<<<Dear Sandhya ji,
Thank you for taking up the issue, however in your article you make an
unwarranted snide remark against the peshavA-s, specifically the Greatest of
them bAlAjI bAjIrAva, which is not only unwarranted but also inaccurate on
account of maharaTTA history.
You wrote: <<When in his teens in 1645 CE, he (shivAjI) began administering his
father's estate under a personalized seal of authority in Sanskrit, a hint that
he envisaged independence and adhered to the Hindu traditionââ¬Â¦ The Peshwa, in
contrast, accepted the Persian script under the influence of a Muslim courtesan,
and narrow-mindedly refused to convert her to Hindu dharma despite her keenness
to embrace the faith. As a result, the Marathas bowed to the Mughal emperor when
they reached Delhi and missed a historic opportunity to re-establish Hindu rule;
a classic case of muscle without mind, power without political sense! The rest
is history.>>
First of all, in context of the then prevailing times, usage of Persian was a
lesser evil, since we like it or not, it was the language of diplomacy and
politics in contemporary times, and was used by even Hindu kings in their
correspondences, before, during and after the times of cHatrapati as well as
peshavA, up until English reduced that language in the status and eventually
replaced it. The then usage of Persian was no worse than your and mine writing
today in English language.
Coming back to shivAjIââ¬â¢s time, even in his court Persian titles and terms gave
way to saMskR^ita ones, very late in his regime. Contemporary chronicler
sabhAsada writes that it was not until the rAjyAbhiSheka ceremony of shivAjI
that the ââ¬ÅSanskrit titles were ordered to be used in future to designate their
offices, and the Persian titles hitherto current were abolished.ââ¬Â Thus it is
then at the rAjyAbhiSheka time that peshavA himself became mukhya pradhAna,
majmuadAr became AmAtya, waqiA-navIs mantrI, shurU-navIs sachiva, dabIr became
sumanta, and sar-i-naubat senApati, and of course under the guidance of none
other than the then peshavA, the father of the more brilliant bAjIrAva. In his
aspiration of rejuvenating and re-establishing the Hindu institutions, including
the language of saMskR^ita, shivAjI was guided by his far-sighted peshavA, in
commissioning of a handbook of working saMskR^ita for his new-founded state, to
later become famous.
Not only this, but a whole chest of letters written by shivAjI to his North
Indian contemporaries, during the early days, used to be in Persian. For
instance, look up his famed letter he sent for maharaja jayasiMha kacHavAhA of
jaipura (then ambara) when he was besieged by the latter. The letter published
by bAbU jagannAtha dAsa of vArANasI, is in Persian but speaks about establishing
a Hindu collaboration to root out the Islamic menace from dillI: ââ¬ÅO Great
Monarch mahArAjA jaisiMhaââ¬Â¦ you are a valiant kShatriya, why do you use your
strength to further the power of the dynasty of bAbUr? Why shed the costly Hindu
blood to make the red-faced musalmAns victorious? ... If you had come to conquer
me, you would find my head humbly at the path you tread, but you come as a
deputy of the tyrant, and I can not decide how I behave towards youââ¬Â¦ If you
fight in championing our Hindu Religion, you shall find me your comrade in armsââ¬Â¦
Being so brave and valiant, it behoves you as a Great Hindu General to lead our
joint armies against Emperor instead, and indeed let us go together and conquer
that city of dillI, let us shed our blood in preserving the ancient religion
which we and our ancestors have followed... etcââ¬Â.
The above letter of shivAjI is, not in maharaTTI or hindI, but in Persian, so
are several others among shivAjIââ¬â¢s letters and orders. One must bear the
contemporary situation in mind, before blaming bAjIrAva of ââ¬Åin contrast,
accepting the Persian script under the influence of a Muslim courtesanââ¬Â. In
fact, peshavA-s, and in particular this one, as well as his successors, did the
most meaningful service, than any one else since the days of vijayanagara
empire, in reviving the devabhAShA. This is acknowledged even by the
arch-saMskR^ita-bashers like Sheldon Pollock in his ââ¬ÅThe Death of Sanskritââ¬Â,
where he quoted a stanza of a gujarAtI poet who ââ¬Åsensed that some important
transformation had occurred at the beginning of the second millennium, which
made the great literary courts of the age, such as Bhojaââ¬â¢s, the stuff of legend
(which last things often become); that the cultivation of Sanskrit by
eighteenth-century rulers like the Peshwas of Maharashtra was too little too
late; that the Sanskrit cultural order of his own time was sheer nostalgic
ceremony.ââ¬Â
You have it seems not studied the contribution of peshavA-s for the revival of
saMskR^ita, otherwise you would know that after kAshI, it was pUnA which had
become the greatest center of saMskR^ita revival in the eighteenth century. A
flourishing saMskR^ita university was established by peshavA here, and a network
of smaller schools, or Tol, as they were called, throughout the empire, to
educate people in the devabhAShA. Many poetries and commentaries were produced
here, as much as the political situation could afford. I was informed by a
researcher from Grece, whom I once ran into, when he was in India to do some
researches about Greeks living in India in the Eighteenth century, that peshavA
probably contracted a couple of Greeks from vArANasI, to help his scholars in
pUnA translate some of the Greek Classics of Homer into saMskR^ita. I can not
say how true it is, but such impression does reflect on the services of peshavA,
especially the once you blame, in reviving saMskR^ita. Even bAla ga~NgAdhara
tilaka once spoke of the peshavA's services of reviving the ancient Hindu
mother-language.
