Lesser known facts of Indian history - Shivaji Maharaj was indeed the greatest of all!

Thanks for the link Kalyani , lots of information , I only knew what little I studied about Shivaji in my history lessons in school..

One can understand why Shivaji is not hailed because he also fought the Mughals and that is something the grand old Communal party of India will have an objection to.. 

usha manohar wrote:

Thanks for the link Kalyani , lots of information , I only knew what little I studied about Shivaji in my history lessons in school..

One can understand why Shivaji is not hailed because he also fought the Mughals and that is something the grand old Communal party of India will have an objection to.. 

True Usha..the very fact that no one has bothered to comment proves that no one wants to know and accept true history and true heroes. Were Tipu Sultan mentioned or some other similar, there would have been loads of discussion!

Yes Kalyani, many people in India have been mentally dinned into believing that disowning their own people and religion and upholding minorities and making excuses for them even when they are in the wrong is called secularism, a pity that even the educated fall into this trap that the family party has prepared over the years ..

I read a lesson about Shivaji during my school days (Up to 8th) but most of the book was full of Moughals, British and Congress leaders. In fact I never liked history just because I was not interested in who was father of Babar or who was his son. I could never relate with them properly and neither understood the point why was I required to memorize their birth dates. I was greatly relieved when there was no necessity to study from class 9th onward. But I feel it if they had taught us more about our own heroes, I would have concentrated more on history. But personally speaking I have learnt everything about our own heroes on my own.

Shivaji was a great king who fought the powerful Moghuls to expand his empire which was a legitimate goal of the hundreds of kings who existed at that time. He was an empire builder and also a great tactician in guerrilla warfare. He built a large number of forts spread over a large area many of which are standing today also. Like Akbar consolidated the Mughal empire his father/grandfather established, Shivaji greatly consolidated the Maratha empire his father established. The Maratha empire spread from Deep South to North but faced two large defeats against the Afghan Abdalli and later on the British. The Maratha empire was for a large period rule by the Peshwas and not the descendents of Shivaji. IN South and Bengal the rule was enforced very harshly especially in the collection of farm produce from farmers. Shivaji was a noble king who fought to protect and also expand his empire. The Peshwas joined hands with the last Mughal king in the 1857 uprising against the British. It is later on that it has been converted into a Hindu versus Muslim battle which is strictly not true. It is because of this twist that perhaps many are not responding in the forum out of politeness. But I have and you can stat pouring the secular or non secular venom against my remarks. However I maintain that Shivaji seen as a king was a fantastic king.

Most of peoples of India aware with greatness of Shivaji Maharaj. I was not a student of history but I know about Shiavaji Maharaj. Indeed history is written by winners. In Mugal period it was written to please Mugals emiors and after freedom it was written by communists. Maharan Pratap was also great king of Rajasthan who whole life fought with Akba. But history said the Great Akbar, than what is Maharana Pratap?

The same old story, Hindus were never united so they they got what they asked for. There was never shortage of Jaichand's in any period of time.

This is a historians perspective , I guess some people would puck holes even into it if it does not suit them..However, very detailed information about a period of history when people laid down their life for the upkeep of Hinduism and the nation ..

http://www.hinduhistory.info/the-epic-27-year-war-that-saved-hinduism/

Hindu religion did not prevent Hindu kings from fighting with each other. There was no Indian nation till 1857 when British brought the territories of today's India,Pakistan, Bangladesh together to form the new nation of India. Why did Rajputs side with the British? Why did Hindu kings borrow heavily from East India Company to fight against other Hindu kings? The India of !947 was a collection of 500 plus kingdoms. The Muslims came from outside and fought battles and won territories from Hindu kings and subsequent Muslim kings. Please do not see past history with todays biased goggles. See and judge it as it evolved. Shivaji, Rana Pratap were great kings there is no doubt about it. But they fought Mughals to protect their kingdoms, winning some and losing some. Rana Pratap's son became the governor of Kabul under the Mughals. They did not fight as HIndus versus Muslims.

Please come out with facts and not the biased versions which have now become stale and are not real. Happy that I could pull in more members of the forum.

In fighting is a normal occurance, happens in a house and between kingdoms . But , when outsiders invade your nation which was known as Bharat , even if it is a collection of different kingdoms, kings and rulers would fight back, like in the case of Mughals who were outsiders and were bent on stamping out Hinduism , which however much one may want to argue against was the unifying factor between the different kingdoms..Religion and religious customs were an important factor then and now since it is the very foundation on which a society rests. 

There were many reasons why Man Singh became a part of Akbar's court, his sister Jodha was married to Akbar and so on...It was not a willing decision but forced due to circumstances and looked down by the other patriotic Rajputs..

