BY RAM PUNIYANI

Though many did not vociferously protest against the Maharashtra government’s decision to erect a statue of Shivaji in the Arabian Sea, the appointment of members to the committee overseeing the project has led to controversy.

THE GOVERNMENT of Maharashtra decided, a while ago, to erect a statue of Shivaji in the Arabian Sea, a la Statue of Liberty in the US. Shivaji is one of the greatest icons of Maharashtra. This statue is estimated to cost around Rs. 300 crores as per present projections. The government’s decision was not really debated. Even those who feel there is a greater need for funds for other development issues did not protest as Shivaji has become a part of identity politics in the state. Every party with a Maharashtra connection swears by him. While one is scathingly critical, and rightly so, of the statue-raising spree by Mayawati - of statues of dalit icons and herself - there is hardly a ripple of protest against spending a whopping sum of money on a statue of Shivaji.

However, what surfaced as a debate was actually a caste issue. There was talk that Babasaheb Purandare, a Brahmin who has written some material on Shivaji, will be made the chairman of the committee overseeing the construction and erection of the statue. In response, Maratha Mahasangh chief, Purushottam Khedekar and others objected to a Brahmin heading the committee for the statue of a Maratha warrior. They also threatened to use violence in case their ‘fatwa’ was not followed. Not to be left behind, Raj Thackeray, belonging to another political ideology nurtured on violence, sounded a counter threat that Purandare must be retained on the committee.

INTOLERANT

IT goes without saying that people like Khedekar and Raj Thackeray sail in the same boat of intolerant politics, which needs to be condemned. Also the caste angle of controversy must be opposed. Babasaheb Purandare should not be on the committee. The reasons for that lie not in the fact that Purandare is a Brahmin, but because Purandare’s presentation of Shivaji is communal. He picks up from the tradition of British historiography which, in order to implement the policy of divide and rule, presented history through the prism of religion. In Maharashtra, there are as many images of Shivaji as the number of political streams. Purandare’s Shivaji, as manifested through his play Jaanta Raja (all knowing king) is primarily an anti-Muslim king. Shivaji is also presented as a great worshipper of Brahmins and cows. Purandare’s total slant is that Shivaji wanted to build a Hindu nation etc, which is not only far from truth but is also a very divisive way of presenting our past.

As a matter of fact, Shivaji is popular amongst people, not because he was anti-Muslim or a worshipper of cows and Brahmins, but because he reduced the taxes levied on poor peasants. Shivaji adopted a humane policy in his administration, which was not based on religion. While recruiting soldiers and officers for his army and navy, religion was not a criterion and more than one-third of his army consisted of Muslims. The supreme command of his navy was entrusted to Siddi Sambal and Muslim Siddis comprised a large part of the navy. Interestingly, his major battles were fought with the Rajput army led by Mirza Raja Jaisingh on behalf of King Aurangzeb. When he was detained at Agra fort, of the two men he relied on for his eventual escape, one was a Muslim called Madari Mehtar. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali and the chief of his cannon division was Ibrahim Gardi.

RESPECTED ALL

HIS respect for other religions was very clear and he respected holy seers like Hazarat Baba Yaqut Bahut Thorwale, whom he gave a life pension and also Father Ambrose, whose church was under attack in Gujarat. At his capital, Raigad, he erected a special mosque for Muslim devotees in front of his palace in the same way that he built the Jagadishwar temple for his own daily worship.

During his military campaigns, Shivaji issued strict instructions to his men and officers that Muslim women and children should not be subjected to maltreatment. Mosques and dargahs were given protection. He also ordered that whenever a copy of Koran came into the hands of his men, they should show proper respect to the book and hand it over to Muslim. The story of his bowing to the daughter-in-law of Bassein’s Nawab is known to all. When she was brought as a part of the loot and offered to him, he respectfully begged her pardon and asked his soldiers to drop her to place form where was forcible taken. It is apparent that Shivaji had no hatred towards Muslims. Which makes it obvious that Shivaji believed in communal harmony and his primary goal was to establish his own kingdom. To project him as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam is a travesty of truth.

Today, rank casteist-communal forces ‘use’ Shivaji to further their political goals. Human rights activist Teesta Setalvad prepared a handbook of history for school teachers some time ago. In the handbook, she pointed out that since Shivaji was a Shudra, Brahmins refused to coronate him, so a Brahmin Gaga Bhat had to be brought from Kashi who did the coronation ritual. Since Shivaji was a Shudra, this coronation was done with the toe of his left foot by Gaga Bhat. The local Shiv Sena opposed this handbook on the grounds that the writer called him a Shudra! It is true that he was a Shudra and this incident is true. Similarly, Bhandarkar Institute was attacked by the same people - Khedekar and company - on the pretext that the institute helped James Lane write a book on Shivaji. It is well known that this book in question mentioned a rumour about the real parentage of Shivaji.

While communal historiography has been a major tool in the arsenal of communal forces, we are now witnessing the use of caste historiography to settle contemporary caste politics-related scores. This is indeed sad. We desperately need to overcome these caste and communal issues to build the nation, while giving justice to the deprived and planning affirmative action for the marginalised.

One also hopes the government puts public money to better use rather than raise statues. While conceptualising statues, one must also think of ecological factors and, if these factors are amenable, the statue should come up, with a proviso that the construction and erection of the statue will be funded through money raised by committee members. Government funds should not be spent on statues.