|
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.
The play ‘Shivaji underground…’ takes a totally different stance.
Here Shivaji is neither pro Cow Brahmin, nor an anti Muslim hero.
It upholds the identity of dalits and targets the Brahmins. The
struggle between Dalits on one side and Hindutva, upper caste,
politics on the other has been manifesting in Maharashtra from
quite some time. Many an events like attack on Bhandarkar Museum,
banning of James Lanes book on Shivaji, which doubts the paternity
of Shivaji, are few instances of this. The Braminic, Purandare
version, of Shivaji gives all the credit to Dadaji Kond Dev, a
Brahmin, who is supposed to have mentored Shivaji. The dalit
version of Shivaji opposes this and it is due to this that the
statue of Dadaji Kond Dev was desecrated recently in Maharashtra.
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 India was coming to become
‘a nation in the making’ due to industrial, educational and social
changes. The era of Kingdoms and logic of Kings can in no way be
compared with the Indians coming together to fight the British
Empire. Even these kings be it Shivaji or Rana Pratap were neither
ruling for religion not for Hindus. Their administration was
having both Hindus and Muslims. Their armies were also mixed ones
with Hindu and Muslim Generals both, with Hindu and Muslim
soldiers both. Rana Pratap had Hakim Khan Sur on his side and
Shivaji was having Siddi Sambal and Rustam-e-Jamaan amongst
others. Shivaji’s confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali.
Shivaji had reverence and respect for the holy people like Hazrat
Baba and Ambrose Pinto.
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!
|
Comments
|
Quick links