Coming to the ââ¬ÅMuslim courtesanââ¬Â, you refer to mastAnI here, whom bAjIrAva
ââ¬Ånarrow-mindedly refused to convert to Hindu dharmaââ¬Â. Once again, it is nothing
short of blasphemy against the greatest Hindu Warrior and Strategist we have
known since cHatrapati himself. mastAnI was a daughter of a Hindu father and a
Moslem courtesan, and was gifted to bAjIrAv as a companion by cHatrasAla, after
bAjIrAva had decisively hammered the Nizam of Hyderabad in the classic battle of
Bhopal. (Incidentally, it is from this campaign, that he victoriously returned
not only with mastAnI, but also bhUShaNa, who was living his retired life at
bundelakhaNDa under patronage of cHatrasAla, and who accepted bAjIrAvââ¬â¢s
invitation with object of relating to shAhUjI his reminisces of shivAjI ââ¬â a
poetry that came to be later known as shiva-bAvanI, as it has 52 pada-s, and
related important milestones of shivAjIââ¬â¢s career. The famed ââ¬ÅsivAjI na hoto tau
sunnata hota sabakIââ¬Â is from this work.) It was not bAjIrAva, whose ââ¬Ånarrow
mindednessââ¬Â it was to not allow the re-conversion of mastAnI, but that of the
moronic brAhmaNa-s who had even out-casted bAjIrAv himself on accusations of
eating meat, drinking wine, smoking tobacco, and keeping Moslem wife etc. (You
must know that a son of bAjIrAva through mastAnI, named by bAjIrAv as
kR^iShNarAva, and raised privately by bAjIrAva as a brAhmaNa, and some pUnA
traditions have it that his father had even performed his thread-ceremony, but
he was not accepted as a Hindu by the more orthodox and was forced to live like
a Moslem, and take the name of shamshir bahAdur. This son of bAjI valiantly
fought against abdAlI in the battle of pAnIpat and fell in the field at the age
of 27). Even the thread ceremony and marriages of bAjIrAvaââ¬â¢s legitimate sons
even were blockaded by the orthodox chitapAvana-s, if either bAjIrAv or mastAnI
came anywhere near the ceremonies, and indeed bAjIrAv did not attend these!
bAjIrAvaââ¬â¢s younger brother, chimanAjI appA, the hero of vassein, too never
accepted mastAnI, and even tried to eliminate her once when bAjIrAv was away
leading the final battle of his life, in finally crushing the Hyderabad Nizam
one more time before his untimely death.
Coming to ââ¬ÅAs a result, the Marathas bowed to the Mughal emperor when they
reached Delhi and missed a historic opportunity to re-establish Hindu ruleââ¬Â, the
blame is misplaced. Indeed, a closer analysis will show that bAjIrAvââ¬â¢s energies
were continuously driven towards striking down the most potent Moslem power
center of India, the mughal seat in dillI, and he was restrained from completely
taking them out only by shAhUjI himself. One must read the desperate letters
exchanged between him and the maharaTTA generals and his envoyes in dillI court,
at the time of the invasion of dillI by nAdirshAh from Persia. In one letter
there is a clear reference of waiting for the ââ¬Åmost perfect timeââ¬Â for
ââ¬Åeradicating the moghal seat and placing the crown of the Emporer on the rANA of
mevADaââ¬Â. Refer to Vol 2 of New History of Marathas by G S Sardesai for the
complete letter. It was shAhUjI who decided that any misadventure, as he felt,
probably correctly, that maharaTTA power was spread too thin for any such move,
and who issued a decree to this effect to his generals. You cite bhUShaNa, but
ignore what even bhUShaNa says about bAjIrAva! He calls bAjI a ââ¬ÅbAjaââ¬Â (hawk of
hunt), who is ready to prey upon the partridges of dillI (the moghals), but is
obedient to his hunter in sitArA (shAhU).
