Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

SHIVAJI : GREAT HINDU HERO OR AN EXAGGERATED LEGEND

DEBUNKING JAMES W. LAINE’S “THE HINDU KING OF ISLAMIC INDIA”

Dr. P.V. Pathak


12850 Whittington Dr. #104, Houston Tx 77077 USA , <drpvpathak@yahoo.co.in>

I was utterly in distressed to read the account of vandalism at the Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute. Pune on 5th Jan. 2004. I condemn it. I have no words to express my
anger. I do not understand what these hooligans have gained by this vandalism. But
James W. Laine, writer of the book “Shivaji : Hindu king of Islamic India” (Oxford Uni.
Press) needs to be attended first as he expects a scholarly evaluation of his work.

James Laine, (JL) as given in the OUP ad is supposed to be Prof. of Religious Studies at
Macalester College. He is appears to be no historian and his understanding of historical
writing appears to me insufficient and biased. He is not objective in his approach from
the very title of the book, Shivaji : Hindu King in Islamic India.

It is shear nonsense to call 17th century India as Islamic India when Hindus still
constituted 75-80% of the total population. Even after constant assaults starting from 11th
century when Delhi Sultanate was established, Hindus still constituted majority of
population. Many a Muslim rulers had to issue their coins with Hindu deities featuring on
the coins thus officially accepting idol worship; Islam accepting music as the court
profession. Thus Hindus changed crude face of Islam and won the cultural victory. In all
other countries subjected to Islamic vandalism, the local cultures were vanquished, where
as Hindus not only resisted, but also won over Islam in the sphere of cultural life. Sufi
saints had in turn debunked the basic Islamic tenets. The Majority of military men of then
Muslim rulers were Hindus, finances were controlled by Hindu traders, Hindu saints like
Guru Nanak, Kabir, Ekanath, had established the cultural dominance over crude Semitic
dogma of monotheism, and the process of assimilation of Islam was initiated. To such
India, when Mr. JL dubs as Islamic India, I feel piety on him. He cannot see the strength
of the Hindu culture and traditions. Take for example, in case of Rama Janmabhoomi
temple in Ayodhya, even after demolition in the 16th century, Hindus continued to visit
and offer prayers at the spot where Rama Janmabhoomi was traditionally known. It is the
strength of Hindu Culture and tradition that it effectively encountered the Islamic
onslaught, some times by openly warring and some times with temporary surrender. JL
has fallen in the same trap as the erstwhile Communist writers (their tribe is more or less
vanished) who treated Shivaji as mere bourgeoisie rebel. Let us ask James, if in future a
black Afro-American is elected as President of United states, his ethnic people
constituting 10% of the American population, and many of his advisors to be the Afro-
Americans, would he call that period as Black American Period. Would he ever call USA
ruled by Afro-American President as Afro-America? Or for that purpose is USA a native
or Red Indian country? In that sense let him answer “Was ever India Islamic?”

Why these inherent strengths and cultural victories of the Hindu society were not
highlighted earlier? Because the chronological history of India was formally written by

1
the British rulers. As the present American history is written by White Americans,
westward invasion of the White foreigners becomes westward expansion. The Lewis and
Clark expedition of 1803 AD, which in future resulted in systematic decimation of local
tribes, is portrayed as great achievement. The incidents like “Wounded knee” as late as
Dec, 29, 1890, where the local tribe people ready to surrender to the white aggressors but
were brutally fired on and in a matter of few minutes about 200 men, women and kids
killed on the spot, are given one line mention. Prolonged incarceration and life long
banishment of Gerenimo, Chiricahua native tribe Chief (1829-1909) from his traditional
tribe lands, are hardly given any mention in American history. Banishment of hundreds
of Native (Red) Indian tribes, uprooting them from their age old lands by White invaders
are mentioned in one line and no American citizen of today feels apologetic about it. This
is possibly the history that JL has learnt in his school days. As a professor of religious
studies, he must be still lauding in his classes the Christian values while his ancestors 3-4
generation ago willfully infected small pox to the native Indians in a sort of biological
warfare, brutally massacred the native tribes denying them the right to continue their life
in their own country. JL has not understood the fact that history is written of the Victors
and not of the Vanquished. The British had no interest in highlighting the Hindu values,
cultural triumphs of Hindu culture over Semitic religious thought, as late as 1893 when
Swami Vivekananda spoke at the World Religious congress. So if at all JL wants to
assess the historical writings, he should take clues from the twisted representation of
Quanah Parker, the last Comanche Chief. The American history writers call him Parker
after his mother Cynthia Parker and not Comanche. When he refused to accept “Treaty of
Medicine Lodge” in 1867, Quanah Comanche was treated as traitor. All these
misrepresentations of the well documented incidents of the century and half old period
should have been eye opener to JL while he wrote about Paramanda’s account of Shivaji.

