"Thank god, Maharashtra did not go by the 'Bhakti Marg' of Ramdas, otherwise 'Peshwai' would have arrived much earlier than actual.." This is one of the common comments one may come across while reading about comparative analysis of poet saints Tukaram and Ramdas in relation with Shivaji and establishment of the Maratha empire.
While reading the comment, it may not seem to be anti Brahman or something, because there is no such direct mention of the Brahman as caste. The word 'Peshwai' denotes it. Here, Peshwai is to emphasize on dominance of Brahmans over other castes.
The divide between Savarna- Dalit, Dalit and other castes is prevalent all over India. But in southern India in general and Maharashtra in particular a venomous feeling is prevalent against Brahmans. In fact, On one hand it has a history of 'Vedokta' issue with regard to Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj, ब्राह्मणेतर (Anti Brahman) movement.
Maharashtra has a parampara of social reformers who called for abolition of castes from the very Brahman community, from Balshastri Jambhekar to Gopal Ganesh Aagarkar to V.D. Savarkar. Putting this recent history apart, question remains why such venomous hatred has prevailed against Brahmans in Maharashtra? This hatred is being theorized taking the Maratha history as base. There are various shades, various layers to it.
Shivaji Maharaj. The tallest figure in the history of India, Indian civilization. He initiated the process of overthrowing the brutal Islamic rule to reinstate the Indian ethos again in India. Shivaji Maharaj was clear with the pan India vision of 'अहत पेशावर, तहत तंजावर हिंदवी स्वराज्य व्हावे हे तो श्रींची इच्छा' (From Peshawar to Tanjavur Hindavi Swarajya)
Shivaji's life has been full of adventures. His heroic deeds are well known. But most of the times the revolutionary changes he brought in are neglected. Land revenue system, Movement of Purity of Language, Reinstating the practice of Rajyabhishek, Building Strong Navy and above all Pride for the motherland.
Keeping all this mind, one needs to ask, what were his inspirations? Two totally opposite arguments are there.
One propagated by Justice Mahadeo Govind Ranade, which states it was the Bhakti movement, i.e. the Warkari movement in Maharashtra that kept the pride of Dharma alive in Maharashtra after the defeat of Yadavas and Vijayanagar. The parampara of Saint poets from Dnyaneshwar-Namdeo to Tukaram kept the dharmik ethos alive in Maharashtra.
But, eminent nationalist historian V. k. Rajawade ridicules this argument. He stated that it was this Warkari movement that kept people busy in Bhakti only. It did not encourage people to rise, organize and fight back to regain the power. Then how and why Shivaji initiated the establishment of Maratha or to be specific Hindavi swarajya?
There are multiple factors that encouraged Shivaji to begin the process. Eminent Marathi thinker and writer Narhar Kurundkar puts the chronology exactly.
He states, 'One should not analyse the Shivaji's work in isolation. Shahaji, Shivaji's father tried to become patron of the Nijamshahi of Ahmednagar and become an independent king. That experiment failed. On that background Shivaji has come to Pune and started his work. He succeeded facing various hurdles. Then comes Sambhaji, Shivaji's son, who fought Aurangazeb valiantly. He not just fought Aurangzeb's forces but he expanded his forces, expanded his kingdom in Karnataka.'
This is one aspect of it. But why common people joined Shivaji's struggle?
If we consider and study the entire situation, we can clearly see very few of Deshmukh, Patils and Maratha Sardars came out to support Shivaji's effort. Common people joined his struggle and it was Shivaji's mastery that he could groom them to become able generals.
Here again, Narhar Kurundkar's argument comes forth, comparing saint poets and their contribution to Shivaji's effort. Kurundkar takes examples of Saint Eknath who belonged to Warkari movement and the Shivaji's contemporary Tukaram and Ramdas.
The whole Warkari and Bhakti cult (Mahanubhav and others) was busy in 'Bhakti' Propagating the Advaita philosophy through the Abhang. Shivaji's contemporary Tukaram also had focused more on Bhakti.
On the other hand Eknath belonging to 16th century composed poems, i.e. Abhang, Bharud, Gan, Gavlan that encourage common man to arise and fight to regain the power. Eknath is an exception in the Warkari sampradaya, who vehemently advocated the need for Hindu kingdoms.
Ramdas, had openly advocated the concept of Hindavi Swarajya. Ramdas and Ramdasi Panth had focus on 'Balopasana' i.e. building physical strength. Ramdasis roamed around villages and propagated the cause of Swarajya to common people. In a way Ramdas followed Eknath's ideology.
Kurundkar asks in this scenario it becomes immaterial whether Ramdas was Shivaji's guru or not.
Tukaram who died around 1650 CE and Shivaji's effort began in around 1648. Ramdas arrives in the arena of Maharashtra around 1648-49 CE.
There are no credible evidences of Ramdas-Shivaji convergence between 1649 and 1670. However, there are credible evidences of Shivaji-Ramdas meetings after 1670 CE.
This does not indicate that Ramdas was the brain behind Shivaji's effort. One cannot and should not claim that.
It is also very much true that Ramdas and the Ramdasi Panth had immensely contributed to awakening the massed for Shivaji's cause. With the Maruti sthapana, Balopasana and open letters composed by Ramdas.
On this background does the false argument of 'Ramdas' Bhakti Marg and Peshwai' stand? Not at all.
Then why targeting Brahman caste and community?
Again, Narhar Kurundkar's(I am quoting Narhar Kurundkar again and again because his arguments are so strong. One has to have immense study and argumentative prowess to refute his arguments.) fantastic explanation is enough to answer to why Brahman. He stated that a debate is going on in Maharashtra whether Shivaji was a 'गोब्राह्मणप्रतिपालक'?
Just because there is word Brahman and those who oppose this term for Shivaji, Self declared bastions of 'Maratha' (The Brigade and others) history claim Shivaji belongs to only caste Maratha.
Kurundkar states, why this Go-Brahman-Pratipalak? Because, Gau-Brahman-Ved (That includes Vedanga, Upanishads, Brahman, Aaranyak) are the known and accepted symbols of Sanatan Hindu Dharma. So, in literal sense the term describes Shivaji Maharaj as the 'Protector of the Hindu Dharma.'
Why Brahmin hate? It is the colonial legacy. In fact goes back to Al Beruni, who has stated to break the Hindu fold, we need to cut off the Hindu priestly class, i.e. Brahmins. The British colonial establishment exacerbated this very line, and the hate against Brahmins intensified.
If one of the prominent symbol of Hindu is cut from the Dharmic fold then it will be easy for the 'Breaking India' forces as the term coined by Rajiv Malhotra to break the Indic civilization.
The Breaking India forces are busy in creating false narratives of Aaryan Invasion (now discarded with ample evidences), Aarya-Dravid divide (Which never was), Aarya- Mool Nivasi conflict.
Breaking India forces are busy in targeting various religious practices that have deep Dharmik meaning. Be it Sabarimala or any other. Attack on the symbols, rituals, traditions creating false narratives is on.
However, the counter narrative with ample evidences and scientific explanations is coming up strongly. To protect, grow with Indic-Dharmik values arise, awake and organize is the Mantra. Otherwise the day is not so far when Bharat will lose its identity.
Comments
Post a Comment