heard the stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata which sowed the seeds of freedom in his heart and imbued him with the idea of setting up a ‘Dharma-raajya.’ It was his mother’s blessings that sustained him in the most critical situations of life. Before leaving for the Imperial Court at Agra 1666, he made elaborate arrangements for the administration of the kingdom during his absence and Jijabai was made the regent. Shahji died in 1664 as the result of a hunting accident. When, in obedience to the time-honoured custom, Jijabai made herself ready to perform the ‘sati,’ it was the tears of Shivaji which dissuaded her. Napoleon Bonaparte also loved and adored his mother; but this did not restrain him from sexual aberrations. Shivaji’s respect for his mother, on the other hand, was transformed into respect for women.

Shivaji was an autocrat and his orders however unjust had to be lied out willy-nily. Yet a tyrant he was not and would never let any act of oppression go unpunished or uncensored. Once during the monsoon a regiment or two of his army were encamped at Chiplun in Ratnagiri. It is just possible that some of the stories of their oppression on the civilian population reached the ears of Shivaji. He directed the soldiers that they must pay reasonably for the commodities purchased.

Was Shivaji a sanyasin? No. He was a man of the World. A votary of freedom, he judged everything in the light of whether it advanced or retarded the cause so dear to his heart. Thus, Chandra Rao of Javli was treacherously killed under his instructions. He behaved treacherously with the Sultan of Golkonda during the invasion of Karnatak. Did he not fall off from the ideal of ‘Hindvi Swaraj,’ albeit for the time being, by accepting the Treaty of Purandhar in 1665? Did not his invasions of Bijapur, Karnatak and the Mughal domain render thousands homeless?

A practical idealist that Shivaji was, he believed that the end justified the means. The Conquest of Javli was necessary for the establishment of an independent kingdom. Open war would have led to loss of many lives and avoidable waste of much valuable time. Hence Shivaji had recourse to treachery. But for the treaty of Purandhar the dream of ‘Hindvi Swaraj’ would be nipped in the bud. Hence he accepted the terms harsh and humiliating as they were.

The quote Sir J. N. Sarkar, “unfailing insight into the character of others, efficiency of arrangements, an instinctive perception of what was practicable and profitable under the circumstances,” contributed pre-eminently to the success of Shivaji. In the words of the same authority. Shivaji possessed “that unfailing sense of reality in politics, that recognition of the exact possibilities of his time (tact des choses Possibles) which Cavour defined as the essence of statesmanship.” He knew full well how far his resources could carry him, how long a certain policy could be pursued profitably and where he should stop. Thus, be it to hit and adversary or to strike a new alliance, he would choose the most opportune moment. He is one of the rare historical personalities who did never commit a single diplomatic blunder. Popular belief ascribed this infallibility to the grace of goddess Bhawani; but we moderns know that it was that ‘third eye’ which is the essence of true genius.

A true leader must be a shrewd judge of character and this Shivaji certainly was. He possessed the uncanny gift of diving to the depths of the character of those he came in contact with almost at once and would never put a round peg into a square hole. His officers were always well-chosen.

A leader, however able and great, to be successful, must have a vigilant eye on his lieutenants. He must not try to do everything himself nor should he allow his subordinates to act as they like. Philip II of Spain and Aurungzeb, the latter in particular, gifted and laborious as they were, were no leaders, because they had little confidence in the ability and sincerity of their officers. Daulat Rao Scindia of Gwalior, on the other hand, was an automaton in the hands of his European Generals whom he could not control. A leader must do neither too much nor too little. This gift of leadership Shivaji possessed in abundance and this is why his officers, drawn as they were from different castes, classes and communities–the Desasth, the Karhade, the Semi, the Chitpavan, the Prabhu Kayastha, the Maratha, the Gujar, the Muhammadan and the like–vied with one another in proving themselves useful and faithful to their master.

Shivaji would take care to draw up beforehand a clear-cut programme of executing his plans. Thus, before the sacks of Surat, the first invasion of Berar and the Karnatak expedition, he spent many months in collecting detailed information of the places in question and his agents were already at work in all these places when the blows actually fell.

Shivaji’s first step in the path of freedom, call it a leap in the dark if you like, was taken in 1657 when he created a diversion in favour of Bijapur by raiding the south-western corner of the Mughal Deccan. The Mughal power had reached its zenith. There was no vestige of independence anywhere in India. Even the Sultans of Bijapur and Golkonda acknowledged the supremacy of the Great Mughal on the Peacock Throne at Agra.