On that note, you are also not correct when you say that bhUShaNa ââ¬Åquit the
Mughal capital in 1671ââ¬Â¦ composed Shiv Bhooshan, a biographyââ¬Â. bhUShaNa was
neither a native of Moghal Capital, nor an employee of Moghals. He had left his
Kanpur home quite early, had gone to several Hindu rulers, like the Kings of
kumAyUM, and of chitrakUTa, before finally reaching shivAjI after hearing of his
miraculous flight from AgrA. Finally, his first book shivarAja bhUShaNa is not
a biography, nor did he intend it to be, but it is a book of poetics as he
himself says in its preface, that ââ¬Åthe valour of shivAjI induced in the poet
heart of bhUShaNa, the intention to revive the native poetics, by creating a
blessed collection of meters, embellishments and phrases, which is what he now
intends to take up.ââ¬Â
Please pardon my nitpicking, but your blame on bAjIrAva is a major error which
needed immediate correction.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinducivil...sage/41867>>>
<<<<<<It is questionable if Bajirao had conquered Delhi then Maratha Rule
would have continued in India. The Marathas lost out to Ahmad Shah
Durani , as far as I can think, it was due to fighting on a
disadvantageous turf - far off from the Maratha Land, ( b ) Durani's
tactics were superior. The Maratha forces were practically wiped out on
the very first day itself.>>>
Anand ji,
There is little cause-effect connection between bAjIrAv's strategy of encircling
dillI but not wiping out moghal rule, and the loss of field to abdAlI three
decades after bAjIrAv's death.
In my opinion the contours of bAjIrAv's thinking can be summarized thus:
A) It was apparent to him that moghals had already been reduced to nominal
powers, and real military strength of moslems was now moving towards
decentralized independent hands like Bengal, Hyderabad, Awadh, the Afcrican
Black Moslems etc., (and the yet upcoming Hyder Ali in Mysore).
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> North Indian Hindus, especially rAjapUta-s, were still not ready to weild a
common front, much less submit to maharaTTA-s. sikh, jATa, and gorakhA upstarts
were yet to appear prominently on the Radar.
C) He therefore felt, quite correctly, that the policy has to be two fold: one,
somehow not letting the Moslem states to unite under a common banner and open a
common front. two: keeping rAjapUta-s in good humour and not alarming them in
any way. This was possible by pretending for time being to be a friend and
protector of the dillI crown, rather than a foe and predator.
D) This pretension enabled him on two fronts: one, being able to fight one
Moslem power at a time, e.g. the battle of Bhopal, where moghal and awadh
remained neutral while bAjIrAv totally decimated the nizAm's forces ending his
ambitions towards the North. two, rAjapUta-s were not alarmed, as he did not
threaten to replace moghal suzerainty over rAjapUta-s by the maharaTTA one, by
presenting themselves only to be the first among equals in carrying out the task
of Hindu Independence. Refer to his frantic exchange of letters with rAjapUtas,
and urgency of going to dholapura to establish friendship with jaisiMha second
of jaipur, and sending bhUShaNa on a tour of rAjapUtAnA where he conveyed this
message to many houses. bAjIrAv was quite successful in gaining respect and
friendship of North Indian Hindu powers. He became even a personal friend of
many important figures like jaisiMha.
In fact, did not the East India Company imitate exactly the same strategy as
bAjIrAva, several decades later, and with complete success? Clive and
Cornwallis imitated him in great detail -- including posing to be a Hindu
Saviour -- but that subject on some other occasion.
E) shAhU was of the opinion that maharaTTA administration has to be more
solidified, if expansion has to be effective. This was quite correct too.
Since the days of shivAjI, feudal structure, the jAgIradArI and mansabadArI,
which had been the hallmark of moghal administration, was frowned upon.
Generals used to be paid employees of state, not independent jamindars. No
fiefs were allowed, no personal grant of lands, no permanent subedArI etc. a
letter of shivAjI written to his eldest son-in-law clearly reflects this where
he declined the request for a grant of jAgIr to him, explaining his policy.