The then kingdoms were all separate and not  one nation. That is how those times have to be seen because that was the reality.Therefore Mughals were not outsiders in the manner it is sought to be made out. They were also kings doing what kings used to do , invade other kingdoms and either lose the battle or win and expand the empire. If all kingdoms were together no foreign king could have made such headway. Rajputs entered into a pact with Mughals to remain in power in their kingdoms and accepted Mughal supremacy and supported them with their own armies and solidified the relations by entering into wedlocks. Please do not bring religion because then history gets distorted.

vijay wrote:

The then kingdoms were all separate and not  one nation. That is how those times have to be seen because that was the reality.Therefore Mughals were not outsiders in the manner it is sought to be made out. They were also kings doing what kings used to do , invade other kingdoms and either lose the battle or win and expand the empire. If all kingdoms were together no foreign king could have made such headway. Rajputs entered into a pact with Mughals to remain in power in their kingdoms and accepted Mughal supremacy and supported them with their own armies and solidified the relations by entering into wedlocks. Please do not bring religion because then history gets distorted.

It is right that at that time India is not a country and it is also right that most of kings of the Rajasthan state entered in to pact with Mughals, but it is right that Mughal were not outsider. Native place of most of the kings of the states of was Hindustan. But native place of Mughals was not south Asia.

Of course the Mughals were outsiders.. They were like the British who needed to be thrown out, which did not happen because Indian rulers had no unity.We have to thank the British for uniting India , for whatever selfish read\son they might have had , which had become further fragmented after the Mughals came and vandalised the nation.

Shivaji Maharaj's heroic deeds in the warfare employing unusual ways to conquer and defeat enemies are well known .I remember when my History teacher was narrating the story of Tanaji Malusare, a close childhood friend and an able military leader  of Shivaji Maharaj.

Tanaji is famously known for the Battle of Sinhagadh

When Tanaji died while capturing the fort of Kondana, near Pune, Shivaji said with grief " Gadh ala pan Sinh gela", Fort was captured but the lion was lost.

Shivaji is well known for his fierce determination to stop the fanaticism of Aurangazeb . A strategist of the highest order, Shivaji was well supported by Chatrasal in fighting against the mighty Mughals.

One fact of history is that the Hindus were never united and as such failed in military warfare. Even Shivaji as a  soldier was defeated in a pitched battle by the forces of Aurangzeb led by raja Jai Singh. Shivaji's son joined the Mughals and so on.  I think Hindus were paranoid against each other and more often sided with the invader. Like Jai Chand  and Mir Zafar. Frankly it was all a mixture but overall suzerainity was always with the Muslims. Shivaji died in 1680 and Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji is given great prominence only because Hindus have no warrior Heroes.

Divisions and splits made the Hindus weak and vulnerable to the attacks of Mughals. It is not a fact that Hindus have no warrior heroes. The fact is that Hindus mostly are the sycophants of the winners and Power mongers. With all these disadvantages Shivaji remains great who challenged the mighty Mughals.

Before the advent of Islam the hundreds of Hindu kingdoms were used to fighting between themselves and did not feel alienated as the victorious king also was a Hindu. After Muslim invasions these mini kingdoms were easy targets for them. Complacent Hindu kings perhaps did not keep abreast with changes in West Asia and paid the price for it for the next 900 years, In between a Shivaji or a Prithviraj or a Ran Pratap, all great warriors offered resistance and as rightly stated by @MGSingh became our heroes in absence of real warrior heroes.

MG Singh wrote:

One fact of history is that the Hindus were never united and as such failed in military warfare. Even Shivaji as a  soldier was defeated in a pitched battle by the forces of Aurangzeb led by raja Jai Singh. Shivaji's son joined the Mughals and so on.  I think Hindus were paranoid against each other and more often sided with the invader. Like Jai Chand  and Mir Zafar. Frankly it was all a mixture but overall suzerainity was always with the Muslims. Shivaji died in 1680 and Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji is given great prominence only because Hindus have no warrior Heroes.

Wow what an analysis, shivaji given great prominence only due to lack of real heroes!!! Didn't expect this one! It is true that at one point he was indeed defeated and had to surrender 300 forts to Aurangzeb in the treaty, but are you not aware that he escaped daringly from Agra , returned to his kingdom and eventually won back all the lost forts?? If he had not died at a very early age due to injuries sustained after falling from his horse, history would have been a bit different, yet he succeeded in keeping Aurangzeb out of the South and Deccan and even after his death Aurangzeb died a defeated man during his long campaign in Maharashtra. So to term his greatness only because real heroes are lacking, seems to me to great injustice and ingratitude for people who sacrificed their lives for our country. Probably it would do you better to read and understand what the great poet from Agra Kaviraj Bhushan has written in his numerous poems about Shivaji's greatness and courage. Since Bhushan was not a Maharashtrian, it would not be hard for you all to believe what he has said about Shivaji Maharaj and neither can it be called as blind worship as we Maharashtrians are often accused of doing for the great warrior.

Saying Shivaji Maharaj has become prominent because Hindus lack real war heroes is a talk of those who doesn't have any idea of History. Shivaji will stay in the folios of history forever.

One can not fight perceptions howsoever facts may be presented.