In a series of tussles with the Mughal, the Portuguese, the English and with Bijapur, at one time or another, Shivaji came out victorious. His army was a model of efficiency. What is more, he built a navy, which fought quite a number of battles on equal terms with the English, the Portuguese and the Abyssinians of Janjira. The Maratha aristocracy, as noted above, was apathetic, if not anti-pathetic in the beginning, to the cause of independence–the cause which was the very breath of Shivaji’s nostrils. But they rallied under the ‘Bhagwa Jenda’ gradually. A born leader of men that Shivaji was, he gave to all classes of people under him the opportunity of serving the State. Co-operation, sincere and heart-whole, of all strata of society is indispensable in a war of national liberation. The so-called upper and lower classes constitute respectively the brain and brawn, as it were, of the body politic, and brain and brawn must co-operate. Shivaji had a clear perception of this truth. Hence he recruited his followers from all classes of society and the depressed classes of Maharashtra–the Moolis, the Kolis, the Mahars and the Ramoshirs–were provided with employment’s under Shivaji. They were given to understand that the country was their common with the upper classes, and in return they spilled their life-blood ungrudgingly for its sake.

Shivaji challenged Delhi and Bijapur and taught his co-religionists that they might be more than camp-followers, that they might be independent leaders in peace and war alike. He founded a state and demonstrated that the Hindus could be able leaders no less than consummate generals. In the words of that authority on Maratha History, Sir J. N. Sarkar, “Shivaji has shown that the tree of Hinduism is not really dead, that it can rise from beneath the seemingly crushing load of centuries of political bondage, exclusion from the administration and legal repression; it can put forth new leaves and branches, it can again lift its head to the skies.” (Shivaji and His Times–P. 406). A great nation builder and constructive genius, he proved that the Hindu race can produce not ‘Jemadars’ and ‘Chitnises’ alone, but leaders, rulers and kings as well.

In days gone by India has known generals and makers of kingdoms, as great as and even greater than Shivaji. But Shivaji’s name is inscribed in a bolder relief on every true heart than anyone of them. For one thing it reflects no small credit on this Jaigirdars son to have founded an independent kingdom in the teeth of the keen opposition of the mighty hosts of Delhi among others. The rise of the Marathas under Shivaji was not, as Grant Duff would have us believe, a conflagration in the Sahyadris. He galvanized the scattered and aimless Marathas into life and welded them into a nation, He it was who inspired them with the idea and ideal of a ‘Hindvi Swaraj’ and taught them to merge their minor differences in the face of a common danger.

What urged Shivaji to a conflict with the Muslim rulers of the Deccan and the great Mughal of Delhi? Shivaji, had he been so inclined, might have wealth, position and influence but for the asking. His father, Shahaji, a prominent figure in contemporary Deccan politics, was not unknown in the Mughal Court. Had he thought Bijapur too small for his ambition, he might have sought a career in the service of Delhi. But his was a choice diametrically opposite which plunged him in no end of perils. He was wide-awake to the consequences of a defeat, which would lead to death and worse. The victors in those days felt no scruples to wreak vengeance on the ladies of the family of the vanquished. Not infrequently would they be sent to the victors harem to spend the remaining days of life without the prestige of wifehood and the joy of motherhood. How many of us have ever made an attempt to appraise properly the magnitude of the sacrifice this arch-rebel was prepared to make or the seriousness of the risks he ran? The worldly wise scoffed at his endeavours as foolhardiness. From the Nimbalkars of Karnatak, the Ghorpades of Mudhol and the Badis of Savanta–all relatives–he had nothing but opposition. Dadaji Kondadev, his mentor during boyhood, adolescence and the early years of youth did not welcome the prospect of a conflict with the Muslims. But opposition is but straw to the fire of idealism burning in the heart of a votary of freedom.

It may be argued that love of adventure prompted Shivaji to choose the path of conflict. Adventures he might have in plenty by fighting like his father against the Mughals under the banner of Bijapur or any other can Deccan Sultanate. So the argument lacks legs to stand upon. One thing there should be taken into consideration. Love of adventure may make a man disregard his personal safety, but seldom the safety of those he loves adores. This he can do only when a duty higher, a mission nobler in the attainment of mere material gains calls him. This mission in Shivaji’s case was the establishment of an independent kingdom and the forging of a new nation. The Marathas before Shivaji ‘were scattered like atoms through many Deccani kingdoms’ and were ‘mere hirelings, mere servants of aliens.’ To put it in another way, ‘they were always subordinates, never leaders.’ Shivaji demonstrated by his adventures and achievements that the Marathas could build and rule kingdoms, that they could more than hold their own against Muslim and foreign adversaries. Long centuries of political serfdom had generated lethargy and an inferiority-complex–those cankers of mind in national character. Shivaji removed them by a magic wand, as it were, and the nation at once became conscious of its potentialities.

The lesson Shivaji taught in the 17th century has not, again, altogether forgotten. His ideal of ‘Hindvi Swaraj’ animated the Marathas it may be said without exaggeration that for more than a century after Shivaji’s death in 1680 the Marathas held the thread of political destinies of India. In the end it was from the hands of the Marathas that English lifted the suzerainty of India.

Shivaji is dead–long live Shivaji!

BACK