Riding the wave...

Chhava (Lion Cub, Hindi; 2025)

Director: Laxman Utekar

The debate centres on whether Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was simply a minor chieftain seizing small territories in the Deccan, an opportunist, or a Hindu nationalist. Additionally, the crucial question is whether Aurangzeb was a fair ruler or a religious bigot.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27922706/

Depending on who authors the history book, one will be portrayed as a saviour, while the other will be depicted as an opportunistic villain.

Shivaji's kingdom was once characterised as a vassal territory of the Mughal Empire, and he was even said to have undertaken military campaigns on behalf of the Mughals. In his later years, his father, Shahaji, reportedly had a somewhat complex relationship with him, having formed an alliance with the neighbouring Bijapuri Sultanate against Shivaji.

In the wake of numerous military clashes post-1657, Shivaji's once amicable relations with the Mughals soured. This shift coincided with Aurangzeb's rise to the throne as Emperor. Growing military expenditures and potential corruption drained the Mughal treasury. The Jizya tax was enforced on non-Muslims, resulting in widespread discontent. Shivaji's kingdom is renowned for its multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition. He maintained an army comprising 60,000 Muslim soldiers, many of whom occupied significant positions. His forces included several Muslim officers, and reports suggest that he advocated for gender equality.

 

It is probable that Aurangzeb's father, the illustrious Emperor Shah Jahan, expended considerable resources on Noor Jahan's mausoleum, the Taj Mahal, which subsequently severely depleted the treasury. Consequently, innovative taxation schemes became necessary. The jizya, which had been abolished during Akbar's reign, was reintroduced, inciting anger among Sikhs and Hindus. Jizya is the tax sanctioned by Islam as a protection fee imposed by Islamic rulers on their non-Muslim subjects.

The schism then emerged, with the Sikh gurus supporting his people and the Marathas under Shivaji of the Bhonsle Dynasty coming to the aid of the Hindus. Some scholars even contest the legitimacy of Shivaji's rise to the throne following his father's sudden death. His coronation by Brahmin priests from Kashi (rather than Maharashtra), along with the debate over his possible Shudra lineage, serves as points of contention.

Supporters of Aurangzeb argue that the Emperor was not a religious bigot. They claim he did not destroy temples; rather, he assisted in building and financing them. However, I find it difficult to take this stance seriously, given that it originates from a man who had no qualms about killing his brother, Dara Shikoh, to seize the throne and imprison his father, Shah Jahan, in a dungeon to admire his prized achievement, the Taj Mahal, from afar. Aurangzeb not only destroyed the Kashi-Visvanath temple in Varanasi, but he also constructed a mosque atop it, attempting to obliterate all traces of the temple until the Archaeological Department of India uncovered it.

For so long, the world has been presented with a different narrative of what transpired in the past. Over the last decade or so, Indian history has been re-examined and re-narrated from various perspectives. Meanwhile, leftist historians, who had discredited any Indian achievements, attributing all of India's development to Western colonisation and its failures to an archaic and self-defeating unscientific way of life, are now taken aback. They vehemently dismiss these new discoveries as Hindutva propaganda.

Bollywood has an unenviable reputation for glamorising foreign invaders through its films. In light of the general wave of Hindu consciousness that seems to have permeated the Indian psyche in the 21st century, the industry has begun to adopt a different approach. It is now embracing films that aim to convey the glory of Ancient India. This shift accounts for the surge in 'patriotic' movies such as Panipat (2019), Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019), Rocketry: The Nambi Effect (2022), Amaran (2024), and many more.

This movie starts at the time of Sivaji's demise. Aurangzeb, sitting down the knitting, is rejoicing with his henchmen. They thought that was the end of the Maratha empire. Surprise, surprise. Out of nowhere, quite unsuspectedly, his eldest son, Sambhaji, conquered Burhanpur. After that, it was one war after another, mixed with palace politics of betrayal and double-crossing. Bollywood has this warped notion that a story seems more convincing when the screen is filled with a sea of blood, decapitation and maiming scenes. It is quite off-putting, actually.

The filmmakers, political leaders, and Bollywood's elite appear to align with the prevailing majority. They capitalised on the film's launch for their own benefit. During the Maha Kumbh Mela season, many were seen among the Hindu pilgrims, reflecting the increasing sentiment of Hinduness among the people of India.

Some argue that Shivaji and Shambaji were not fighting for Hinduism but were merely defending their territories. Savarkar first proposed the notion of them as Hindu icons at the turn of the 20th century. The Shiv in the Shiv Sena, which plays a pivotal role in Maharashtra politics, refers to Chaturvedi Shivaji Maharaj, not Lord Shiva of the Hindu Trinity.

 

https://www.marathicultureandfestivals.com/sambhaji-mahar

Why do filmmakers choose to make a film about Shambaji rather than Shivaji, who is renowned as the defender of Sanathana Dharma? Consider this: Aurangzeb, who began his reign over the world's wealthiest empire, ultimately witnessed the great empire established by his forefathers diminish in size and riches, ending up interred in an unfinished grave. In contrast, earlier rulers had magnificent mausoleums constructed for them.

Aurangzeb, commanding perhaps the largest army in the world, was pushed to his limits and engaged in numerous fierce battles with Shivaji. Long before Mao Zedong wrote about guerrilla warfare, Shivaji employed guerrilla tactics and mobile strategies. Had it not been for this Maratha-Mughal animosity, the East India Company would not have been able to strengthen its position in the subcontinent.

Shambaji was also a capable ruler who focused his efforts on agricultural development and played a significant role in the expansion of Hindustani and Sanskrit literature. Unlike his father, Shivaji, who either died in a hunting accident or was poisoned by his queen, Shambaji was martyred at the hands of the Mughals after enduring torture, being blinded with hot iron, and ultimately decapitated. This act rendered him a hero among the masses. It is also noted that Shambaji never truly entered the history books, likely due to his stepmother (the same queen who poisoned Shivaji), who defamed him in her desire to position her own son as Shivaji's successor.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.