Audrey @audreytruschke is back.
Her latest target: Shivaji Maharaj & his caste.
Audrey calls Shivaji Maharaj a Shudra. She says Shivaji bribed a Brahmin Gagabhatta to "become" Kshatriya. Gagabhatta invented a fake lineage going back to Sisodiya Rajputs.
Is this true?
Thread
Her latest target: Shivaji Maharaj & his caste.
Audrey calls Shivaji Maharaj a Shudra. She says Shivaji bribed a Brahmin Gagabhatta to "become" Kshatriya. Gagabhatta invented a fake lineage going back to Sisodiya Rajputs.
Is this true?
Thread
First of all, this malicious thread intentionally rakes up sensitive issues. Maratha community resents attempts to portray Shivaji Maharaj as Shudra, which goes against their self identification.
This is colonial era myth which also portrays Brahmins/Hinduism in a bad light. (2)
This is colonial era myth which also portrays Brahmins/Hinduism in a bad light. (2)
Let us begin. Did Gagabhatta invent a fake lineage for Shivaji Maharaja in 1674. A lineage for Shivaji going back to Sisodiya Rajputs?
This is factually WRONG.
Let us look at the contemporary primary sources.
This is factually WRONG.
Let us look at the contemporary primary sources.
Shivaji Mahraja's father Shahaji wrote a letter to Adil Shah of Bijapur.
In this letter, Shahaji says "We are Rajputs".
This letter was written 18 years BEFORE Gagabhatta.
If Gagabhatta fabricated Rajput claim of Shivaji, why did Shivaji's father also call himself a Rajput?
In this letter, Shahaji says "We are Rajputs".
This letter was written 18 years BEFORE Gagabhatta.
If Gagabhatta fabricated Rajput claim of Shivaji, why did Shivaji's father also call himself a Rajput?
This primary source clearly shows that Gagabhatta did NOT invent a fake Rajput lineage for Shivaji.
Rather, Shivaji & his ancestors have also considered themselves Kshatriyas and claimed descent from the house of Mewar.
Audrey is utterly unaware of facts but high on propaganda
Rather, Shivaji & his ancestors have also considered themselves Kshatriyas and claimed descent from the house of Mewar.
Audrey is utterly unaware of facts but high on propaganda
Further, Audrey says that Rajputs viewed Shivaji Maharaj as "uncouth" . That this somehow undermines Hindu identity.
Is this generalization true? Let us see what the primary sources have to say:
Is this generalization true? Let us see what the primary sources have to say:
When Shivaji Maharaja visited Agra in 1666, he made quite an impression .
A Rajput Chief Maha Singh Shekhawat said -
"Shivaji is very clever, he speaks the right word
on subject.
Shivaji is a good, genuine Rajput"
Letter from 1666.
Published in "House of Shivaji"(JSarkar)
A Rajput Chief Maha Singh Shekhawat said -
"Shivaji is very clever, he speaks the right word
on subject.
Shivaji is a good, genuine Rajput"
Letter from 1666.
Published in "House of Shivaji"(JSarkar)
This letter was written in 1666. This was 8 years BEFORE Gagabhatta and coronation.
If Gagabhatta fabricated the Kshatriya claim of Shivaji, how did (at least some) Rajputs refer to Shivaji Maharaja as a fellow Rajput. That too 8 years BEFORE Gagabhatta?
If Gagabhatta fabricated the Kshatriya claim of Shivaji, how did (at least some) Rajputs refer to Shivaji Maharaja as a fellow Rajput. That too 8 years BEFORE Gagabhatta?
The Sisodiya lineage of Shivaji Maharaja was also accepted by the Bards of Rajputana.
The Mewari bard folk songs were published by GH Trevor in 1894.
According to these bardic songs, Shivaji was a descendant of a Rana of Mewar.
The Mewari bard folk songs were published by GH Trevor in 1894.
According to these bardic songs, Shivaji was a descendant of a Rana of Mewar.
According to this bardic song of Mewar, one of the descendants of Rana survived Khilji's sack of Chittor.
Because of the foreign yoke, this son was exiled to Deccan. He was the ancestor of Shivaji Maharaja who founded the Sattara throne. This Sattara throne "overturned Delhi"
Because of the foreign yoke, this son was exiled to Deccan. He was the ancestor of Shivaji Maharaja who founded the Sattara throne. This Sattara throne "overturned Delhi"
Historicity of this Bardic tale can well be questioned. But that is not of our concern here.
If anything, this tell us that even Rajputana bards accepted Shivaji Sisodiya lineage by 18th century.
Now contrast this with Audrey's statement - "Rajputs viewed Shivaji was Uncouth"
If anything, this tell us that even Rajputana bards accepted Shivaji Sisodiya lineage by 18th century.
Now contrast this with Audrey's statement - "Rajputs viewed Shivaji was Uncouth"
Of course,there would be exceptions to this portrayal.
For example, a letter by Maharaja Jai Singh addressed to Shivaji's arch rival Aurangzeb would understandably not portray Shivaji in very flattering terms.
Does that give @audreytruschke an incentive to generalize Rajputs?
For example, a letter by Maharaja Jai Singh addressed to Shivaji's arch rival Aurangzeb would understandably not portray Shivaji in very flattering terms.
Does that give @audreytruschke an incentive to generalize Rajputs?
@AudreyTruschke On his part, Shivaji had high regards for the Rajput house of Mewar.
Shivaji wrote a letter to Aurangzeb protesting against imposition of Jizya. In this letter, he dares Aurangzeb to collect Jizya from Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar.
Shivaji refers to Maharana as "Head of Hindus"
Shivaji wrote a letter to Aurangzeb protesting against imposition of Jizya. In this letter, he dares Aurangzeb to collect Jizya from Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar.
Shivaji refers to Maharana as "Head of Hindus"
@AudreyTruschke In 1828, Pratap Singh Bhosale, the last Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire, sent a Brahmin Shivanandashatri to Udaipur to enquire about their genealogy.
The Rana of Udaipur received the Brahman. He also provided the genealogy tracing Shivaji Bhonsale to the Sisodiya Rajputs.
The Rana of Udaipur received the Brahman. He also provided the genealogy tracing Shivaji Bhonsale to the Sisodiya Rajputs.
@AudreyTruschke What does this tell us? This tell us that even later Maharanas of Mewar and their genealogies were in agreement with the Sisodiya claim of Shivaji Maharaja.
This is the "Rajput Maratha dynamic" that, according to Audrey, undermines the Hindu identity
This is the "Rajput Maratha dynamic" that, according to Audrey, undermines the Hindu identity
@AudreyTruschke Gagabhatta was renowned as "Vedonarayana". He was the greatest Vedic scholar of the age.
The above makes it amply clear that Gagabhatta did not fabricate any lineage. There is zero evidence that he took any bribe.
Demonizing Brahmans is a constant colonial Indologist trope.
The above makes it amply clear that Gagabhatta did not fabricate any lineage. There is zero evidence that he took any bribe.
Demonizing Brahmans is a constant colonial Indologist trope.
@AudreyTruschke This board is displayed at the Samadhi Sthal of Maharana Pratap at Chavand (Rajasthan).
It gives the details of Mewar genealogy according to their tradition. It clearly mentions Shivaji Maharaja in its family tree. This board can also be found in Udaipur palace
It gives the details of Mewar genealogy according to their tradition. It clearly mentions Shivaji Maharaja in its family tree. This board can also be found in Udaipur palace
Shivaji's caste has been used for politics in the past.
Phule wrote a book named Shetkaryaca Asud( cultivator's whip).
He claimed Shiva was a Shudra. He also said Shivaji was an illiterate. Shivaji fell in influence of the "cunning" Samarth Ramdas & considered himself Kshatriya
Phule wrote a book named Shetkaryaca Asud( cultivator's whip).
He claimed Shiva was a Shudra. He also said Shivaji was an illiterate. Shivaji fell in influence of the "cunning" Samarth Ramdas & considered himself Kshatriya
This trope is used even today among some circles of Sambhaji Brigade. Some Indologists also parrot this line.
Ironically, Audrey shares the same line of thinking.
Ironically, Audrey shares the same line of thinking.
Shivaji Maharaj is one of India's greatest kings. His caste identity does not matter to us.
But a very false Anti Hindu narrative based on Shivaji's caste has been created by Phule & his followers. Dangerous hate politics played. Hence, it is essential to counter this with facts
But a very false Anti Hindu narrative based on Shivaji's caste has been created by Phule & his followers. Dangerous hate politics played. Hence, it is essential to counter this with facts
Infact, Anti Brahmin ideologues used Chatrapati melas to target Brahmin women.
They made sεxual innuendos about Brahmin women and cast aspersions on their chastity. Brahmins were characterized as Bαstards.
They used to say - "Chatrapati Mela has come, Brahmin women better run"
They made sεxual innuendos about Brahmin women and cast aspersions on their chastity. Brahmins were characterized as Bαstards.
They used to say - "Chatrapati Mela has come, Brahmin women better run"
Which is why, even as I principally agree with this gentleman's stand (i.e Shivaji Maharaja's caste does not matter), I still maintain that it is essential to correct false narratives that have been weaved to play dangerous hate politics.
To add further, even this letter, the only piece that Audrey could ever use to support of her claims( even if selectively) is not without problems. Recently, some questions have been raised online about its authenticity.
Loading suggestions...