Commentary/ Varsha Bhosle
First Blood
What with Raja Shiv Chhatrapati's birth anniversary falling in May, newspapers
in Shiv-Sena-ruled Bombay have been indulging in a bit of subtle local
appeasement. For instance, there was this momentous question posed in The Asian
Age: 'Was Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, who united the people of Maharashtra and
welded them into a Hindu kingdom, a Maratha or a Rajput since he belonged to
the lineage of Sisodiyas?' According to Dr S B Deshmukh, curator of the Marathwada
university, the correct answer is that not only was Raja Shivaji a Maratha, but
every Rajput is a Maharashtrian by origin. Quite plausible. So of course,
Bhosle felt suitably mollified for the three minutes it took to read the thing,
and then promptly became absorbed in the monkeyshines of Laloo Prasad Yadav.
But then appeared an item which, frankly, I could have done without: The
recently-released first volume of Mr G B Mehendale's magnum opus Shri Raja Shiv
Chhatrapati proves with documentary evidence that Adil Shah of Bijapur had
dispatched Afzal Khan to Pratapgarh with specific orders to kill Shivaji by
means fair or foul. For those who aren't acquainted with this controversial
episode in the life of the founder of Hindu-pad badshahi, here's the popular
recap: Afzal Khan, after requesting an unarmed meeting and assuring Shivaji of
his safety, met him in a tent at the base of Pratapgarh, but stabbed him in the
back while embracing him. Thereupon, Shivaji, who had worn armour under his
clothes and concealed a pair of steel-claws (waagh-nakh, worn like
knuckle-busters) in his hands, proceeded to rip open Afzal Khan's abdomen. Khel
khatam.
Now, this tale, which is fed to Marathi babies along with their first solid
food, has been the centre of several disputes and acrimonious exchanges between
scholars, most raged in the media. The point of contention has been whether
Shivaji went for Afzal Khan, or vice versa – the implication being that if
Shivaji did, then he doesn't deserve the unstinting adoration that is his lot
in Maharashtra.
Which is precisely the point that Bhosle has never understood – and which is
why Mr Mehendale's QED came as a major disappointment to her. You see, I'd
rather staked my all in Raja Shivaji's having made the first and "unprovoked"
attack. I question the validity of virtue in wars of independence; Sun Tzu says:
"All warfare is based on deception. Security against
defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the
offensive. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength;
attacking, a superabundance of strength." Why should
those who perceive Shivaji as a native ruler seeking Hindvi swarajya get hives
over the ethics in who drew first blood? In fact, if Afzal Khan had indeed gone
in as innocent as a spring lamb, and Shivaji wouldn't have slaughtered him all
the same – that would have made him one wimp king in my book.
Take Prithviraj Chauhan and Shahabuddin Ghori: Seventeen times did Chauhan
defeat the Afghan, and seventeen times did he let him live. But in 1192, when
Chauhan finally lost, Ghori blinded and killed this last Hindu king of Delhi –
and established Muslim rule in India. I'm sorry, but I curse the Rajput's
ethics. Hindus exalt dharma-yuddha, ignoring the fact that the side advised by
Krishna didn't always follow morality in warfare: Karna was killed while
dislodging his chariot-wheel; Duryodhan was slayed by a mace struck below his
waist; and Dronacharya was attacked after he had laid down his arms. Plain old
realpolitik: The Pandavs were forced to act in the real world with all its
limitation, for the ideal world does not exist… So why shouldn't have Shivaji,
whom Nehruvians call "the robber-baron", sacked Udaipur and Surat to divert the
Islam-bound taxes to his army? But that sticks in the enlightened ones's
gullets.
I recall an article in The Illustrated Weekly of India of April 1993, wherein
Nancy Adjania, in classical Marxist thinking and idiom, had dwelt on Rana
Pratap, Chhatrapati Shivaji and Rani Laxmibai; in the case of Laxmibai, there
were references to Maaza Pravas, a book written in hyper-archaic Marathi. Where
the young linguistic genius is now, I don't know, but her ideas are familiarly
Duff: "It becomes imperative for a nascent nation to produce a costume drama
for itself, in lieu of the past. The nation's origins and antecedents are
explained away by means of a series of tableaux vivants, splendidly mounted by
adept ideologues within the proscenium of mythology. The first function of this
nationalist mythology is the creation of exemplars, role models. For this
purpose, cultural heroes and heroines are abstracted from the intricate
cross-weave of their original context. Deprived of the political and cultural
specificities of which they were actually the creatures, they are converted
into larger-than-life figures."