Jl has really poor understanding of the Indian history. Dose he think that a person like
Shivaji would have ever accepted to remain under the Muslin tyrant Aurangzeb. He is at
loss to understand that having all the Muslim Sirdars failed to control Shivaji, Aurangzeb
sent Mirza Raja Jaisingh to control Shivaji. And visit to Agra was forced on Shivaji who
yielded only before mighty Jaisingh. Would ever an astute ruler like Shivaji have
willingly thought of attending the court function of a brute, who treacherously killed his
own brother and incarcerated his own father and who was never trustworthy? As
expected, he too was kept under house arrest. It was great escape, which made Shivaji a
legend in his own times and instilled confidence in Hindus who appeared to have lost
confidence. Could ever such a great man aspire for being vassal of a Mughal. Asking for
Munsub in Aurangzeb’s court for his son Sambhaji was obviously a ploy.

In his earlier life too, his dare devil act of entering Lal Mahal in Pune and cutting fingers
of Shahistakhan, close relative of Mughal Aurangzeb, becomes of great significance
compared to the temporarily loosing control over Pune. Later on Shivaji would have been
a damn fool if he had allowed Afzalkhan to go scot-free. If he had not killed Afzalkhan,
Khan would have killed him. If the so called aggressive self defense of White Americans
against the local poorly armed Native Indian tribes can be justified, then Shivaji is
justified in killing Afzalkhan who had killed his own elder brother Sambhaji. Shivaji’s
strategy of inviting Khan in the deep forests around Pratapgarh was supreme move.

2
Shivaji had great foresight. He reconverted Netaji Palkar alias Mohammad Kulikhan and
resettled him in the society by marrying his own daughter to Netaji’s son. What a great
feat! What a great social reform! We Hindus were and are still shortsighted that we did
not follow Shivaji the Great in this respect. He was Shivaji the Great, who built navy
after centuries of lapse. He was Shivaji the Great who sponsored writing administration
papers in Indian language; compiling “Raajyavyavahaarkosha” so that common man
could understand the court language and administration doing away with the yoke of
foreign language Farsi. He introduced greeting Ram-Ram which continues till today. He
was Shivaji the great because he had initiated the casting of guns and cannons, a
technological step forward and had explored for setting the printing press. In the face of
Islamic vandalism on temples, he generously donated mosques. There are many
achievements of Shivaji. As JL himself concedes, Shivaji had pan- Hindu vision of the
whole Hindu nation, that made him write letter to Aurangzeb when he demolished shrine
at Kashi. He was astute politician who tried to unite local Muslim converts against the
Mughals during his visit to Karnataka after coronation. His alliance with Adilshah was a
great game plan of uprooting the Mughal influence in South India. It was for countering
this very influence that senile Auranzeb came down in Deccan and demolished Adilshahi.
In turn he dug the grave of Mughal lineage and his own kingdom. Shivaji’s capture of
Jinji fort in South India was a very crucial and important decision; for Rajaram could go
there as legitimate king and keep Maratha resistance alive after death of Sambhaji. For all
these, we Hindus glorify him. JL cannot comprehend his, because he has intention of
belittling achievements of the Great hero in the name of objectivity.

