Ram Puniyani
The legend of some of the kings
continues in different forms and is used by different political formations.
These political formations draw their identity from the past and project it on
the present. These sectarian streams have been using the names of different
kings and glorifying them in various ways. There is a hidden message of a
politics behind such efforts, as they eulogize the pre-colonial period for
their political agenda. While the incidents and events are the same, the way
they are looked at by different streams and different schools of historiography
are very diverse.
Recently in Mumbai one play is
making rounds, ‘Shivaji Underground in the Bhimnagar Mohalla’. (September
2012). Similarly in Rajasthan at various places the big hoardings of Maharana
Pratap have appeared. These hoardings proclaim him as the first freedom
fighter. This play on Shivaji seems to be a major contribution to the theater
on Shivaji after the much hyped and publicized play on Shivaji, ‘Jaanta Raja’
(Enlightened King) by Babasaheb Purandare. Purandare’s Shivaji is an anti
Muslim King, with a mission to establish Hindu kingdom, he the protector of
Brahmins and Cows (gobrahmin pratipalak). This is a theme song of Hindu
nationalism propounded by RSS-Shiv Sena, where Kings like Shivaji fighting
against Muslim Kings were the brave warriors committed to the cause of Hindu
nation. Here the anti Muslim stance and pro Brahmin stance merges and upholds
Cow, the identity used by Hindu nationalist’s time and over again.
As such the interpretation of
Shivaji goes far back in our history. Phule, the dalit icon of tall stature,
called Shivaji as Raja of ryots (poor peasants). Tagore praises him as ‘king of
kings’. It was Tilak who saw him as symbol of Nationalism and organized a
festival in his name. Purandare’s play has been made immensely
popular and its popularity runs parallel to the rise of Hindu nationalist
politics. The ‘Shivaji underground…’ play points out that Shivaji was not for
Hindu rule in any way. He was not anti Muslim at all. The highlight of the play
is its focusing that Brahmins were clerks in the courts of Muslim as well as of
Hindu Kings. The play does give it a total anti Brahminic slant. This play is
the first major attempt to challenge the current narration about Shivjai which
is constructed around his being a great Hindu patriot. Nathuram Godse, from
Hindutva; RSS-Hindu Mahasabha stable, in his book, ‘May it please your honor’,
which is his statement of his defense of murdering Mahatma Gandhi in the court,
states that Gandhi was a pigmy as for his nationalism was concerned. The real
nationalists have been Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind Singh. This is the
line of thinking of RSS-Hindu nationalism.
In this ideological understanding
of RSS, all the kings who fought against Muslim rulers are Hindu nationalists.
It’s a total distortion of understanding of history as kings did not fight for
religion; their fights were for power and wealth. And kings of same religion
also had running battles with each other.
Rana Pratap, being projected as the First Freedom fighter by communal forces is against the truth. The kings before the British rule were fighting to expand or protect their empires. The era of Kingdoms is not comparable with freedom movement. Just fighting against Muslim King is not being a freedom fighter. Freedom struggle was against British rule, when
Rana Paratp’s battle against
Akbar was not for religion. It was on the issue of Mansabdari (status in the
administration). Rana Pratap was asking for a Das hazari, (ten Thousand)
Mansab) while Akbar was offering only Panch Hazari. (Five thousand).
Interestingly Akbar never came to Haldi ghati where the battle took place. It
was Akbar’s commander in Chief Raja Mansingh, assisted by Shahjada Salim, who
fought against Rana Pratap. By no stretch of imagination it is anywhere close
to a Hindu Muslim battle or a struggle for nationalism. As a matter of fact
Tilak and the later genre of Hindu nationalists associating Shivaji with nationalism
are totally off the mark as the term nationalism is a recent one coming up with
the rise of nation states. The confusion between Kingdoms and nation states
opens the window for communalism to infiltrate in a big way.
In Shivaji’s case now a new
frontier of presentation has been opened up. This is that of Dalit-OBC on one
side and Brahmins on the other. This is an interesting aspect reflecting the
current struggle between these two social groups. The play, ‘Shivaji
underground…’ is veering more around this theme while equally powerfully
quashing the communal interpretation of Shivaji. One observes that dalit
bahujan version and Brahminic versions are polar opposites. Dalit The role of
Brahmins against Shivaji is particularly worth its mention. One does recall
that the local Brahmins had refused to coronate Shivaji on the grounds that
Shivaji is a Shudra. It was the priest from Kashi, Gaga Bhatt, who coroneted
him with the little toe of his left foot, the organ in the body which is lowest
in the hierarchy, as per Braminic norms. This play highlights the
role of Krishnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni, an official with Afzal Khan. But again it
is not a question of this or that religion; Brahmins were working for most of
the kings, irrespective of their religion. So while Shivaji and Rana Pratap
have to be seen in the proper light, as kings with valor, the other
interpretations of nationalism, freedom fighters, anti Muslim Kings are all
constructs emerging from the communal historiography and need to be dumped. Also
what needs to be brought in the arena of the history is the pain and pleasure
of average women and the men. What needs to be projected is the interaction of
cultures which were the foundation of human progress, cutting across religions.
It is India ’s arrested transition to a
democratic society due to which the Kings are being brought to glory and
identified with. Whatever the virtue of king of any religion, in current times
we need icons who were part of India’s freedom movement, a struggle running parallel
to the struggle for caste and gender equality. While projecting the kings as
heroes, we do need to remember that it was the system of peasants’
exploitation, which was the base of kingdoms. Surely kingdoms are no systems to
emulate today and so need to rethink this iconization of Kings!
2 comments:
It is sad that one cannot say anything on such subjects in our society without being accused of being parochial or at least partisan. Nevertheless assuming we all (including me) are liberals folks on this thread, who like to take a balanced view of things, it begs to say the following: Growing up in modern day Pune as a person of Maharashtrian Brahmin ancestry, it is easy to visualize how Jews must have once been demonized in the West. And how many a well-meaning intellectual, may have contributed to the hatred against them, and the eventual Holocaust. May I be proved completely wrong, Amen!
I fail to understand the connection you have made between Mahrashtrian Brahmin and Jews. Even if there is such a connection, what exactly is its relevance to the topic discussed in this article?
Post a Comment