Laine’s book doesn’t denigrate Shivaji

The brouhaha over James Laine’s book by various politicians and Maratha outfits would have been funny were it not so sad actually.

All of them are objecting to one particular line in what is otherwise
a very fine book and one that should be read by all those who revere the memory of Shivaji. Most of all, it should be read by the very same Maratha groups who claim the book insults Shivaji.

The book does no such thing. James Laine is not a historian. He is a professor of religious studies. His book, Shivaji — Hindu king in Islamic India is not a book on Shivaji’s life but on how Shivaji’s legacy has been appropriated by various castes and communities to further their own ends. In that, it is a scholarly attempt that looks at how Shivaji is portrayed in the various history books.

Thus, as Laine points outs, Dalits see him as the champion of the outcasts because he was one king who employed their services in his fight against his enemies; Hindutva historians see him merely as a Hindu king ranged against Muslims, seeking to establish a Hindu swaraj; Marathas see him only as their foremost leader who fought Muslim rulers, on one side, and Brahmin bigotry, on the other side; Brahmins have written about Shivaji as a king who achieved greatness because he was guided by Brahmin saints and advisors.

Laine brilliantly elucidates that if one were to only read Shivaji’s history as written by the Brahmins (excluding Saraswat Brahmins, who were badly treated by the other Brahmins), Shivaji achieves greatness only because his Brahmin advisors guided him. Thus, such historians overplay the role of Sant Ramdas as the one who literally showed Shivaji every step of the way.

In fact, a popular image of Shivaji that can be seen in any shop in Maharashtra is Shivaji sitting besides Sant Ramdas, who is pointing his hand in one direction, thus conveying the image of a Shivaji who was simply led by Ramdas. Brahmin historians tend to gloss over how Shivaji had to undergo purification rites before being crowned chhatrapati to overcome the objections of Brahmins in the 17th century.

But if the history is written by non-Brahmins (or the Saraswats), Shivaji is shown as an independent-minded person who took his own decisions. And, of course, they do mention Shivaji’s humiliation at the hands of Brahmins before his coronation.
Nowhere in the book does Laine take a derogatory line on Shivaji or the Marathas; if anything, it is laudable that an American professor based in the US should spend so much time and energy on writing about a man who founded the Maratha nation and is hailed by virtually all Maharashtrians, regardless of their caste, and who foreign scholars find so interesting to study. He deserves accolades, not brickbats.

Instead, we have a bunch of politicians who are seeking to further their own floundering careers by attacking him for merely noting what Brahmins joke about. If anyone must be blamed for that, it should be those Brahmins who crack such jokes amongst themselves (and, one presumes, when out of hearing range of the Sambhaji Brigade and the Thackerays).

But what we have is the ridiculous spectacle of political groups and outfits attacking the messenger, James Laine, for merely stating what he has heard. Of course, it is far easier to shoot the messenger, and particularly if, as is the case with James Laine, the messenger is a foreigner, rather than actually find the persons who crack such jokes. It does not show their power but the utter lack of it. The real tragedy is these people think they are the successors of Shivaji. That, too, would have been funny were it not so sad.