Shivaji, Mores and the Conquest of Javali [was Re: Destruction of Hindu Temples]
Rajiv Varma
Subject: Re: Destruction of Hindu Temples by Hindus
From: Rohan Oberoi <rohan.obero...@cornell.edu>
Date: 1997/11/17
Message-ID: <64pv0l$6...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
Sender: ro...@cornell.edu (Verified)
References: <64n8he$6...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
<64o5co$f...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <64ojm6$l...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
<64p96t$3...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Organization: Cornell University
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,alt.culture.karnataka
Mr. Rohan Oberoi wrote (while replying to Sameer Jalnapurkar):
> 2. The evidence does not support your assertion that anything about
> Shivaji was famous for "humaneness and generosity". I can only
It would have been mighty stupid and idiotic on Shivaji's part to
show his "humaneness and generosity" to his armed opponents. Shivaji
is known for his humaneness and generosity that he showed to the
*civilian* population, Hindu, Muslim, Christian alike, regardless
of faith. His army had strict orders not to harass common people, and
he made sure that farmers and merchants were paid for their goods
procured for his Army.
> assume that you are quoting from cloying and extremely biased
> sources. After all, in a state like Maharashtra where the
> treacherous murder of Afzal Khan (and of his envoy, Krishna Rao,
> as well as of the army of Bijapur, many of whom were Marathas,
> just like Shivaji's father Shahji, who was a vassal of Bijapur) is
> celebrated as an example of Shivaji's wisdom and humanity,
It was Afzal Khan who had all plans to kill the "mountain rat." What
do you think Shivaji should have done - gone on a hunger strike? It was
Afzal Khan who had treacherously planned to kill Shivaji. Not the
other way round. Afzal Khan was actually beheaded by Shivaji's
bodyguard (after Afzal's guts were opened by Shivaji by his
baghnakha).
It is clear that you cannot digest the fact that a Hindu took up
Arms against an invader.
Had Afzal succeeded in killing Shivaji that day, you and your likes
would have conveniently written it off as "suppression of revolt
against the Mughal authority." And you would have even justified
the murder of Shivaji on this pretext.
> anything is possible. Let us go over Shivaji's record in some
> detail, looking only at unbiased historical writers and at
> primary sources:
> -- based on the Sabhasad Bakhar of Krishnaji Anant Sabhasad,
> written in 1694 by the order of Rajaram, which it calls "generally
> the most informative Marathi source document on Shivaji", the New
> Cambridge History of India (NCH) reports on the brutal extermination
> of the More family by Shivaji, one of the first steps in his rise:
> "... a full-scale war between the followers of Shivaji and the
> followers of the Mores. Shivaji gained the Johar valley, and
> finally the fort of Javali after a siege of a month. The tactics
> were brutal, including conscious treachery on Shivaji's part. By
> May Shivaji had taken Raigad, the strongest fort in the area,
> and four of the More brothers were killed in battle. This campaign,
> the bakhars all agree, was pure conquest and elimination of a rival,
> as Shivaji had no legal rights to the More lands."
>
Rani Lakshmibai had no "legal" right to fight the British; Bhagat Singh
had no "legal" right to throw a bomb in the Assembly, and, Azad had
no "legal" right to gun down many white and Indian police officers.
Gandhiji broke the law when he made salt. Law can be as an ass as
formal logic sometimes. Some idiot can say today that India has no
"legal" right to make nuclear weapons, and Tibet has no "legal"
right to ask for Independence.
What is legal and what is right may be too far apart. It all depends on
one's interpretation. Every revolution starts with some "illegal" act -
Storming of Bastille was "illegal" - it started the French Revolution,
throwing away Tea in the Boston Harbor was "illegal" - it started the
American revolution, and my friend, storming of that stupid structure
on Dec. 6, 1992 was also termed "illegal" by self-alienated Hindus -
and it also started a revolution (in its own way).
History did not shed a tear over the storming of Bastille. History
did not shed a tear on the tea that was wasted in the Boston harbor,
and watch out, History WILL NOT shed even half a tear over that
idiotic structure - you can cry "illegal" as much as you want.
Mores have no locus standi vis-a-vis India -- they were as "legal" as
Man Singh and Mirza Raja Jai Singh, nobody worships them today -
not even the pseudo-seculars!
Here is an excerpt detailing why capture of Javali was important for
Shivaji (authored by SH Kulkarnee):
[QUOTE]
Capture ot Javali
Javali was a region of strategic importance commanding
no less than eight passes into the Konkan across the ranges
of Sahyadri. Through them passed the large traffic from
the plains of the Deccan to the hills and valleys of the
Konkan. This region comprising parts of the present day
districts of Satara and Kolaba was held as a fief from Bija-
pur by the ancient family of Mores bearing the hereditary
title of Chandra Rao. They had grown rich by levying
duties on the merchandise passing through the ghats. Shivaji
had gradually been gaining foothold in the fief by helping
the Mores in their succession disputes, at the same time
enlisting the sympathies of watandars ill-treated by
them. He confirmed such watandars in their possessions
asking for their services in return. The Mores thwarted
this policy. Proud and defiant, a family that could
claim descent from the ancient Mauryas, they were
certainly not going to acknowledge the authority of a
mere jagirdar's son. Their attitude was typical of many
ancient families in Maharashtra then. Shivaji was left with
no option but to launch upon a sustained campaign against
them. Assisted by such devoted Deshmukhs of the Maval
as Kanhoji Jedhe, Haibatrao Silimkar, Bandal and Sam-
bhaji Kavaji, Shivaji gained the Jor valley and Jambhali
in pitched battles. It took him nearly a month to capture
Javali itself inaccessible as it was, well-protected with
dense bamboo jungle and an army of 12,000. In another
three months Yashwantrao More who had fled to the strong-
hold of Raygad fortunable to withstand the siege surrender-
ed it to Shivaji (May 1656). Shivaji has been accused of
deliberate murder and organised treachery in the acquisition
of Javali for which there is no definite evidence in contem-
porary or near contemporary chronicles and records. The
accounts therein are confused and conflicting nor do they
specify which Chandrarao More was treacherously murder-
ed. Four of the Mores were killed in different battles at
different periods. It is true that one of the Mores who was in
confinement was beheaded for carrying on treasonable
correspondence with Bijapur. Another escaped and later
joined Mirza Jai Singh against Shivaji. By the acquisition
of Javali Shivaji simultaneously gained in several ways-
a region of strategic importance opening the door to further
expansion; the accumulated treasure of the Mores consider-
ably adding to his resources; a doubly enlarged source for
recruiting his excellent Maval infantrymen. Nearby Javali
he built a new fort, pratapgad; the near impregnable fort of
Raygad which he had secured was destined to be his capital
and the scene of his coronation as Chhatrapati in 1674.
[UNQUOTE]
So one of the More brothers was caught conspiring with Bijapur, while
another was hobnobbing (later) with Mirza Jai Singh (the Mughal
Commander), and our friend here expects Shivaji to go on what - a
Satyagraha? It is like Ivan the terrible preaching non-violence to the
Jews!
> Regards,
> Rohan.
regards,
Rajiv
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet