Chatrapathi Shivaji and Religion

Shivaji was anti-Muslim. His Life Mission was to oppose the Muslim Religion. 

He was a protector of the Hindu Religion.
He was a Hindu Emperor (Hindu Padpatshah).
He was a protector of cows and Brahmins
(Go-Brahmin Pratipalaka).
This is Shivaji’s image quite widespread among the masses.

‘Shivaji’s war was a kind of crusade. Religion was the inspiration of his mission, Shivaji fought for religion. He succeeded because he fought for religion. In fact, he was a reincarnation of God himself! He was the reincarnation of Vishnu or Shiva. God took on this reincarnation to save the religion. Goddess Bhavani gifted the sword to save the religion.” So on and so forth.

All these theories need to be tested against the historical facts, it will not be proper to uncritically accept them because we are Hindus or because they are convenient to us in the present circumstances. At the same time we should also beware of its flipside. There is a growing tendency among the Muslims: ‘We belong to Muslim religion. It is our need to teach Muslims to hate Hindus. As many Hindus worship Shivaji; we should hold him as the savior of Hindu religion and as an aggressor of Muslim religion.’ Such uncritical approach too is erroneous. 

What is the truth?

What was Shivaji’s approach to religion in general? 

What was his actual practice in this respect? 

How did he treat both Hindu and Muslim religions? 

These are historically very important questions. These are relevant in today’s times also.

Shivaji was a Hindu. He was born in Maharashtra and it remained his place of operations throughout. Hindus therefore are proud of him. It is quite natural. Maharashtrian Hindus in particular are more proud of him. It is also very natural - nothing wrong in it. It is but human to look at one’s own greatness, the greatness of one’s own religion, and the greatness of one’s own country or region In the light of the great heroes belonging to one’s own religion. 

However, we tend to create, unconsciously, a larger than life image of such ‘heroes.’ Many times the image is deliberately projected as one dimensional as it suits one’s present day purposes and conveniences. In the process, a distortion creeps in and the image itself becomes distorted. It loses its identity.

It is not true that Shivaji succeeded because he believed in Hindu religion. It strongly appears that he had set out to do something better than merely saving the religion. 

Let us assume for a moment that his contemporary kings belonged to a religion other than Islam. Suppose, there were kings belonging to Hindu religion. 

Would Shivaji, then, hate muslims? 

Why did Shivaji fight against the Muslim kings? 

Was it because they were Muslims or because they were kings? 

If he fought for both the reasons, then which of the two was the main reason? 

What was important: they being kings or they being Muslims?

Religious Tolerance of Some Muslim Kings

It is not historically true that all the Muslim Kings were intolerant to Hindus or their religion. History provides with several instances of the Muslim Kings’ tolerance. In Maharashtra, especially, which was Shivaji’s province, we find many Muslim rulers having political and familial relations with Hindus.

Read the following paragraph from the book Marathe Sardar written by Parasnis.

‘Marathas were very powerful in Nizam Shahi, Gutb Shahi and Adil Shahi. Gangavi, the founder of Nizam Shahi, who was converted to Islam, was the son of Bahirambhat Kulkarni, a Brahmin. The father of Ahmednagar King too was a Hindu. Yusuf Adil Shah of Vijapur had married a Maratha girl. Qasim  Barid was the founder of the throne of Bidar kingdom. His son also had married Sabaji’s daughter. 

Owing to such relations and customs there was tolerance to Hindus and the Marathas were quite powerful in these kingdoms. Parasnis quotes Justice Ranade in the same book, ‘Hindus under the Southern Muslim Kingdoms’, writes Justice Ranade, “Were encouraged by the kings (in many ways) and they were given many concessions and powers. This was because of a number of factors: alienation of the South Indian Muslims from the radical Muslims of the North, dominant position and a general goodwill of the Hindus in the Bahamani states, the entry of Brahmins and Prabhus in the departments of Treasury and Tax Collection, entry of Marathi language in the administration because of them, the balance of forces resulting in Marathi warriors and officers getting promotions, the King’s court donning a deep imprint as a consequence of his marriage with Hindu girls, and deep affection of those converted to Islam for the people of their own caste.”

