 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. You are watching Present, Past and the Future. No discussion on politics in Maharashtra can take place without a single reference to Shivaji Maharaj, the Maratha warrior king or the founder of the medieval Maratha kingdom in the 17th century. With elections in the air in this western state, this time too, political parties have traded charges on the proposed Shivaji Maharaj Memorial, a monument which has come up on the Arabian Sea of Mumbai. The opposition has accused the BJP Shiv Sena government of making slow progress, while the ruling parties have charged adversaries of making no effort when in power earlier. Once this complex comes up with one of the highest statues in the world, a rival by any route to India's financial capital cannot be but through the Chhatrapati's gateway. Already, Mumbai's international airport and the principal railway station are named after the icon. Regardless of divergences among people and parties over the approach to the memorial, there is consensus regarding Shivaji's exalted position in the state's pantheon of great. Yet, how much of the reasons induced for his greatness is true and how much of these are exaggerated by contemporary politics? Is Chhatrapati Shivaji's image true to the history of the times or is it substantially guided by necessities of today's politics? It is not that deification of Shivaji is limited or restricted to Maharashtra. All over India, he is now projected as one of the earliest exponents of the idea of a Hindu nation, someone who kept the torch of Hindu resistance alive during the days of Muslim rule, mostly depicted as a tyrannical rule. Shivaji is not the only historical personality whose image is chiseled by a combination of fact and fiction. His public image is a political prerequisite to further a particular contemporary political narrative. Any reading of history is full of characters who have either been exaggerated as heroes or been demonized as villains. The cult of Shivaji is itself more than a century old as early nationalists, especially Bal Gangadhar Tilak and some others revived the political memory of Shivaji. These nationalists in search of martial heroes elevated Shivaji quite falsely to the eminence of a freedom fighter. In the process, they created a false notion of the nation or country and of course the so-called foreign rule from which it had to be rescued. In today's times when the politics of today dictates the portrayal of the past, it is daunting to separate fiction from fact, myth from reality. Aniruddh Deshpande who teaches history at Delhi University joins me today to shed light on how we should correct our reading of Shivaji and what role should we assign him in our current national debates and discourse. A fearless scholar, he had written some years ago the introduction to the English translation of Govind Pansare's Marathi book, Shivaji Kaun Hota or Who Was Shivaji? Like many of Pansare's other works and campaigns, this text too outlives him. Aniruddh, welcome to the program. I think we must begin with Govind Pansare's work. To what extent or rather how was it when we go back to 1987-88 when the book came out first in Marathi, how was it different from the reading of Shivaji at that particular time? What was the major departure? By 1987-88 Shivaji had been firmly established as an icon of nationalist historiography and his position was extremely clear in the politics of Maharashtra for instance. So no Maharashtrian politician or no Maharashtrian political party could do without valorizing Shivaji from a variety of perspectives. Of course, credit must be given to Govind Pansare who actually collated a large number of interpretations of Shivaji which had been extant in Maharashtra since the 19th century. And it's very clear, Pansare himself makes it very clear in the book that when he delivered lectures on Shivaji which ultimately became the book which it became and very famous and it became one of the best sellers of that time and remains amongst one of the largest selling books on Shivaji till date. Even the English translation of the book has done very well in the market. He makes it very clear that when he actually lectured on Shivaji in large parts of Maharashtra he received inputs from his audiences after the lectures and he has actually thanked a large number of people even in Nagpur and in other places in Maharashtra. The ticketed shows actually you write in your introduction. Yes, of course. There were attempts at preventing him from speaking at Nagpur, attempts which did not succeed and he drew enormous crowds in Nagpur when he actually lectured there. And then lots of people actually sent him letters, messages telling them, giving him new information about Shivaji and providing him various perspectives on Shivaji which are usually not contained in usual school and college textbooks coloured by the ideology of nationalism. So I think Pansare absolutely, he nailed it absolutely and he was on the dot when he said when he asked this very fundamental question, Shivaji who was Shivaji? And his answer lies in the fact that Shivaji remains an immensely popular figure in Maharashtra. Now not just in Maharashtra but outside also. Outside Maharashtra he is remembered for reasons which are different from reasons for which he is remembered in Maharashtra and his popularity in Maharashtra rests not only because of the spread of nationalist ideology in the country and Maharashtra steadily since the 19th century but also on a much deeper popular perception of Shivaji as a pro-people, pro-peasant king which I think he very very… Which is not the dominant understanding of people to… No unfortunately in… Projected more as you know the mythology around Shivaji has been of a completely different nature from his pro-people and you know kind of an egalitarian politics which he pursued. Unfortunately that's true, that's all because of the fact that Shivaji as a historical person age came under the influence of his interpretation and his descriptions came under the influence of nationalism. Increasingly… Any particular type of nationalism or