Did Jawaharlal Nehru ‘insult’ Shivaji? The debate over Fadnavis’ assertion, clarified- Economy Junction

A spoken altercation has really burst out in between the Congress and the BJP upfront of the Maharashtra Assembly political election.

Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Saturday requested Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to apologise for the “insult” of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj by the nation’s very first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

This is the 2nd time that Fadnavis has really raised the topic to reply to the resistance’s objection over the collapse of the 35-foot Shivaji Maharaj statuary in Malvan’s Sindhudurg that Prime Minister Narendra Modi revealed in 2015.

What occurred?

Congress chief Rahul Gandhi revealed a sculpture of Shivaji Maharaj, the proprietor of the Maratha realm, in Kolhapur metropolis of western Maharashtra on Saturday.

He took a dig at PM Modi over the statuary collapse at Rajkot Fort by claiming, “There is no use of bowing before Shivaji Maharaj after scaring people, destroying the Constitution and institutions in the country.”

Fadnavis replied to the jibe at an event in Thane, “Rahul Gandhi is in Kolhapur today to inaugurate a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. He is remembering Shivaji Maharaj now. But he should first apologise for the insult of Shivaji Maharaj by Nehru in his book.”

This is the 2nd time Fadnavis has really implicated Nehru of disparaging the warrior king. He declares that Nehru revealed Shivaji Maharaj in a “poor light” in his publication The Discovery of India.

The BJP chief initially focused Nehru over the issue when Congress held an illustration versus the collapse of the Shivaji Maharaj statuary at Rajkot Fort in Sindhudurg space, just about 8 months after it was revealed by PM Modi.

“This agitation is completely political. Be it Maha Vikas Aghadi or the Congress party, they never respected Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Nehru ji insulted Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in The Discovery of India. Will Congress and MVA apologise for it? In Madhya Pradesh, the then CM Kamal Nath demolished the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with a bulldozer,” he had really acknowledged.

He moreover declared that the Maratha king by no means ever appropriated Surat, nonetheless it was a phony narrative established by the Congress to disclose him in insufficient gentle.

“After Independence, the Congress deliberately taught us that Shivaji Maharaj looted Surat. But he just plundered the treasury from the rightful people for ‘Swarajya’ or attacked them there. However, Congress taught us the history in such a way that showed Shivaji Maharaj went to Surat to loot common people,” he acknowledged.

What’s the fact?

According to a quick learn of The Discovery of India, Nehru counseled Shivaji and criticised Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.

An passage concerning Shivaji from information checks out, “Shivaji, born in 1627, was the ideal guerilla leader of hardened mountaineers and his cavalry went far and wide, sacking the city of Surat, where the English had their factory, and enforcing the chowth tax payment over distant parts of the Mughal dominions. Shivaji was the symbol of a resurgent Hindu nationalism, drawing inspiration from the old classics, courageous, and possessing high qualities of leadership. He built up the Marathas as a strong unified fighting group, gave them a nationalist background, and made them a formidable power that broke up the Mughal empire. He died in 1680 but the Maratha power continued to grow till it dominated India.”

Speaking of Marathas, Nehru wrote, “Warren Hastings wrote in 1784, “The Marathas possess, alone of all the people in Hindustan and the Deccan, a principle of national attachment, which is strongly impressed on the minds of all individuals of the nation, and would probably unite their chiefs, as in one common cause, if any danger were to threaten the general state’. Probably this national sentiment of theirs was largely confined to the Marathi-speaking area. Nevertheless, the Marathas were Catholic in their political and military system as well as their habits, and there was a certain internal democracy among them. All this gave strength to them. Shivaji, though he fought Aurangzeb, freely employed Muslims.”

“Aurangzeb, far from understanding the present, failed even to appreciate the immediate past; he was a throw-back and, for all his ability and earnestness, he tried to undo what his predecessors had done. A bigot and an austere puritan, he was no lover of art or literature. He infuriated the great majority of his subjects by imposing the old hated jezia poll tax on the Hindus and destroying many of their temples. He offended the proud Rajputs, who had been props and pillars of the empire. In the north, he roused the Sikhs, who, from being a peaceful sect representing some sort of synthesis of Hindu and Islamic ideas, were converted by repression and persecution into a military brotherhood. Never the west coast of India, he angered the warlike Marathas, descendants of the ancient Rashrkutas, just when a brilliant captain had risen among them,” Nehru composed.

How did Congress react?

The Congress has really implicated Fadnavis of spreading out phony tales.

“Fadnavis should answer when he reads the book. Nehru had revised his first edition and written to historians in 1936 to send him inputs to make necessary revisions. He was an intellectual giant and had accepted that the first edition was written while he was in jail and had no access to reference material,” Congress consultant Pawan Khera had really acknowledged beforehand.

Speaking to press reporters, Maharashtra Congress principal Nana Patole acknowledged Fadnavis repetitively existed concerning Nehru’s talk about Chhatrapati Shivaji.

“Nehru wrote the book while in jail. After he was released, he revised his comments and also apologised. But Fadnavis has still not apologised for the collapse of Chhatrapati Shivaji’s statue in Malvan. He should tell us when he will apologise,” he knowledgeable press reporters, together with that PM Modi ought to say his function within the very first 2 regards to the NDA federal authorities versus merely hanging the Congress.

With inputs from firms