What does the name Hasan Gangu Bahamani, the founder of the Bahamani kingdom, tell us? A Muslim person called Hasan Jaffer had been working for a Brahmin called Gangu. Later on he became a courtier of Tughlaq, the Emperor of Delhi. He became the Emperor’s subedar in Maharashtra. He rebelled against the Emperor and founded his own throne in Maharashtra. As a sign of gratitude to and in memory of his former master he adopted a new name, half Hindu and half Muslim: Hasan Gangu. His own state was called Bahamani i.e. related to Brahmins. If the relations between the Hindus and the Muslims had always been of extreme enmity, this would not have happened.

As far as the Hindus and Hindu lords were loyal to the Muslim Kings the latter were tolerant to them. If the state itself were endangered they would become intolerant. What was important was neither being Hindu nor being Muslim. Of great importance was the state. 

It is also not true that all the emperors of Delhi were fundamentalist Muslims. Akbar’s tolerance is well known. He even tried to found a new syncretic religion called Din-E-llahi. In his times there was considerable cultural unity. Hindu Toradmal, as revenue Minister, was using his intelligence for the cause of a King who happened to be a Muslim. The high cast-Brahmin, Jagannath Pandit, was happily constructing Sanskrit poetry in the court of Shah Jehan. A story of Pandit Jagannath is quite well known. The Hindu king of Jaipur made great efforts to get this Hindu Pandit under his tutelage so as to add to the king’s status. Panditraj Jagannath’s reply to his invitation is very revealing : ‘Only the Lord of Delhi or the Lord of the World has the might to fulfill my wishes. If any other king desires to do something for me it will be just enough for my hand to mouth existence.’

The caste of the Lord of Delhi was not important. What and how much he gave was important. Shah Jehan’s son Darah was a Sanskrit scholar. He used to regularly meet with the scholars from Kashi. In those times even “Allopanishad” was composed on the lines of the well-known Upanishads like Chhandogya, Brihadaaranyak and Ken etc.

A scholar of Shejwalkar’s stature has gone to the extent of arguing that if Darah, Aurang Zeb’s elder brother, had ascended the throne in his place, this continent would have come under one rule and would have become a very powerful country. In short, it can easily be seen that all the Muslim rulers were not the haters of the Hindus.

Shivaji’s Muslim Lieutenants

Shivaji had many Muslims working under him. They held very important positions in his army and administration. Many of them were appointed at very high and responsible posts. The chief of Shivaji’s artillery was a Muslim. His name was Ibrahim Khan. Artillery formed a very crucial part of the armed forces; perhaps the most important. Gun was the most advanced weapon of the time, it was of great importance for the battles for forts. A Musalman was the chief of such a division.

The chief of such another crucial armed division was again a Musalman. His name was Daulat Khan, Darya Sarang Daulat Khan. Shivaji’s personal bodyguard included a Musalman youth called Madari Mhetar. He was a trusted servant. Why should he, a Musalman, have helped Shivaji in his most dramatic and legendary escape from Agra? 

Would it have been possible if Shivaji had been a hater of Muslims?  

Shivaji had many such Muslims as his servants. One of them was Kazi Hyder. After the battle of Saleri, Aurang Zeb’s lieutenants in the South sent a Hindu Brahmin ambassador so as to establish amicable relations with Shivaji. Shivaji in turn sent Kazi Hyder as his emissary. Thus a Muslim ruler had under him a Hindu ambassador and a Hindu ruler had a Muslim. 

If the society were vertically split between the Hindu and Muslim communities this could not have happened. Siddi Hilal was one such Musalman working for Shivaji. Shivaji defeated Rustum Zama and Fazal Khan near Raibaug in 1660. Siddi Hilal fought on Shivaji’s side. 

Also, in the same year, Siddi Johar laid siege to the Panhala Fort. Shivaji’s trusted aide, Netaji Palkar, kept on raiding the siege. Siddi Hilal and his son were at Netaji’s side at the time. HilaFs son Vahwah was wounded and captured in this battle. Musalman Siddi Hilal, along with his son, fought for Shivaji, a Hindu, against a Musalman. 

Would this happen if the nature of wars at that time was communal, as a war between Hindus and Musalmans? These were not isolated individuals. 

They worked for Shivaji along with the Muslim soldiers under them. But there is a more evidence of Shivaji’s tolerences of Muslims. ‘...around 1648 about five hundred to seven hundred Pathans belonging to Vijapur army came to join Shivaji. Shivaji accepted the advice given to him at that time by Gomaji Naik Pansambal. Shivaji later continued the policy based on that advice. Gomaji had said, ‘These people have come hearing about your reputation. It will not be proper to turn them away. If you think that you should organize Hindus alone and will not be bothered about others, you will not succeed in establishing your rule. The one who wishes to establish rule must gather all the eighteen castes and the four varnas and assign their functions.” 

Shivaji was yet to establish his rule in 1648. The piece of advice quoted above adequately explains Shivaji’s future state policy. Grand Duff, too, mentioning Gomaji Naik’s advice in h'rs biography of Shivaji, says, “After this, Shivaji enlisted a large number of Musalmans also in his army and this helped a great deal in founding his rule...”

It is, thus, very clear that Shivaji’s lieutenants and soldiers were not Hindus only. They were Musalmans as well. If Shivaji had undertaken the task of eliminating Muslim religion, these Musalmans would certainly not have joined him. Shivaji had set out to demolish the despotic and exploitative rule of Muslim  rulers. He had set out to bring in a rule that cared for the ryots. This is the reason why the Muslims too joined him in his cause.

The question of religion was not the main question. 

The main question was of the state. 

Not loyalty to religion, but loyalty to the state, to a master was more important.

Hindu Sardars under Muslim Rulers

Just as there were Muslim Sardars and soldiers working with Shivaji, there were Hindu Sardars and soldiers serving Musalman kings and emperors- and they were numerous. In fact Shivaji’s own father, Shahaji, was an in fluential big Sardar working for Adil Shah, Vijapur's Muslim ruler. Shahaji’s father in law, Lakhuji Jadhav, was Nizam’s Mansabdar in Maharashtra. More of Javali, Nimbalkar of Phaltan, Khem Sawant of Sawantwadi and Suryarao Shringarpure of Shringarpur were all Mansabdars of Adil Shahi.

Mirza Raja Jai Singh, against whose military might and war strategies Shivaji had to accept defeat and after signing a humiliating agreement had to go to Agra only to be arrested with son Sambhaji, was a high caste Rajput Hindu. All he was doing was to serve honorably under a Mughal emperor. When Mirza Raja Jai Singh invaded Shivaji he had several Hindu Sardars under him. They were Jats, Marathas, Rajputs including Raja Rai Singh Sisodiya, Sujan Singh Bundela, Hari Bhan Gaur, Uday Bhan Gaur, Sher Singh Rathod, Chaturbhuj Chauhan, Mitra Sen, Indra Man Bundela, Baji Chandrarao, Govind Rao etc.

Tanaji Malusare, a lieutenant of Shivaji, died in action while capturing the Fort Kondana.This fort was renamed as Simhagad to commemorate Tanaji’s heroic sacrifice. The officer in charge of the Fort Kondana was a Hindu Rajput, Uday Bhanu, and he was a lieutenant of a Muslim Emperor. 

There were about 500 Sardars holding different mansabs under Akbar. Out of those 22.5 per cent were Hindus. This ratio in Shah Jehan’ s rule was 22.4 per. cent. Aurang Zeb is supposed to be the most fanatic of all the Muslim rulers. The Hindu mansabdars were 21.6 per cent, at the beginning of his reign, and the number rose later to 31.6. 

It was Aurang Zeb who had appointed Raja Jaswant Singh, a Hindu Rajput, as the Subedar (governor) of the Deccan. Arang Zeb’s first Minister too was a Hindu, Raghunath Das. He was a Rajput and yet fought against Rajputs on behalf of Aurang Zeb. One of Rana Pratap Singh’s General was Hakim Khan Soor, a Muslim. The Chief of the Peshwa’s artillery in the battle of Panipat was Ibrahim Khan Gardi.  The Hindus who served Muslim Kings with loyalty and occasionally fought against them were not castigated as sinners or religious renegades. 

They were not called anti-Hindu or proMuslim. 

Loyalty to the Master, rather than to religion, was more important in those times.

In ancient or medieval India wars were not waged on the ground of religion. The main motive behind wars was to capture or to strengthen power. It was true that religion was temporarily used to support the main purpose. But it never was the sole or main motive. Many such instances can be cited.

Musalmans versus Musalmans

Hindus versus Hindus

Hindu-Musalmans versus Hindu-Musalmans

It is thus true that there were several Musalmans working under Shivaji and many more working under Musalman rulers. Similarly it is revealing to see who fought against whom. It becomes very clear that the wars did not take place between Hindus versus Musalmans as such. Muslim rulers fought amongst themselves.

Musalman Babar became the Emperor of Delhi by defeating the Musalman Emperor sitting on throne, Ibrahim Khan Lodi. This same Babar founded the Mughal dynasty. Both Sher Shah and Humayun were Muslims yet they fought a bitter war against each other. The rulers of Vijapur and Golconda were both Muslims. Aurang Zeb fought a protracted war against these socalled Muslim rules. 

This shows that what was important was not religion but power. If at all religion had any importance it was secondary. The primary concern was political power. The legendary battle of Haldi was fought between Rana Pratap and Akbar. This battle had a great importance for Rana Pratap himself in particular, and Rajputs and Rajasthan in general. But can this battle of the Haldi pass, by any stretch of imagination, be described as the battle between Hindus and Musalmans?

Guru Govind Singh too fought against the central Muslim power. His army also had, along with Sikhs, thousands of Muslims. After Aurang Zeb died, there was a fierce struggle for succession among his heirs. Guru Govind helped Bahadur Shah in that feud. The religious basis behind the uprising by the Jats, Rajputs, Marathas and Sikhs was too flimsy. Those up-risings were basically against the despotic central rule. The Soldiers and noblemen were loyal to their masters irrespective of religion.

Neither Hindu nationalism nor the mission of spreading Islam did inspire the standing armies of the feudal period. To serve a master as long as he fed, was the general social practice.

Loot and Destruction of Temples

“The Muslim kings were cruel and barbaric. They destroyed and desecrated temples. They attacked Hindu religion. Therefore, all the Musalmans are necessarily anti-Hindu. And, since they are anti-Hindu, the Hindus also must have to be anti-Muslim”

This always has been the refrain of the fundamentalist Hindu organizations.

Just as Hindu organizations use this kind of argument, the Muslim organizations too use similar argument. They tell their followers, “Hindu religion is the religion of Kafirs. What our forefathers did to destroy tt was quite correct. If possible, we should also do the same. We should be at least against the Hindus.” We are traditional rulers - we are no more ruling; they regret. This argument is used by them to organize themselves on religious basis.

It is true that the invading Muslim armies, while expanding their rule, looted and destroyed temples. But this is not the whole truth. It is a half-truth. The tribes-like armies of Arabs, Turks, Afghans etc. were not regularly paid. 

It was an accepted practice for them to loot and keep their share with them as wage. Hindu temples used to be very rich. While looting, the invaders destroyed those temples and divided the booty. These armies would not care to touch the temples situated atop mountain peaks or deep inside the ravines. What could be reason for this? The main purpose was to loot the wealth in temples and not to destroy them. Looting wealth was the prime concern; religion was secondary. Destruction of temples was a means of achieving this purpose. A major portion of this loot went to the king. It was the chief source of king’s revenue. Another motive of attacking temples was to discourage the people to live in surrounding areas; to create fear among them by breaking their fighting spirit. People believed in religion and in god. It was easy for the invaders to make them believe that those who had looted god would easily loot them too. “Such a powerful god could not do anything; what we mortals can do?” This kind of helplessness and panic would spread all over. This would make it easy for the invaders to conquer the enemy land. 

In those times, temples were not centers of religion alone. They were centers of wealth, of power and status. There was another benefit of looting temples. The invaders claimed that they were breaking the temples of kafirs, that they were destroying their religion. This worked as a camouflage to hide the real thing, the loot of wealth. This would help in garnering support of the priestly elites, mullas and maulavis, as a device to get the support of the Muslim masses. Religion was used as ruse to cover fowl deeds.

Loot followed by Endowments

The rulers who initially looted and demolished temples on their way to assuming power, would, once the enemy kingdom was conquered, their own rule was stabilized, award endowments and grants to those very temples. There are numerous such examples.

Aurang Zeb, who is known as a religious fanatic, destroyed many temples while invading kingdoms to expand his own empire. But the same Aurang Zeb donated money to temples. He awarded 200 villages to the Jagannath temple of Ahmedabad. He donated money to Hindu temples at Mathura and Banaras also. 