But this was slightly modified after bAjIrAv when a fort of region was granted
'permanently' to an officer. He himself granted dhAr in MP to the pawAr
Generals, (dhAra was thought to be rightfully belonging to the pawAra-s, the
descendants of Bhojadeva the paramAra). But soon after his death and that of
shAhU, later a vacuum arose in the maharaTTA core, which later peshavA-s tried
to fill, and federalist system became the accepted order. We see the rise of
sindhiyA, holkar, gAyakavADa, bhonsalA etc. eventually leading to the total
decline of the central authority.
F) bAjIrAva was very clear that the Europeans represented a very real danger,
and had decided to not let them play any role in the politics of India.
Therefore his urgency of trying a complete wipeout of Portugese from maharaTTA
lands.
G) Militarily, his huge army consisted only of cavalry, with little or no
infantry, not unlike afghAns. He had pioneered the art of how cavalry should
move and fight in open fields, miles beyond their homeland, and in this it seems
taken cue from Changez Khan's cavalry tactics. (read a wonderful essay by the
AchArya of manasataraMgiNI on this subject.)
H) Which means that on account of unmatched mobility of troops, he was confident
of being able to rapidly reach the trouble zone -- reducing the need for large
permanent encampments of maharaTTA troops. This also allowed him to let moghals
remain in seat and dependant upon maharaTTA-s for protection, while he went
about weakening the other more potent Moslem centers.
Coming to the loss of pAnIpat several decades later. It was a result of exactly
not following the policy of bAjIrAva. maharaTTA-s were openly frowned upon all
over India, hated by Hindus of North India as much as by those of deep south,
bengal and Orissa, due to their ill deeds by now. They were looked upon as
brigands and bandits rather than soldiers of Hindu Independence. National sense
had almost evaporated from them, and replaced by simple lust and greed,
propelled more by a lacking central authority. There are many more resons,
tactical in nature, of the loss of pAnIpat, but this was the root cause for most
part -- they had lost the moral right.
But my insistence remains -- sandhyA jI has done great disservice to the memory
of this National Hero.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinducivil...sage/41889>>>
<<<Ravilochanan ji, will you please elaborate on the 1734 loot of nAthadwArA
temple? Which source informs this? I have of course heard about the sack of
nAthadwArA temple before, but the year is extremely unlikely. It would be more
in line with the later maharaTTA sins of looting of cash at tirupati shrine, or
extracting the poll tax from hindU pilgrims visiting the purI temple (that too
at an exhorbitant rate of ten rupees per head from the pilgrims from north and 5
rupees from those coming from southern countries! quite proto-Thackerays!) But
all of these were events of 1750-60s.
I doubt the year you mention because I had once looked up mevADa's attitude
towards bAjIrAva's through mevADian sources itself, especially the personal
correspondances between mahArANA and maharaTTA-s, and at least the neighbourhood
of this year is extremely unlikely since I could not find any mention of such an
obvious fact which should have otherwise been 'in your face'. I shall be
grateful if you can point out what are the sources which substantiate this
claim. Even Tod, who hardly few decades later wrote detailed description of
mevADa does not mention anything like this. In my visits to nAthadwArA I have
failed to get any details about this too, while of course there is evidence of
loot after 1800.
Of course, bAjIrAva had visited mevADa in 1735 after his victorious campaign in
mAlavA, desirous of seeking an interview with the then mahArANA jagata siMha at
udaipura. While maharANA declined to personally see a mere General of a lesser
king, he sent all ceremonial honours suitable for bAjIrAv, and in a written
instruction asked his Prime Minister to receive bAjIrAva with all pomp and show,
and grant him a status similar to a prince. Also interesting is that while
bAjIrAva came to mevADa to negotiate the treaty of chauth payments, the respects
he and shAhU pay to rANA are unparalleled! You may be interested in the
translated text of the letter preserved in mevADA archives and produced partly
by Tod:
shAhU to rANA via bAjIrAva:
"svasti shrI; worthy of all upamA-s; from whose actions results gains; the
regent of vighna-hartA gaNapati; the amR^ita that has emerged through the
churning of the ocean of Arya kShatriya kula; as bright as Sun; who has made a
river from the tears of the wives of our enemies; shrIman mahArAjAdhirAja
mahArANA shrI jagata siMha jI; chief of all the princes of Aryakula; this writes
shrIman shAhU cHatrapati let his humble rAm-rAm reach you!... Here all is well
with your blessings; always honour me by good accounts which I am always
expecting as source of happiness; Your favour was received by paNDita pradhAna
with great respect; ... ; let your favour between us be enlarged; what more do I
write; yours etc..."