you know would say that it was an inclusive all embracing nationalism? Well there were you know you can say right from the times of Mahadev Govindranade who wrote another very important book called The Rise of Maratha Power in which there is a great degree of vilification of Aurangzeb and Mughal rule in the 17th century and a great glorification of Shivaji and Shivaji is then seen as a as a figure as a historical figure who encapsulated the emergence, the emergence, the rise and the arrival of the Maratha nation state against the so called Muslim tyranny of the Mughals and especially of Aurangzeb. So in fact in the historical moments of India in the 19th century the vilification of Aurangzeb and Mughal rule and the glorification of Shivaji are coterminous occurrences which we must know and this became increasingly strengthened in the last two or three decades of the 19th century as the nationalists tried to use specially Bal Gangadhar Tilak tried to use the figure of Shivaji to mobilize the popular masses of Maharashtra behind nationalism. There is also something very striking which I found in my readings of various Hindu nationalistic literature be it Savarkas various works or subsequent works even you know some of the speeches that and articles which have been written by various people right from Golwalga to the subsequent leaders. You know there is a certain amount of mythology of around Shivaji which has been created of him being the protector of the Hindu somebody who consistently campaigned against the Mughals pitting him against you know it was as if he became the symbol of Hindu pride and dignity trying to resist Muslim Marauders or invaders you know that is the kind of imagery which comes across very strongly in all Hindu nationalistic literature. This is all old hat because it actually goes back to the construction of modern Maratha historiography by Grand Duff in 1826 and it is Grand Duff who actually laid down the foundations of modern Maratha historiography in the first half of the 19th century and it is remarkable that a book which he wrote which was almost forgotten till 1857 became increasingly popular posthumously after he died in 1859 and by the 1860s, 70s and 80s it had become firmly established as one of the most important and masterly texts on Maratha history. The rest of the history of the Maratha is written by the nationalists in the 19th century from which the Tilakites took their idea of Shivaji was nothing but the provision of a gloss over Grand Duff's basic texts. So which means that the colonial interpretation of Shivaji had very striking similarities with the narrative which was forwarded by the nationalists and especially the Hindu nationalists subsequently. Yes, that's true because right from the times of James Mill who wrote the history of India. That was around which period? It's almost early part of the 19th century, 1817 in fact. So it's in the first 25-30 years of the establishment of British rule in India from the 19th century onwards. The first 25-30 years of the 19th century which laid down the basic colonial framework for the understanding of history which was taught in the Indian universities and schools increasingly from the 1850s and 60s. It was in 1857 that the first three Indian universities were established in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. And in fact many of these some of these historians who later on matured into nationalist historians people like Mahadev Govindranade they were all graduates of Bombay University. So it was right from the early part of the 19th century it was in the interest of the British to promote the idea that in fact they were the ones who were delivering India into enlightenment. From a period of medieval darkness which in India's case coincided with Mughal rule or Sultanate rule. So this vilification of Muslims in Indian history and the vilification of Aurangzeb which starts basically from the biography of Aurangzeb written by Elphinstone in the same period in the first 20-30 years of the 19th century. So the vilification of the Mughals and the beginning of the canonization of Shivaji begins around the same time almost about 150 years after the death of Shivaji at the time that it actually started. And then from a colonial narrative it becomes part of an early nationalistic position. That feeds into the nationalist construction of Shivaji as an icon of Hindu nationalism in 17th century against so called Mughal Muslim tyranny represented by the much vilified figure of Aurangzeb. How necessary was it for the Hindu nationalistic narrative to actually depict Shivaji in this way so that they could vilify and then create the imaginary other which persecuted Hindu India? It's very simple. You see with the demise of the Peshwai the Brahmandan Maharashtra became extremely insecure and they were in search of a political figure in the history of the Deccan behind which they could rally their idea of nationalism and their hegemony. So then there is a shift from Peshwai to Shivaji from the early part of the 19th century to the latter half of the 19th century and there is a false continuity drawn between the Swaraj of Shivaji and the Peshwai of the 18th century. It's absolutely clear. And of course this is very different from what Gordon Stewart says about the difference between the Peshwai and Shivaji Swaraj. He says soon after Shivaji died the state which he had created actually dissipated and was basically destroyed and the Peshwai was a totally new kind of system which came in. The difference lay in the fact that Shivaji had very strongly and very very decisively moved against what are called the Saranjamsahi classes of Maharashtra, the Jagirdari classes. Basically the Jagirdari, the local vested interest if one can actually say in terms of Landlord classes. Yes, the Landlord classes you can say broadly the term Landlord classes can be used. Saranjamsahi is the word used by Govind Pansar in his book as well. And the Peshwai actually saw the return of the Saranjamsahi classes because Peshwa rule was dependent on the Saranjamsahi. Yes, it had a different social perspective also. The ruling