FW: Ram Puniyani on Shivaji and Rana Pratap

[Farida Majid]

Ram Puniyani on Shivaji and Rana Pratap . . .

<< 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! >>
     Other than that last sentence where Ram put a cliched 2-cents, whereas we know that the Kings in Bengal or India did not do the proverbial peasants’ exploitation, I like the update on Shivaji.  Ram's statement flattens the need for us to re-visit historical events and circumstances for a variety of reasons.

              Farida Majid

---

To: ram.pu...@gmail.com
From: ram.pu...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:05:44 +0530
Subject: [INDIAN FIRST] Nationalism, Kingdoms and Kings ISP II APril 2013

 

Nationalism, Kingdoms and Kings

Looking at Shivaji and Rana Pratap

 

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.

 

 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! 

__._,_.___

Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

• New Members 10

Visit Your Group

When fortune favors the First; why not be an Indian First!

Let us work and make our...
Government- Proactive,
Media- Reactive,
Political Parties- Elective,
Voters- Selective,
Crowds- Preventive,
Religions- Constructive,
Youth- Creative....


And this group more reflective......

Caution: Yahoogroups or moderator do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the postings.

Moderated by: Navendu Mahodaya

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback

.

__,_._,___

[Taj Hashmi]

BTW Farida Apa, Indian kings with no known exceptions, realized around 50% of the crop as land revenue of un-irrigated lands from peasants. No wonder kings lived in absolute luxury and built Taj Mahals.

TH

---

From: farida...@hotmail.com
To: pfc-f...@googlegroups.com
Subject: FW: Ram Puniyani on Shivaji and Rana Pratap
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:59:29 -0400

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PFC-Friends" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pfc-friends...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Farida Majid]

But you forget to mention that the Indian or Bengal kings, or their Amir-Omrah, had no private properties. Exceptional fact looked at from an European point of view!  (Read Dr. Francois Bernier's account, of Aurangzeb's ascendancy on the throne in 1657, the building of the Taj, and the aristocrats having no private property, published in 1688, that shocked and shamed Europe). 
     The revenue collected by Indian Kings was State property, so the private commodities, jewellery, etc for personal use were all State property.  Taj Mahal was not a private mouseleum for Emperor Shah Jahan on personal property.  It was a State Monument on public land with a fixed budget under PWD -- public works dept.  We have an excellent record of its construction and expenditure kept meticulously by the Chief Architect. Not a rupee was overspent beyond the fixed budget! Extraordinary!

---

From: taj_h...@hotmail.com
To: pfc-f...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Ram Puniyani on Shivaji and Rana Pratap
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:10:14 -0400

[Ali Shaheen]

Was slave labour not used in building the Taj Mahal?  And despite the intermingling of religions and cultures, surely a battle between Rana Pratap and Akbar's general, Man Singh, could not be interpreted as a fight between two Hindu armies, could it?  If the commander-in-chief in Pakistan were to be Hindu and the C-in-C in India were Muslim we would still know that a war between Pakistan and India would be between a Muslim country and a predominantly Hindu country.  One has to look at where power lies, not just who is hired to do the job.

[Farida Majid]

It is extremely difficult to deal with prejudices that are lovingly nurtured by stubborn ignorance.

"Was slave labour not used in building the Taj Mahal?"  asks this communal history-fed mind that finds much mirth in a Pakistani TV show that depicts a bad comic in Gollywog makeup representing a Bangladeshi cricketer!

Why would there be, why must there be "slave labors" used in building the Taj Mahal?  The wealthiest Empire in the world, the Mughal Empire of India was at its zenith at the time, and from all reports there was no poverty of any kind among the general populace.  Moreover, The Taj is a very finely engineered and architectured structure that represents Renaissance high-tech in almost every aspect.  Other than commissioned artisans and workers, some of whom may have come from Italy, France, Iran and Turkey, there's no room for hearsay, prejudice and imagination to take flight.