There are differences of opinion among scholars on whether Afzal Khan broke the idols in Pandharpur and Tuljapur temples. Some believe he did. Shejwalkar, however, thinks otherwise. He thinks that the idols in place today are quite ancient. Whatever the case in this regard may be, it is recorded that Afzal Khan while camping at Wai before launching his assault on Shivaji at Pratapgadh, not only continued the traditional rights of Brahmin priests but also awarded new ones. Moreover, can we forget, when Afzal Khan supposedly destroyed the Bhavani temple at Tuljapur, he was accompanied by Pilaji Mohite, Shankarraoji Mohite, Kalyanrao Yadav, Naikji Sarate, Nagoji Pandhare, Prataprao More, Zunjarrao Ghatge, Kate, Baji Ghorpade and Sambhajirao Bhonsle. It is well known that Goddess Sharada temple at Shringeri was damaged while the Marathas looted it and the Musalman King Tipu Sultan restored it later.

Why was money donated to temples after a rule was stabilized? If the Hindus could be appeased by giving such donations and would not be interested ift creating any nuisance to the rule, the Muslim rulers did not mind doing it. Actually they were happy with this kind of arrangement. Political power was the cause for looting and demolishing temples; again, it was motivation of political power behind for donating to them money or property and repairing them.

Power : Dominant; Religion : Subordinate

Also, it is not true that Muslim kings alone looted temples. Hindu kings too looted temples for wealth. Harsha Dev, King of Kashmir, used to loot Hindu temples also. He would melt idols for metals in them. He would even desecrate them by sprinkling them with human waste and urine before melting. All such details are graphically narrated in Kalhana’s Rajatarangini. However we do not find a record of communal riots having taken place because of this desecration by King Harsha Dev. He had even opened a section called the ‘Demolition of Gods’ (Devotpatan) in his revenue department!

If the Muslims started being a hindrance and a nuisance to the Muslim rule, the rulers would not hesitate to harass them in spite of the Mullas and Maulavis. The bakhar writers have accused Mohammad Tughlaq of massacring Mullas and Sayyeds. Some historians have noted how the Mullas were scared of Jehangir and how they would hide if he came.

What is the conclusion of all this? 

More important for the rulers of those times was to rule, not religion. 

Shivaji’s Wars against Marathas and Hindus Chhatrapati Shivaji had to fight several wars, big and small, to found his Kingdom. The existing rulers belonged to Muslim religion. He had to naturally wage wars against them. At the same time he had to fight the Marathas as well. There are meticulously kept historical records about this. It will not be proper to ignore them. Riyasatkar Sardesai writes, in his Marathi Riyasat, “The war against Vijapurkars did not mean the war between Hindus and Musalmans. It could not have acquired such character...”

In fact Shivaji faced a huge problem in powerful Maratha noblemen serving under the Vijapurkars. They did not respect Shivaji at all. Right from the beginning, the noblemen like Mohite, Ghorpade, More, Sawant, Dalavi, Surve, Nimbalkar etc. were more or less against Shivaji and his cause. Why were these and other such Hindu-Maratha noblemen against Shivaji? They were all Hindus. They observed their

religion with great faith. If Shivaji had undertaken the cause of protecting Hindu religion, why should all these have opposed him? Like Riyasatkar Sardesai other scholars such as Sabhasad,

Capon and Parasnis too have supplied lists of the great and powerful Maratha noblemen,who opposed Shivaji. If Shivaji had taken upon a Dharmakarya, why should these Hindus have fought against him? Sardesai writes, “They feared to lose what they possessed. What did they possess? Chronicler Capon writes that Shivaji was a destroyer. What did he destroy? The Chronicler tells us, “In the regions that he won from the Vijapurkars, Shivaji replaced the old system of monopoly in tax collection with the collection of revenue based on evaluation of yields of crops every year.”

This statement makes very clear what Shivaji really did destroy. This chronicler was angry that Shivaji had destroyed the system of monopoly. But he could not help admitting a truth, “It was possibly beneficial to the people”. It is very obvious whom Shivaji harmed and whom he helped.

Because of such vested interests the chief Maratha Hindu noblemen, Ghatge, Khandagale, Baji Ghorpade, Baji Mohite, Nimbalkar, Dabir, More, Bandal Sawant, Surve, Khopade, Pandhare, Desais of Konkan and Deshmukhs of Maval etc. Were opposed to Shivaji. 