I know… I, too, had trouble decoding it. In human lingo, all it means is: Screw
India's nationalistic heroes. The piece ended with a poem by Imtiaz Dharkar,
wife of Anil Dharkar, who, as editor of the same weekly, had published an
article critical of Chhatrapati Shivaji – ie, disputing his integrity in the
light of Afzal Khan's assassination – and got his face blackened by Sainiks.
The British, through the likes of historian Grant Duff, systematically tried to
decimate the spirit of our people by denigrating India's inspiring heroes --
and that hangover persists with our intelligentsia.
Their attitude makes me ponder on Hindus and nationalism. Freedom fighters like
Lokmanya Tilak, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Veer Savarkar followed the
Vedanta and were no less devout than Mahatma Gandhi. They followed a long
tradition instilled by the likes of Raja Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh who took
up arms to defend Hindu Dharma. Nor were spiritualists like Sri Aurobindo and
Swami Vivekananda oblivious to terrestrial realities: Aurobindo supported the
Allied cause in World War II and the Americans in the Korean war – contrarily
to Gandhian positions. They were the legacy of the likes of Samarth Ramdas and
Sant Tukaram. The latter writes: Bhale tari deu kaasechi langoti / Naathalaache
maathi haanu kaathi / Mau mena-huni amhi Vishnudaas / Kathin vajraasi bhedu
aise (We may give away our loincloth, but we'll split the heads of the enemy;
we Vishnu-devotees are softer than wax, but we can defy solid steel).
So when exactly did we become a nation of eunuchs? Probably during Partition,
when it was decided that Hindu society should follow the way of the bhikshu,
and donate all and everything to the "poor and defenseless". Classical India
was an affluent society with a strong army and skills in diplomacy, and so some
blame Buddhism for the degeneration in Hindu nationalism. Rubbish. Although
Buddhism doesn't have a militant dharma and is monastically oriented, how was it adapted to suit the patriotic bents of China and Japan? Why did it not put
an end to the warrior classes in those countries? In fact, both nations
flourished through Buddhism, adapting Indian martial arts into kung fu and
jujitsu and even creating orders of militaristic monks. Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen Buddhism, was from Kodungalloor in Kerala, and he introduced the Kalari Payat school of combat to the Shao-lin monastery in China.
The ideal of nonviolence set in motion a distortion that has weakened modern
India. Rather than defending our religion and culture, we turn on those of us
who try to rectify the imbalance caused by sham-secular policies. If Hindus
criticise non-Hindus, it's Hindus themselves who protest. But if non-Hindus
censure Hindus, it is Hindus again who advocate serenity and tolerance. I
believe this groveling mentality needs to be shirked – there's no dignity in
getting kicked in the teeth. India needs to reclaim its aggressive spirit, for
that is an integral part of any prosperous nation's culture. We need to honour
not only our Shivajis and Rana Prataps, but also our Savarkars and Bhagat
Singhs and Manekshaws and Vaidyas. There is no other country in the world that
is so ungrateful to its warriors as India is to hers.
Jawaharlal Nehru and his Congress built modern India not on Gandhian policies,
but on Marxist socialism; they built it not on Gandhiji's rural emphasis, but
on apparatchik bureaucracy – which became more and more like the Communist
model during Mrs G's reign. But all along, the image of Gandhiji was brazenly
used to secure votes – even though most of his plans had long been discarded.
And his exemplar of nonviolence served well to prevent Hindus from coalescing
into a political force, for that oiled the way for politicians to divide the
majority and rule unchecked. It became part of the anti-Hindu strategy…
Strange. For Gandhijiwas always proud to be a sanaatani Hindu and had never claimed not to be one.
Oh yes, things look very bleak sometimes. For instance, in a nation-wide poll
conducted by The Sunday Observer last week, it was found that 59.4% of the
working class would vote for Sonia Gandhi… What now? Or take these notions from
your archetypal secularist: What does one say to a man who claims, "we really
do not give a damn if India loses Kashmir or any other piece of land that is
not livable"? How does one approach a person who feels that needs like food and
shelter are more primary than "coffee table concepts like territorial
integrity"? How does one react when a man feels that economic prosperity
(paisa, paisa, paisa) is far more crucial than freedom? Don't know about you,
but I react with utter distaste, contempt and horror. If such specimens ever
become the majority in this country, oh yes, they'll smilingly sell India down
the Indus. Such is the stuff that traitors are made of.
Tell us what you think of this column
|