rANA wrote to his Prime Minister bihArIlAl to treat this officer with a similar
dignity and protocol with which his own son the crown prince of mevADa was
treated, also remarking, "malhAra had come last year (referring to holkar), but
this one (bAjIrAv) is enormously more powerful, treat him such." A nominal
annual payment of Rs 1,60,000 was agreed between bAjIrAv and bihArI, payable in
three equal parts to sindhiyA, holkar and pawAra. This treaty was kept for ten
years, but after this maharaTTA-s became looters, making yearly raid of
rAjapUtAnA, bengAl, Orissa for no reason other than extracting money.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinducivil...sage/41905>>>
<<<Radha Ji, Better to read the maharaTTA history written by MaharaTTI-s themselves who have
produced an excellent breed of historians, with the likes of professionals like
Profs R G Bhandarkar and D K Bhandarkar, Vinayak Rajwade, Kashinath Sane,
Vasudev Khare, Dattatraya Parasnis, Vishvanath Mandlik as well as equally
brilliant although non-professionals like Justice Mahadev Ranade. Even
maharaTTI political thinkers like Balagangadghara Tilak and Vinayak Savarkar
were fine scholars and history writers, in particular Tilak who considering his
situation did a very good job as a native Indologist and historian of maharaTTA
age, writing mostly from the prison cells; the credit of identifying the correct
birth date of shivAjI goes to him. In History-writing I think, maharaTTA people
are second only to the tremendously more polished and brilliant, and my
favourite, the va~NgadeshI-s, who have given some of the best historians Hindu
race has ever produced: the likes of Jadunath Sarkar, D C Sircar and Prof R C
Majumdar.
But sorry I digressed, on maharaTTA history, if one can understand maharaTTI
language then one should read the mammoth 'marAThyAnchyA itihAsAchI sAdhane' of
V K Rajwade. For those of us with disadvantage of not knowing maharaTTI, the
basic readings in English are:
- New History of Marathas (3 vols) by G S Sardesai
- History of the Maratha People by Kincaid
- Papers on Maratha History and Introduction to Peshava's Diaries by Mahadev
Govind Ranade published by RAS Bombay
With focus on Shivaji:
- Life and Times of Shivaji by Sir Jadunath Sarkar
- Grand Rebel: An impression of Shivaji founder of the Maratha Empire by Kincaid
Those only interested in an outline may read:
- Main Currents of Maratha History by G S Sardesai
Most of the above are in public domain, and available from free downloads from
several library sites. Let me know if you can not find.
It is tragic but true that since the take over of History Research and writing
by the secularites, further research on such important subjects as the Histories
of maharaTTA, rAjapUta, jATa, sikha, gorakhA, vijayanagara, and other events of
Hindu revivals has almost come to a halt if not indeed reversed.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinducivil...sage/42033>>>
Above posts were from Bodhi, thought people might be interested since they contain some valuable historical info.
<<<Dear Sri Tiwari
Pranaam!!
I found this info when I was going through a history of Nathdwara published by
the Vallabh sect based on their texts (it was available at SriNathji mandir last
year). It was a detailed history of the temple. It had been claimed that the
temple was looted at least twice - once by Holkar in 1734 and once by Daulat Rao
Scindia (the real scoundrel) around 1800. I'll try to get a copy of the book
when I'll visit Nathdwara in a month or so. A friend of mine has 'forgotten'
that he borrowed the book from me. My statement was based on that book. Btw, the
book stated that the Holkars had looted the wealth of the temple and the town.
It did not state that Baji Rao was present in the raid. I personally believe
that it might have been a case of personal robbery by Holkars. But if this is
true, then it turns out that Baji Rao was not able to control his sardars beyond
a limit. It is indeed very sad that a great statesman like Baji Rao (who
destroyed the Portuguese
demons in N.Konkan) had to contend with such robbers as his sardars.
The above info aside, Your translation of the letter is very much appreciated. I
have never seen tis document. Though I have read that Shahu had great respect
for the House of Sisodiyas, Guardians of the legacy of Bappa Rawal (from whom
Shivaji was descended), I have never seen a copy of this letter. Thanks for the
same.
I noted that the letter cited by you refers to Maharana mentioning about
Malhar's visit to Mewar. It calls him very powerful and Baji Rao as more
powerful than Malhar. Is there a reason behind it? Does it point to some
misbehavior by Malhar in Mewar before he was reigned in?
regards
Ravilochanan
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinducivil...sage/41955>>>