His very close relations, Vyankoji Bhonsle and Mambaji Bhonsle were against him. Jagdevrao Jadhav and-Rathoji Mane, related from his mother’s side, were also opposed to him. It was but natural that Shaista-E-Khan, when he invaded Shivaji, should be accompanied by the Hindu noblemen from the North. Many Maratha noblemen from Maharashtra too had joined hands with him. They included Sakhaji Gaikwad, Dinkarrao Kakade, Rambhajirao Pawar, Sarjerao Ghatge, Kamlojirao Kakade, Jaswantrao Kakade, Tryambkrao Khandagale, Kanakojirao Gade, Antajirao and Dattajirao Khandagale. More surprising and painful is the fact  that Shivaji’s own blood relations, Tryambakraoji, Jivajirao, Balajiraje and Parasojiraje Bhonsle were with the Mughal warlord, Shaista-E-Khan. This Mughal army included Dattajiraje and Rustumrao Jadhav of Sindkhed. These Jadhavs were from Jijabai’s family. Krishnaji Kalbhor of Loni had joined Khan with the hope of obtaining the fiefdom of Pune. Khan confiscated the Deshmukhi from Shitole and awarded it to Kalbhor. Balajirao Honap lived near Lai Mahal in Pune. He had spent some time of his life under the protection of the umbrella of the swaraj. But he felt more affinity to Shaist-E-Khan than to Shivaji. Such were the people we could call our ‘own’, such were the ‘Hindus.’ Such was their patriotism and such was their. love for their religion!

Their loyalty was towards the chief. It is clearer than sunlight. The only admirable exception was Kanhoji Jedhe. Shivaji Maharaj held a very clear, and very bitter, view of these lords and noblemen. His Prime Minister has said at one place, “They have a natural predisposition, a natural hunger to become powerful, to rob others.... They become friendly with the enemy on the eve of the latter’s invasion with the hope of obtaining a chief...they meet the enemy on their own, without invitation. They pass on the secret information and abet the enemy’s entry in our state.... They kill the nation.” For these landlords and noblemen, their chiefs were important. It was not religion. They had a burning passion for the chief, not for religion. 

Shivaji and Religion 

This does not mean that Shivaji was a non-believer or that he was an atheist. If was also not that he had declared his state to be secular. Shivaji was a Hindu. He had faith in religion. He practised it in his life. He worshipped gods, goddesses and saints. He donated wealth to temples and in the name of religion. 

But was he against Muslim religion? 

Was he anti-Islam? 

If he had faith in his religion, did it mean that he hated Islam? 

Was it his intention or effort to Hinduise the Muslims? 

Washe trying to Maharashtrise them? 

If we wish to be faithful to history, the answers to these questions are in plain negative. Shivaji had looted Surat on two occasions. The detailed accounts of both are well recorded. There are also records of the looting of the market at Junnac and other places. However, is there the tiniest of proof that he demolished a single mosque? At least, is there any evidence of him having constructed a temple in place of a mosque, which was supposed to have been built by demolishing a temple? Not at all. On the contrary, there are records that he donated money and lands to mosques.

Here is a passage from the Sabhasad’s Bakhar; ‘There were places of worship all over. Proper arrangement of their worship and care was made. He also looked after the arrangements in Peers and mosques.” What was true of the mosques was also true of the Muslim sadhus and saints. 

Shivaji and his contemporary Marathas and Hindus worshipped and donated money to dargahs. They respected Muslim sadhus, Peers and Fakirs. Shivaji had many gurus. Those “included a Muslim saint called Yakut Baba. Shivaji’s tolerance for Muslim religion is recorded in many ways in historical documents. A passage, taken from the Muslim historian Khafi Khan, is very eloquent in this respect: “Shivaji had made a strict rule that wherever his soldiers went they were not to harm mosques, the Quran or women. If he found a volume of Quran, he would show respect to it and hand it over to his Muslim servant. If any helpless Hindu or Muslim were found, Shivaji would personally look after them until their relatives came to take them.” Raghunath Panditrao quotes one such command by Shivaji in his letter dated 2nd Nov. 1 669. It is very clear in this respect. “Shrimant Maharaj (has ordained) that everybody is free to follow his religion, nobody is allowed to disturb it.” 

