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.