In the rich and complex history of Maharashtra, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj occupies a central place. More than a historical figure, he has become a symbol deeply embedded in the identity of Maharashtra. Over the decades, his legacy has been interpreted and reinterpreted across political and ideological lines. Every ideological group finds resonance with his image, proclaiming, “Shivaji was theirs and ours too.” Despite a consensus on his stature as an ideal ruler, opinions vary widely on what defined his greatness.
Sharad Patil’s Framework: Brahminical vs. Non-Brahminical Traditions
In the post-independence era, many historians developed new interpretive frameworks, attempting to revisit and recontextualize Shivaji Maharaj’s role in history. Among such voices, Sharad Patil stands out. Initially focused on ancient Indian traditions, Patil extended his work into Maratha history with a sharp ideological lens.
Central to Patil’s philosophy is the idea that the history of India is a struggle between Brahminical and non-Brahminical traditions. According to him, Brahminism has historically been casteist and patriarchal, while non-Brahmin traditions were anti-caste and egalitarian, even matriarchal. Patil interprets the era of Shivaji (Shivkaal) through this binary.
Reinterpreting Shivaji’s Mission
From the outset, Patil challenges the traditional interpretation that emphasizes Shivaji Maharaj’s conflict with Muslim powers. Instead, he places the conflict between Brahminical and non-Brahminical forces at the center of Shivaji’s and Sambhaji Raje’s lives. In his introductory arguments, he critiques a range of scholars—from Justice Ranade and Irfan Habib to Riyasatkar Sardesai and Sharad Joshi—pointing out what he sees as inconsistencies in their views.
Tantric Coronation and the Shudra Marriage Hypothesis
In particular, Patil analyzes Shivaji Maharaj’s second coronation—a lesser-discussed but symbolically rich event. According to Patil, this “Tantric coronation” reflected Shivaji’s alignment with the Shakta tradition, which he classifies as non-Brahminical. Quoting P.V. Kane, he notes that Tantric coronations require the king to marry a Shudra woman, which he claims Shivaji did. Patil builds on this claim, suggesting that this marriage offended Brahmin ministers, who then orchestrated Shivaji’s poisoning via his wife Soyarabai.
A Web of Conjectures
However, these claims rest on speculative ground. There is no direct historical evidence to support the assertion that Shivaji married a Shudra woman as part of a Tantric rite. Nor is there substantive proof of poisoning by Soyarabai. Patil cites a Dutch document from 1680, quoted in V.C. Bendre’s work, as evidence—but even that document says only, “Shivaji might have been poisoned by his second wife.” Patil presents this hypothetical statement as a definitive claim, which misrepresents the original source. British and other European sources from that era often contained rumor-based reports, such as blaming Shivaji’s son or even a barber for his death. Thus, such sources must be treated with caution.
Adding to the conjecture, Patil declares this supposed Shudra woman as Shivaji’s chief queen, and claims that she committed suicide by jumping from Takmak Point after his death. Again, no primary sources or credible secondary evidence supports this dramatic claim. These assumptions, while intriguing, lack the factual foundation required of historical conclusions.
Shivaji and Egalitarian Governance
Patil further argues that Shivaji’s inclusive governance—his reverence for saints, the worship of Goddess Bhavani, and his caste-diverse army—stems from his association with the Shakta tradition. He cites a letter by Shivaji in which he says, “Who takes special consideration just because someone is a Brahmin?” Patil uses this to suggest a shift in Shivaji’s view of caste, implying that before his second coronation he considered Brahmins beyond reproach, but later changed his stance.
Administrative Evidence vs. Ideological Assumptions
However, another letter from 1671 tells a more nuanced story. It describes how a Maratha named Bapuji Nalawade raised his sword against a Brahmin and then committed suicide. Patil infers from this that Shivaji held Brahmins in such high regard that even an act against a Brahmin was seen as unforgivable. Yet, this interpretation overlooks the lack of context behind Nalawade’s actions and the broader administrative record of Shivaji’s reign. To claim that Shivaji viewed Brahmins as immune to punishment would require clearer examples—preferably cases where Brahmins were explicitly forgiven only due to their caste.
On the contrary, historical records suggest that Shivaji’s administrative authority was supreme. As G. B. Mehendale points out in Shivaji: His Life & Times, Shivaji controlled the appointment and dismissal of ministers and frequently transferred officials based on performance. His council (Ashtapradhan Mandal) served at his discretion, and his policies were pragmatic rather than doctrinaire.
Evaluating the Timeline of Religious Influence
The claim that Shivaji Maharaj became more non-Brahminical post-coronation does not withstand scrutiny when one considers broader historical evidence. During the pre-coronation period itself, a Brahmin legal advisor serving Afzal Khan was killed in battle—suggesting no special immunity for Brahmins. Similarly, the reconversion of Bajaji Nimbalkar to Hinduism in 1655—claimed by Patil to have occurred due to Tantric influence—predates any evidence of Shivaji’s contact with the Shakta tradition.
Tantra and the Case of Gangadhar Kulkarni
Patil also discusses the reconversion of Gangadhar Kulkarni during Sambhaji Raje’s time. While Patil frames this event as a result of Tantric influence, the actual consent document outlines traditional Vedic purification rites, with no mention of Tantric rituals. In fact, Kavi Kalash—Sambhaji’s advisor involved in the reconversion—was given titles like varnashramadharmapratipalak (protector of caste and religious order), clearly reinforcing the orthodox Vedic structure.
Examining the Disputed Letter
In further attempts to support his argument, Patil cites a letter supposedly written by Shivaji Maharaj urging caste unity in the face of Muslim aggression. However, scholars like Dr. Anuradha Kulkarni and G. B. Mehendale have declared this letter inauthentic. Even if one accepts it as genuine, the full text contradicts Patil’s premise by expressing concern for cows, Brahmins, and temples—emphasizing a traditional religious framework.
Contemporary Writings of the Era
Writings from Shivaji’s contemporaries—such as Paramananda (author of Shivabharata), Sabhasad, and Ramchandrapant Amatya—do not support Patil’s conclusions. On the contrary, they reflect a worldview consistent with Vedic orthodoxy and Kshatriya duty. Sambhaji Raje’s own donation charters and correspondence are similarly explicit. He praises his lineage as defenders of Hindu Dharma, refers to Aurangzeb as a “vile Yavana,” and affirms the Vedic basis of caste duties. He even describes his father as someone who vowed to defeat the Mlechchas (foreign invaders) from his youth.
In one notable inscription, Sambhaji Raje even declares, “Now this has become a Hindu kingdom.” If Patil dismisses such documents as fabricated simply because they don’t align with his theory, his entire framework loses academic credibility.
A Cautionary Note on Ideological Historiography
Ultimately, while Sharad Patil’s scholarship and philosophical depth are impressive—especially in his understanding of ancient Indian religious systems—his application of those ideas to Shivaji’s era is problematic. He attempts to mold a historical period into a rigid ideological structure. This leads to distortion, exaggeration, and at times, baseless speculation.
In modern historiography, interpretive frameworks are important. But they must be built on verifiable evidence. Otherwise, they become ideologically convenient but historically hollow. Unfortunately, this critique applies to the present work.
References:
- Mehendale, G. B. – Shivaji: His Life & Times, 2011, p. 368.
- Mehendale, G. B. – Shri Raja Shivachhatrapati, Vol. 1, Part 2, 1999;
Kulkarni, Anuradha – Shiv Chhatrapati’s Letters, Vol. 1, 2011, pp. 354, 385. - Pawar, Jaysingrao (Ed.) – Chhatrapati Sambhaji Memorial Volume, 2009, pp. 503–509.
- Gokhale, Kamal – Shivputra Sambhaji, 2001, p. 105.
- Pawar, Jaysingrao – ibid., pp. 529–530.
Written by :
Prof. Santosh Shelar
Original Article : read