Those who are using Shivaji in order to obtain people’s consent will have to answer for this historical truth. If there are any buyers for their hatred for Islam they should sell It on their own merit. They should hot sell their commodity in Shivaji’s name. They should not sell that commodity under the brand of Shivaji. At the same time, the Muslims should not equate Shivaji with his image created by these so-called Shivabhaktas. 

They should look at history; they should appreciate his attitude to Islam religion. Then only they should make their opinion. Shivaji was Hindu and he believed in his religion. But, as King, he never discriminated his people on the basis of religion. He did not treat Hindus in one way and Muslims in another. He did not discriminate against Muslims because they belonged to another religion. All must understand this, both Hindus and Muslims.

There were two kinds of Islamic kings. Some, like Akbar, were tolerant to Hindus. Some were intolerant ones, like Aurang Zeb who charged Hindus with unjustified zizia Tax. Aurang Zeb levied the zizia tax at the behest of the Mullahs and Maulavis. There was an uprising against this tax. Shivaji wrote a letter to Aurang Zeb about this in Parsian. The letter gives a graphic idea of how Shivaji looked at religion, his own religion as well as an alien religion. Shivaji writes that levying the zizia tax on poor and helpless populace is against the basic tenets of the Mughal rule. Aurang Zeb’s great grandfather Akbar had ruled for 52 long years. He treated everyone with justice. The people therefore honored him as Jagatguru. Jahangir and Shah Jehan continued his policy further. All of them became famous all over the world for this. These emperors could easily have collected the zizia tax. But they did not resort to it. That is why they could become so rich and so honored. Their empires grew. But in Aurang Zeb’s rule both Hindu, and Musalman soldiers were unhappy. The prices of grains had gone up. It was therefore not manly to collect the zizia tax from poor Brahminns, Jogis, Bairagis, Jain Sadhus and Sanyasis.

Such an act would ultimately only discredit the Mughal dynasty. Shivaji further writes, “The Book of Quran is the word of God himself. It is a heavenly Book. It calls the God as the : God of the entire World.’ It does not call him the God of Musalmans alone. This is because both Hindus and Musalmans are one before him. When the Musalmans pray in the mosques, they in fact pray Bhagwan. And Hindus too do the same when they toll the bell in a temple. To oppress a religion is therefore to pronounce enmity with God.” Shivaji therefore appeals to Aurang Zeb that he should not ignore' Reason. The Sultan of Gujrat had earlier sacrificed Reason. But he had to pay for it. The Emperor might have to pay in similar fashion. “Any inflammable matter burns out if it comes in contact with fire. Similarly, any rule perishes in people’s discontent. The fire of rebellion, born of the torture of innocents, can burn the whole kingdom faster than any fire. The Emperor therefore should not discriminate against any religious creed and oppress them. People, like insects, are harmless. However, if. Hindu people are subjected to misery, your empire will be reduced to ashes in the fire of their anger.”

Shivaji has propounded an important principle for us Indians here. Akbar and other Emperors did not subject (Indian) people to religious cruelty and oppression. Because of such religious tolerance Akbar was hailed as Jagatguru. But Aurang Zeb, by taxing poor people is acting against the principles of Islam. Quran is the word of God, and for God Hindus and Musalmans are not different. If the king harms people, they will destroy him, however powerful he might be. 

In the context of his time, Shivaji’s thoughts and his policy were unique and unparalleled in history. Religion had a deep impact upon people’s life. But Shivaji taught to us that other religions are as great as one’s own religion and that though the forms of worship In each religion are different their goal is one. The thoughts of Akbar, Dara Shikoh and Ibrahim Adil Shah were not different from this. Shivaji was religious. He was proud of being a Hindu. He awarded large gifts to temples and Brahmins. All this is true. However, his pride in his religion was not based on the hatred for other religions. He never thought that he could not be a great Hindu unless he hated Musalmans. Even in medieval times his faith in religion was rational.

Source:

Chapter 3, Who was Sivaji. 

Author: Govind Pansare. 

Govind Pansre was shot dead in 2015 in Maharastra, and was seen as an attempt to silence the people who speak against extremists. Pansare used to run an organisation which encouraged inter-caste marriages. He had opposed the Putrakameshti yajna, a Hindu ritual that supposed results in a male child. He had protested toll taxes. He had also criticised the glorification of Nathuram Godse, the man who killed Gandhi.

Get hold of this book, it gives a in depth study on Shivaji's real history and how they are manipulated and wrongly used and interpreted among the masses today.