classes and the castes which were in dominant positions during the Peshwai was completely different to my understanding from Shivaji. Is it correct? True. And there was another reason why the figure of Shivaji was annexed to nationalist historiography and nationalist politics. And that reason lay in the fact that another very powerful interpretation of Shivaji was at the same time in the latter half of the 19th century. Manufactured and developed by Jyotiva Pule. So what was that? What kind of a narrative and what kind of interpretation of Shivaji was presented by people who looked at the primacy of caste conflict in society? Of course. I mean what Pule very clearly looked at Shivaji as a peasant king. He certainly was not from the ruling classes before he became the king. Well that's not true because he was actually the son of the commander in chief of the army of Bijapur. Shahjeeb Mosley was a very... He was a commandant. He was still not... No, commander in chief, not commandant. He was a commander in chief. In fact Shivaji came from an elite family himself. Shivaji was not a... But he encouraged the poor, the Mawal people, the poor people and the peasants and so on. And he actually he tried his best to eliminate the middlemen between the peasants and the state. So it was a kind of you know one would in fact with retrospective effect one would say that what Shivaji was trying to aim at was to develop a kind of a broad reyathwari system in which the peasant would be directly connected to the sovereign through the state. And this would be possible only with the elimination of intermediaries. So all the intermediaries in Maharashtra who suffered as a consequence of Shivaji's rise to prominence were interested in actually denigrating his figure in the 18th century. And they are the sort of people who actually made a major comeback and resurgence under the Peshwai. Now this Dalit Bahujan perspective which began to emerge about Shivaji in the 1870s, 80s and 90s was a very very important challenge to the nationalist narrative of Shivaji. How dominant or how strong did it become? Well in the I mean in the early part of the 20th century, in fact they were right from the early part of the 19th century there were several extant perspectives on Shivaji which nationalist historiography ultimately overcame, suppressed and dominated. So I mean you have... So there was a kind of a conflict between these two narratives and eventually the nationalistic perspective? Indeed. Because they were fighting against a larger and a bigger enemy which is the outside enemy in the British colonial order and through that also the Muslim past it got kind of intertwined if I can actually use that word. That is how they were able to suppress and overcome the Dalit perspective? Yeah I mean it's also true that in the construction of neo-Hinduism in the 19th century the consolidation of the Hindu community quote-unquote became a very important and primary objective of the Hindu nationalists especially against rising Muslim communalism and the Dalit-Pahujan perspective. So you have several perspectives on Indian history within which Shivaji becomes... So how did if I try to understand in terms of various streams of nationalism in the 20th century how leaders like Ambedkar for instance Gandhi, how would their perspectives be different from the Hindu nationalistic perspective? Especially Vizavi Shivaji, did they try to present a counter narrative or did they in any way try to bolster the Dalit-Pahujan perspective? Or by the time canonization of Shivaji had become so complete that it was like treading into a very dangerous territory? No there are two perspectives very clearly even within nationalism there is a Hindu nationalist perspective on Shivaji which claims that Shivaji was a champion of Hindus quote-unquote against Muslim tyranny represented by the Mughal regime and the much demonized and vilified Aurangzeb. Now this perspective goes back to the times of Mahadev Govind Rana Day, Rajwade and later on in the works of Jadunath Sarkar whose works on Aurangzeb are very well known and his works on Shivaji also are very well known. This becomes an established canon in Indian historiography right from the 19th century onwards. Now this can be read in its extreme form it can be read as a Hindu nationalist perspective on Shivaji in an inclusive perspective which I think Gandhi and Nehru would talk about. In that perspective also of Ambedkar also I don't know whether Ambedkar really wrote very much about Shivaji. My reading of Ambedkar actually may not have spent much time on that. I mean maybe my reading of Ambedkar is very limited but Fule of course I mean from there Jyotira Fule's perspective on Shivaji in which Shivaji appears as a popular ruler who champions the interests of the peasants against the Brahmin nickel Saranjam Shahi classes of Maharashtra. But that interpretation is not necessary to the dominant nationalistic theory. No it is not because the dominant nationalist historiography does not take the notion of class or caste as seriously as the historiography championed by Fule and Ambedkar or Periyar or other people did later on. So there is a dissonance between historiographies. Marxists of course would look at Shivaji also in a similar fashion. They would also try to explain the importance and the popularity of Shivaji in terms of his being a propeasant that his policies were propeasant that he was a very kind and a just ruler and there are several examples which can be quoted from his life that he was an equal opportunities employer that he did not discriminate against anybody because there were a large number of Muslims in his army. Many of his admirers and many of his generals were Muslims. This is something which needs to be understood that there is definitely a portrayal of Shivaji as somebody who fought against Muslim tyranny. What was his attitude towards Muslims and to what extent in his empire what kind of political space did Muslims have? You see there are important letters which he wrote to Aurangzeb which have been reproduced in Govind Pansar's book. Many of his correspondence, many of the