       

---

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:13:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Ram Puniyani on Shivaji and Rana Pratap
From: alishah...@gmail.com
To: pfc-f...@googlegroups.com

[Taj Hashmi]

The punchline the overwhelming majority of scholars and laymen miss is that throughout history -- from the Aryan inva to the British invasions/occupations to the ascendancy and fall of Rajiv Gandhi and what followed in India -- and what happened to other countries in South Asia, there has been a very wide gap between the rulers and the rules. Hence the expression "Rajniti" to denote "politics" (a bad translation of politics indeed!). This gap between the Raja and Praja or the mutual alienation of each other has been the root cause why even handful of invaders overpowered ruling dynasties, again and again. Look! the case of Bengal under Laxman Sen and Sirajuddaula -- while "17 horsemen" forced the Raja to flee through the backdoor of his palace (the rest of the Muslim inavaders were a bit late in reaching the palace gate), despite the betrayal of Commander-in-Chief Mir Jafar Ali Khan, Nawab Sirajuddaula had at least 5,000 troops against Clive's less than a thousand. The alienation (and indifference of the people towards their Rajas) of the people from their rulers is well-reflected in an anecdote recorded by a historian of the Battale of Plassey (1757): "One old villager cultivating his field while the Nawab and Robert Clive were fighting on the fateful day of May 23rd 1757 asked at the end of the encounter,'what happened today, I saw hundreds of people fighting across the magogrove today?' On hearing that Nawab Sirajuddaula had been defeated (and fled) and Mir Jafar had become the new Nawab, the old man said,'Oh My God! How fortunate I am, by now I have seen the reign of six Nawabs'" [paraphrased]. In sum, the Rajas and Nawabs were so extortionist, indifferent, unkind and above of alienated from their subjects that India -- which never existed as one entity but fragmented in thousands of India from Kashmir to Kannya Kumari and Assam to Maharashtra -- remained vulnerable to foreign invaders. No wonder, Marx considered Indian history as "the history of foreign rule or invasions".

Nevertheless, it is unfair to consider the Mughals "foreigners" (on par with the British who had a homeland in Europe) and on the same token rebels like Shivaji and Ranjit Singh nationalist heroes or freedom fighters. Similarly, it is unfair to single out Mir Jafar Khan as the "traitor". He did what thousands of other generals did to their masters (including Zia ul-Haq of Pakistan) for the sake of power.

Take care!

Taj Hashmi

---

From: farida...@hotmail.com
To: pfc-f...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: Ram Puniyani on Shivaji and Rana Pratap
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:52:53 -0400

[Ali Shaheen]

Yaar all I was asking is whether there was slavery during Mughal times and whether slave labour was used in the building of the Taj. But thanks for the very informative response :).

[Ali Shaheen]

Actually  I found mirth in the way the Bengali cricketer was frustrating the interviewer, but perhaps you did not read my response or  misunderstood it.  And many people who saw it thought the  "Bengali" hit the interviewer out of the ball park.  There was another show with a man dressed as a female Indian information Minister which I also passed on. You know it is easy to laugh at others, it is called ridicule not humour, but to me real humour is the ability to laugh with people and laugh at oneself.  But then I'm the type who likes Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert too, although you might find them offensive as well.

So what you are saying is that there was no slavery during Mughal times?   

[SYED TAREQ AHMED]

What we are dealing with is pure simple ' slap stick ' where you are literally goaded into the marvelous gift from God, laughter. And please, comparing it to Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert is redundant since its apples and pine-apples ! or Agartala to Chowkeertala.

The clip did bring in some laughs but its way out when it comes to well researched stuff that Jon or Stephen churn out, often times offensive though. Cheers.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________, Syed Tareq Ahmed Forum Apartment A-1,42/F Indira Road, Dhaka 1215, Bangladesh.Cell;01199842325 Res;880 02 8130659."Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can alone cause it to reveal its treasures and benefit mankind therefrom" Baha'ullah.

---

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:55:43 -0400

[Ali Shaheen]

Yaar Tareq - merey baat ko itna literally mut lo.  I meant the skit was along the same lines of tongue in cheek political racism.  People find Stewart and Colbert funny, but don't like it when our desi bhais attempt the same stuff.