JL does not seem to have even little geographical understanding of the terrain in which,
Shivaji and saint Ramdas lived as contemporaries. He has succumbed to the communist
propaganda of Shivaji having not influenced by Ramdas. Saint Ramdas was a force to
reckon with on the cultural scenario of his times. He had long back initiated Hanuman
upaasanaa and formation wresting culture among Hindus by propagating the Talimkhanas
or gymnasiums. He too moved within the 40 miles (This is for JL, as Americans are still
following the British measures of miles) periphery of many of Shivaji’s forts. Looking at
the devout nature of Shivaji, and the magnetic and selfless personality that Samartha
Ramdas was, it is shear nonsense to think that they did not ever meet. Although the letter
from Ramdas to Shivaji dates too much later period, it is foolish to think that Shivaji did
not understand the significance of Ramdas Swami’s work. After his son Sambhaji
returned from Mughals, Shivaji sent him to no other person than Ramdas and was
stationed at Panhalgad under the observation of Ramdas for reformation. What does it
indicate? A close relation relationship and deep sense of faith both of them had in each
other, for saint Ramdas did not deny Shivaji’s plea for letting Sambhaji, a Mughal
returned renegade to stay close to him and attempt reformation. This confidence in each
other does not come in a day. It had to be built over years of trust and exchange of
thoughts. JL has fallen prey to the so-called secular historian writings, who were far
removed from the cultural nuances of Hinduism, and could never comprehend the
geographical significance.

3
An accusation that Shivaji’s attempt to establish kingdom made it possible for British to
take over, is another travesty of truth. In fact establishment of Maratha empire delayed
take over of India by almost one and quarter century. Shivaji died in 1680AD. Auranzeb
died in 1707 in Maharashtra. Second Bajirao lost to British in 1817AD. Thus there is gap
of full century when Maratha Empire was functioning. In fact it led to confidence
building in Hindus and in north another strong power center could emerge that of
Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Guru Gobindsingh came down to Deccan to avoid Mughal
pursuit, because Marathas had made the region safe. British could have taken over Delhi
quickly in the confusion in Mughal Empire after Aurangzeb’s death. Establishment of
Maratha Empire delayed the British advent in India by more than a century. That is how
the Indian history is to be understood, not by the way JL understands it.

We Hindus cherish the memories of three heroes. In Rajastan, Rana Pratap fought the
growing influence of the Mughals, while his other kinsmen yielded to Delhi rulers. He
lonely fought his battles, suffered setbacks and became a torchbearer of Hindu pride.
Shivaji was successful in establishing his kingdom and fired his people to relentlessly
fight Aurangzeb for more than two decades with apparently no leader or king to guide
them. His inspiration created heroes like Santaji Ghorapade and Dhanaji Jadhav. We also
rever the great Guru Gobinsingh, whose sons offered supreme sacrifice and armed his
followers.

I wonder for the Oxford University Press who published this half baked trash. Because it
was written by a white man? Or because JL is a psuedo-scholar who can count on number
of trips to Pune without ever touched by real feel of the culture? Will OUP publish my
book? It will be repost to this trash chapter-by-chapter, line by line. I also do not
understand why this book is banned? In fact this should be prescribed as text of how not
to assess historical events. Our politicians too are timid. Little outpouring of anger and
they banned it. Debunking this book chapter-by-chapter, line-by-line, will only highlight,
how not to understand and write history. I sincerely request authorities to lift the ban and
let many people read and come forward with their views and criticism.

If JL had real intentions to write an unbiased and objective assessment of Shivaji’s life,
he would have focused on the achievements of the great hero who never lost a battle, who
was a great social reformer; who had technological foresight, who gave impetus to Hindu
nationalism and instilled confidence that even in the face of Muslim brutalities, a Hindu
king to be coroneted with full rites. Taking inspiration from him, young Chhatrasal
established his kingdom in very heart of Mughal Empire in Bundelkhand.

If Greek civilization cherishes the memory of Alexander the Great, if the defunct
Communist Russia could laud the achievements of Peter the Great, then we Hindus feel
great about our Shivaji the Great, for the very fact as rightly stated by great litterateur
Kaviraj Bhushan, “Shivaji na hotaa to sunnat hoti sabaki (Had Shivaji not been born, all
the Hindus would have been circumcised i.e. converted Muslims)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi