Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India [Hardcover]

I read with dismay about the ban on this book and the vandalism at BORI, with the loss of so many irreplaceable historical documents and treasures. This is Indian history that was lost forever through senseless destruction, and Indians are the poorer for it. It's a shame that a democracy has to resort to book banning; and so readily produces mindless mobs who wantonly destroy priceless history. Democracy can't exist without the freedom of speech, including speech you consider to be wrong or contrary to your beliefs.

That said, this book is an ill-assorted compendium of half-digested facts and speculation, without any attempt at rigorous scholarship. I know the author has since explicitly stated that it is not meant to be historical; it is in fact a collection of stories about Shivaji -- some historical and documented, others that he heard from his buddies over a cup of tea in Pune. The trouble is that most people *do* see it as a factual account (with authority conferred by the credentials of the author and the Oxford University Press). To some extent, it is the fault of the author for not being sufficiently explicit to begin with, but then again, he probably did not expect such scrutiny from the public.

No one knows the truth except the author himself, but I really do not think he set out deliberately to demean Hinduism or to defend Islam. The hints of cultural smugness, his confidence in the interpretations of Western rather than Indian scholars, and the discussion (funny and inept though it may be) of why Indian scholars might be biased in their accounts, are probably also not deliberate. It is common practice to assume that someone who has nothing invested emotionally in the culture or religion under study is more impartial. This viewpoint ignores any biases that the scholar may bring with him from his own culture, but the assumption is not inherently demeaning or mischievous.

I see more prosaic explanations. First, there is this trend in the West to introduce ambiguity into *all* history. All history was written by humans, who no doubt had their own biases and motives -- so all history is suspect. All history, that is, except physical, archeological evidence. But that doesn't really tell us who the heroes were, and who the villains. I'm sure a healthy skepticism is good for research. Sometimes though, and this book comes across as an example, it is carried to an extreme, resulting in a very flexible history where one man's speculations are as good as another's documented facts; and who cares about the difference anyway so long as you tell a good story.

That brings me to the second reason. Aside from getting brownie points from fellow scholars for being fashionably ambiguous, it also opens up a popular mass-market for your books. Many of the scholarly books that score big with the lay public do so not because of their originality or scholarship, but because they tell a lurid and exciting tale. And anyone who thinks that "scholarly" authors like James Laine didn't have this market in mind is kidding himself. They check their Amazon sales rank as often as any newbie novelist.

The book indeed shows no sensitivity towards Hindu beliefs or culture, but why is that so strange. It was written by a Christian, who at the very least, must believe that Hindus are deluded and must be brought into the fold. By the nature of Christianity (or Islam, for that matter), you do people a favor when you chip into their heathen beliefs and soften them up to accept your God. This is hard for Hindus to understand on an emotional level, since Hindus are typically born into Hinduism, not converted. They have no experience of the missionary-conversion zeal, except as it was done to them by Muslims and Christians.

My suggestion is, get used to it. As India modernizes and becomes part of the global economy, more world attention will be focused on it. You will see much more of this kind of attention, and banning books or destroying manuscripts only gets bad press. Indian historians and intellectuals have their own accounts to give. These are valuable accounts, largely unknown to the West. A century's worth of respectibility and authenticity has attached itself to the interpretations of dead white colonial men. It can't be dislodged in a day, and surely never by book bans and mob violence.

Having said that, we come to the book, where Prof. Laine, unfortunately exhibits a serious tendency to put his foot in his mouth almost everytime that he opens it to speak! He relies on altogether untenable arguments, culled from obscure sources quite out of the context (often from western scholars), even while ignoring a vast body of historical evidence that may be contrary to his half-baked thesis, to serve us what we may call, yes, his unoriginal 'cracks' on the Shivaji story.

For example, the Ramdas issue. As every Indian knows, being non-vegetarian does not automatically bar one from the discipleship of vegetarian Gurus. Then again, there are Gurus themselves who may be non-vegetarian. We don't practice apartheid in matters of discipleship. Nor casteism, as even elementary knowledge of the Varkari tradition reveals. Ramdas himself has composed the most popular aratis in Maharashtra to Ganesh and Shiva as well as to Rama-Krishna. Being Vaishnav does not prevent people from worshipping Ganesh, Shiva, the Goddess or other deities and vice versa. Rama himself worshipped Shivalingams at various times, and Shiva is known to do mantrajapa of Rama's name! A Guru's absenteeing from a royal coronation is not proof of his rejection of a chela. Gurus are known to follow their own rules. Wanderers by definition, they are not on the keep of monarchs. Moreover, in his famous treatise, Dasbodh, (like his famous letter addressed to Shivaji) Ramdas has composed inspired verses on the great liberator, indicating that Shivaji was in fact a divine incarnation embodied to bring the rule of dharma in the ravaged land! [And let us remind the Professor of his stupidity in questioning Shivaji's role as the liberator and national hero, when this same fact is asserted, in the light of the present controversy, by revered Muslim politicians and scholars like Abdul Rehman Antulay and Rafiq Zakaria!]

Similarly, despite his claim of familiarity with the state, the author is unaware that for centuries, it is the Ganesh festival that has reined supreme in Maharashtra, which is why Tilak chose it as a vehicle for mass mobilization against colonial exploitation. Dr. Laine's egotistic monologues on the subject would have been rendered unnecessary had he developed sufficient openness to simply ask people in a straightforward manner, as a researcher and a scholar, rather than to impose upon the readers his own presumptuous and convoluted critiques! Unless he wrote only for those even less knowledgeable of the ground reality than himself, in which case the OUP should have restricted the sale to westerners only, with the injunction of "subject matter highly injurious to the peace of mind of natives and/or primitives"...

Then again, horror of horrors, the presiding deity of Maharashtra, Tulja Bhawani, of the 52 most sacred shaktipeeths in India, is castigated by the learned Christian Professor as a 'low caste deity' and a 'non-vegetarian Goddess'. This alone is enough to cause further rioting in other parts of India and Nepal, among an emotional people who take their religion seriously!

His citing an obscure Persian document without giving sufficient detail, to assert that Shivaji's granddaughters were married to Muslim nobles is another instance of irresponsible scholarship, thoroughly ignorant as the writer is of the strict rules governing marriage as a sacred tie among Hindus, and especially the royalty!

Then again, his contemptuous reference to Maharaja Sayajirao III of Baroda, as someone 'with even more questionable bloodlines' is simply additional proof of a loose screw that the Professor should get examined without further delay. He is blissfully unaware that the personage in question was one of the most respected rulers of India, who did much for the cause of education of women and also for the downtrodden in India, at a time that women were not even allowed to vote in the USA! Case enough for the descendants of Baroda to sue the writer publisher duo for serious libel! A concern that may be equally shared by other royalty, including the descendants of Shivaji Maharaj from Satara, Kolhapur and Thanjavur, especially, of Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur, for equally dismissive remarks.

There are innumerable instances of Prof. James Laine's skewed approach to the subject, and the question that really begs answer is as to what made the OUP collaborate on this venture, so full of utter disrespect to the leaders, culture and society of Maharashtra. While there are champions galore for such irresponsible and insidious scholarship in the name of freedom of speech, should not responsible people also uphold the right of book buyers to hold the writer accountable for the uncalled-for damage to the 'native psyche', in the blatant pillorying of its society and so many of its greatest nation-builders? The latter includes Lokmanya Tilak, whom Mahatma Gandhi held up as his inspiration in the struggle for freedom!

And even then, transparent truth would not have wrought the kind of denouement that this drivel has served up! It is the falsification of truth, and of the living reality of the people out there that must be condemned in this kind of a 'pseudo-intellectual' exercise. For all his self-proclaimed pious intentions, Prof. Laine has merely cast stones at 'the Shivaji story' on the basis of insufficient scholarship and then too with a highly prejudiced mind, to merely demonise all of Maharashtra. A contradiction couldn't get curiouser, in the light of the proof offered by the book itself!