letters are available in fact. And what does he write? He is very clearly I mean he... He is not looking at it as a religious conflict. No, he is in those letters he is not looking at Aurangzeb as a primarily Muslim ruler. In fact he is calling Aurangzeb a bad ruler and he is comparing Aurangzeb... Not taking care of people bad from that perspective. He makes it very clear that your policies, he writes your policies have not only alienated a large number of non Muslims but they have also alienated a large number of Muslims. He makes it very clear in those letters. And he compares Aurangzeb's reign with the reign of his forefathers. He says you have committed injustices which could not have been to paraphrase what he says which were never committed by people like Shah Jahan or Jahangir or your other forefathers who were extremely tolerant rulers compared with you. So basically what he is doing he is actually castigating Aurangzeb for having strayed from the path of the Mughal Empire of the established traditions of the Mughal Empire with respect to religious diversity and the respect for religious diversity in India the foundations of which were laid down by the Sulhaqul of Akbar. So it is very clear. I mean Shivaji himself did not conceive, I don't think he conceived of Aurangzeb as a primarily Muslim tyrant. And his relationship with Aurangzeb is primarily political. In fact the political contests of medieval India have been given an unnecessary religious color by nationalist historiography. I mean something to which unwittingly the so called secular nationalists have also pandered. From my understanding that after independence because of immediately there was no state in India which was exclusively for the people of Maharashtra. You had the Bombay presidency kind of evolved and you had the Gujjati speaking part which was the entire western India. It is only 1960 that a separate state of Maharashtra gets created. True. And then of course Maharashtra gets a hero, a nationalistic hero. The final canonization happens during 1974. That is the time when the tricentenary of Shivaji's coronation is observed. The reason why I am raising it that is the time when actually the narrative, the image gets settled. There after contestation of that particular viewpoint gets very difficult which is why it would have been very difficult for Pansare and others to be able to present their viewpoint. It is also going to become very important and very difficult in the coming years. We have the 350th anniversary of the coronation coming up in a few years from now. We will also have, we also have a dominant BJP and the Shiv Sena both at the state as well as at the national level which is the mythology of Shivaji has become very integral to the sustenance of the Hindu nationalistic ideology. That is true but the contest will continue because although Hindu nationalist ideology as you have rightly pointed out has done its best to appropriate the figure of Shivaji in its pantheon of so called Hindu heroes against Muslim tyranny. In Maharashtra the issue remains very deeply divided because of the caste conflict between the Marathas and the non-Marathas. So there will always be a Maratha interpretation of Shivaji an interpretation according to which the rise of Shivaji meant the rise of those forces which arose historically to challenge Brahminical hegemony in society. And the Dalit-Bhaujan perspective in Maharashtra will also remain very strong because in Maharashtra the Dalit-Bhaujan movement is a very strong movement and in the same way as Hindu nationalism is entrenched the Dalit-Bhaujan perspective is also deeply entrenched in Maharashtra. And this contest, this conflict between various interpretations of Shivaji I don't see dying out in the near future despite the ascendance of the Hindu rise. No, I just want to ask in the last few years, especially since we are in the middle of an elections in Maharashtra in the last five years, there definitely have been reworking of the caste configuration in Maharashtra. The Marathas themselves are not as politically dominant as they were once considered to be. The leadership I am not saying that is passed on out of the hand of the Marathas but they definitely are now have people with which they have to share political power. Now in a situation like that, how do you see the contestation of this particular narrative of Shivaji playing out in the next coming years? As a historian I can only say that I believe in transition and this situation may not remain stable for a very long time. Things change. You mean the current political reality may not continue to be? It may not. I mean it may change and there is every possibility that other forces might arise in the next 30-40 years which might again bring to four different interpretations of Shivaji. The issue is far from closed as far as I am concerned. So it is still not a final narrative. We cannot say that we have reached a point where we can say that this is the only absolute truth and there is no other viewpoint on Shivaji. It never happens like that in history. And that is what possibly is the hope for an open and continued debate on Shivaji. The debate always goes on. Politically people may think it is closed but academically and socially and culturally the debate never ends. I think you know on this particular note of hope that you have that the debate is going to continue. Thank you very much for coming and joining me on this particular program. Thank you very much. Without doubt the rise of the BJP as the dominant political party in India and previously the emergence of Shiv Sena as representative of Maharashtrian identity. The search for a martial Hindu past received a new boost. In today's India history is the new domain of conflict and Shivaji is one of the prominent figures who has been foisted with the image of being a leading redeemer of Hindus from oppressive Muslim rulers. Expressing any other viewpoint is of course fraught with risks but the articulation of these divergent opinions shall be proved that democracy in India still has a large number of subscribers. Thank you for watching this episode.