Till date Sambhaji continues to evoke mixed reactions. Some hail him as a bravest Maratha warrior that ever lived , whereas some critisise him for his indolence and weakness for a good life (which is again open for a debate). But even his critics concede the mans genius. Sambhajis critics like Kincaid-Parasnis mention him spending months in pleasure seeking, only to emerge out of hibernation one fine day, and put up a string of military succeses, wiping out all the blots of procrastination he may be accused of.
Many (Like Dramatist Kanetkar who has written a famous play on Sambhaji titled 'Raigadala jevha jaag yete i.e when Fort Raigad came alive) attribute his split personality to the early plots of his step mother and the ministers against him .This made him wary about the people around him. He wasn’t able to trust easily.The historians further conclude that he gathered some wrong people around him, who deliberately led him astray to suit their purposes. He probably spent months under their unsavoury influence,only to be shaken back into reality and good sense by some of Shivajis old loyal aides like Hambirrao Mohite.
But one has to understand that all the historians who have written adversely about Sambhaji either belonged to enemy camps (Mughal, British,Portuguese) or have based their reasons on the Chitnis bakhar, a treatise written 120 years after the death of Sambhaji and that too by a descendent of a man (Balaji Avji Chitnis) who was executed by Sambhaji. Hence one has to be very circumspect before giving complete credence to this bakhar. Even the Sabhadsad bakhar written (4-5 years after Sambhajis death) by Krishnaji Anant Sabhasad, an contemporary of Shivaji, was in his final years (when he wrote the bakhar) an employee of Ch. Rajaram. So its not surprising that he has many a kind word for Rajaram, but presents Sambhaji in a negative light.
Similarly the Sivadigvijaya bakhar though attributed to Khando Ballal Chitnis , the son of Balaji Avji in fact appears to be written by someone else (probably by someone amongst the Chitnis descendents themselves).
Also it must be noted that Sambhaji had to face a formidable opponent in the form of the mughal emperor Aurangzeb himself, something which even the great Shivaji was spared of (luckily as Aurangzeb was busy with his Afghanistan campaign).
The mughal might was several folds greater than that of Bijapur and to Sambhajis credit he gave the mughals a very tough fight. He also added several territories to Shivajis existing kingdom like parts of the Portuguese empire in Konkan and Goa, tracts of the Bijapur territory in Karnataka etc. As the acclaimed author Narhar Kurundar says - if five to six forts were indeed lost to the mughals four to five were also wrested away from this strong enemy.
Also the charge that Sambhaji couldnt evoke loyalty from his men is also flawed. Excluding the conspirators majority of his men stuck by the side of Sambhaji. Treachery by men was a part and parcel of the Maratha history. These took place in Shivajis time as well and continued during Sambhajis time and also thereafter. Mughals were financially strong and would often buy loyalties of men. This is ofcourse more telling about the character of certain people rather than about Sambhaji's ability to command loyalty in his people.
Another charge levelled on Sambhaji is that he was a alcoholic, addicted to opium, a hedonistic person, and very careless and irresponsible towards the day to day administration of his kingdom. Assuming that he consumed alcohol, dosent automatically make him an alcoholic. Nor does it mean that he was negligent in his affairs. Even the part of him being a womaniser may have been grossly exaggerated and more is a part of chronicles written in the enemy camp.
Moreover a king whose kingdom was under seige by the mighty mughal empire can hardly afford to lead a life of a hedonist. His brief reign of eight years witnessed several campaigns which wouldnt have been possible without Sambhajis personal attention.
Similarly the Sivadigvijaya bakhar though attributed to Khando Ballal Chitnis , the son of Balaji Avji in fact appears to be written by someone else (probably by someone amongst the Chitnis descendents themselves).
Also it must be noted that Sambhaji had to face a formidable opponent in the form of the mughal emperor Aurangzeb himself, something which even the great Shivaji was spared of (luckily as Aurangzeb was busy with his Afghanistan campaign).
The mughal might was several folds greater than that of Bijapur and to Sambhajis credit he gave the mughals a very tough fight. He also added several territories to Shivajis existing kingdom like parts of the Portuguese empire in Konkan and Goa, tracts of the Bijapur territory in Karnataka etc. As the acclaimed author Narhar Kurundar says - if five to six forts were indeed lost to the mughals four to five were also wrested away from this strong enemy.
Also the charge that Sambhaji couldnt evoke loyalty from his men is also flawed. Excluding the conspirators majority of his men stuck by the side of Sambhaji. Treachery by men was a part and parcel of the Maratha history. These took place in Shivajis time as well and continued during Sambhajis time and also thereafter. Mughals were financially strong and would often buy loyalties of men. This is ofcourse more telling about the character of certain people rather than about Sambhaji's ability to command loyalty in his people.
Another charge levelled on Sambhaji is that he was a alcoholic, addicted to opium, a hedonistic person, and very careless and irresponsible towards the day to day administration of his kingdom. Assuming that he consumed alcohol, dosent automatically make him an alcoholic. Nor does it mean that he was negligent in his affairs. Even the part of him being a womaniser may have been grossly exaggerated and more is a part of chronicles written in the enemy camp.
Moreover a king whose kingdom was under seige by the mighty mughal empire can hardly afford to lead a life of a hedonist. His brief reign of eight years witnessed several campaigns which wouldnt have been possible without Sambhajis personal attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment