The ongoing controversy over Dadoji Konddev, the mentor of Maratha warrior king Shivaji – as we studied in our 4th std. history book – has came to an end with the Maharashtra state’s decision to reduce Dadoji to just an ‘able administrator’ from mentor and inspiration of Shivaji.<<http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=RSSFeed-News&id=209a2e94-9440-4c96-aa8f-b4f70da33f99&Headline=History+book+row%3a+Sena+slams+Maratha+organisations>>
This kind of incident is not new. Earlier also ruling the ruling classes have altered the history books to their liking. I vividly remember that throughout my fifth std. history book Indian National Congress was mentioned as ‘The National Party’, as the book was prepared under BJP rule. Similarly, BJP had also removed assassination of Mahatma Gandhi from the school history book, which was later introduced in just a single sentence.
In my school days it would have made no difference to me had Dadoji konddev not been mentioned as the mentor of Shivaji because small as I was and being a Muslim I was quit unaware of Brahmin-Maratha drift. But some things, really, did matter.
The ongoing controversy reminded me of the mental conflict I had when I was in 4th std. in my Urdu medium school. Our 4th std. history book was all about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and his struggle against the rulers like Nizam Shah, Adil Shah and Aurangazeb. Now, Shaivji happened to be a Hindu and the rulers happened to be Muslims. Besides, since our book had given this struggle a slightly communal colour it looked more like a Hindu-Muslim affair (This communal colour is more evident in the texts of some historians and TV serials). It’s why I hesitated to accept Shivaji as a hero. Rather I looked at him as a rebel.
It was amusing to see how our teacher innocently neutralized the communal tone of our textbook. The textbook said: Before Shivaji, the people of Maharashtra were victims of the rulers like Nizam Shah and Adil Shah. Hindus didn’t have the freedom of pujapat (Worshipping)…… Our teacher explained it this way: Yes, those were really hard times. Hindus weren’t allowed to perform puja, Muslims weren’t allowed to go the mosque……
As days passed I studied how Shivaji conquered the forts one by one, defeated his enemies and his influence increased in the area. Now, a conflict began in my mind over accepting Shivaji as a hero. Who doesn’t want to be with the winning side? Moreover we were told that Shivaji came as a rescuer and messiah to the local people. He was an able administrator and he brought dignity to the people.
On the other hand, we were told, the rulers were really devils. But then, I would think how can Aurangazeb be a bad soul? He was, in my mind, the most pious ruler of India living a modest life not using even a single paisa of royal treasury for his personnel expenses. I took a stung exception to what the book said. And in order to justify my craving for Aurangazeb I would glance through the map which suggests that Shivaji rules over a small land whereas Mogul empire is spread all over India.
As for my friends, some of them took Shivaji as a hero. Others didn’t because a) he was fighting against ‘Muslims’ and b) He used to attack from backside and without prior notice – a guerilla war. Some even got a derogatory word for him: Pahadi Chooha (Mountain Rat) – despite the fact that he was a brave warrior – because of the same reason.
But I, even at the end of the year, wasn’t sure if Shaivaji was a hero or not!
Musab,
ReplyDeleteI am not a Marathi nor a Muslim. So, perhaps I can be dispassionate. Let me try.
Every human being has multiple identities, roles and qualities. He goes through life trying to measure up to the expectations that multiple people have of him, including his own.
Your confusion is genuine. But, think. Do we need people to be heroes or villains to understand them?
Most of so called heroes have done villainous deeds. Many so called villains have done great things. Also, a true test of greatness is whether some of his legacies have survived after his death. In case of Aurangzeb, I would actually not look at the size of his empire as a measure of his greatness but the fact that administrative systems which he ran, in those days especially revenue collection systems are used, even today- with modifications of course.
But, was Aurangzeb personally a "nice man"? If you were his father or brother(s), you would not think so, would you?
As you grow older, you will realize another important truism: "history is always written by the victors". If you look at Shivaji as a Maratha warrior, then, yes; he is a hero who kept the might of the Moghul empire at bay. However, Shivaji also has an identity as a "Hindu" king; he made the "Bhagwa jhanda" a symbol of his identity.
If your co-religionist students or yourself blindly follow Aurangzeb because he was a Muslim, you are doing your community and country a disservice.
Also, it is important to understand that history is full of terrible deeds done by people especially seen so many years later and without any contextual reference. Our commitment to Indian nationhood means we should always look ahead. Not forget the past, no. But, look ahead we must.