After Ranjit Singh’s empire, I have always been fascinated by Maratha and Mysore. But making a movie like “Chaava” is an absolute disgrace to history as well as cinema.
In 1526, Babar won the First Battle of Panipat against Ibrahim Lodhi and established the Mughal Empire in India: ending Delhi Sultanate’s rule. But was that India as of India today? Or even as India-Pakistan-Bangladesh together as one unified empire? Ever?
No. It never even existed as a concept. British India made this map of India. Before that, it never even was a concept.
Consider ‘India-Pakistan-Bangladesh’ as ‘Sub-Continent’ from now on in this piece.
Over 2,000 years ago, it was Indus Valley Civilization. In scattered parts of Punjab, Sindh and KP of today’s Pakistan.
The oldest civilization in Sub-Continent was Mehrgarh of Balochistan which was founded 7,000 BC i.e., 9,000 years ago. I wrote on Mehrgarh some time back which you can find on the page. Ironically, we have tried our best to keep Balochistan as it was 9,000 years ago. Quite remarkable.
Maurya Empire (322 to 185 BC) can be called the closest to unified Sub-Continent but even that didn’t cover entire South India (Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu) as well as East India (Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam, and Meghalaya). Here goes 9 states of modern India altogether.
But Maurya Empire had Afghanistan and certain parts of Iran (Persia) too. Is that part of Indian myth too?
There were other empires like Gupta, Chola, etc. but none was as big as Maurya. After Maurya, it was only Mughal Empire from which you can forcibly extract the concept of unified Sub-Continent. In AD times – not CE or BC – it was only Mughal Empire that can give the modern saffron Indians the logic of grand unified region. Ideally speaking, Mughals should have been the heroes of Modi and BJP.
There is another myth of Ghauri and Ghaznavi as being ‘outsiders’ who came and looted and killed India. Well, that’s neither entirely true nor entirely false. You don’t need to take side of anyone in history. Just present it as it was.
First of all, there were no insiders or outsiders at that time. If Afghanistan was part of Maurya Empire, then both Ghauri and Ghaznavi were insiders. That would be enough of an argument for myopic idiots who just cherry-pick an idea with an already established bias of theirs.
After Asoka of Mauryan Empire, teachings of Buddha were prevalent as much in Afghanistan as they were in Northern Pakistan and India.
But yes, both Ghauri and Ghaznavi came for wealth in modern day Pakistan and India, which they did with wars and bloodshed. The demolition of Temple of Somnath was the ugliest action of Ghaznavi, and no one should defend or glorify that.
But also remember that long before Ghauri and Ghaznavi, Maryan Rulers attacked Afghanistan for wealth too. Asoka extended his empire to Afghanistan. Kanishka also included large parts of Afghanistan in his empire.
Again, no need to take side. You don’t need to defend anyone.
By the way, ever wondered why Alexander The Great came to India and almost reached Lahore? Yes, he wanted to teach philosophy of his teacher Aristotle to the people of India, but Raja Porus was too uneducated to understand the philosophy of life.
Alexander The Great was The Great. Ghauri and Ghaznavi were not. Well, none of them were. They were warrior kings and rulers.
Anyway, back to the topic. India was never a unified Sub-Continent ever in history. Until the British Raj arrived in the land of hundreds of princely states – all fighting each other. Cake for East India Company. Just like it was for Mamluks to establish Delhi Sultanate in 1206.
It was Delhi Sultanate from 1206 (Qutbuddin Aibak) to 1526 (Ibrahim Lodhi) that not only saved the region from the mighty power of Mongols but also established a system of governance. There were definitely flaws and issues but those were modern times of India in comparison to the rest of the world.
That Delhi Sultanate – which is also being wrongly portrayed in modern cinema – made Delhi the capital of the region for the first time. Delhi of Delhi Sultanate made Delhi as we know it today. That bad too?
The first female ruler of the Sub-Continent was Raziya Sultana (1236 to 1240). A small but significant rule.
By the way, which region ever had a dynasty named after slaves?
Currency was created. Coins were introduced. Trade flourished. Region was consolidated. Mostly liberal and secular social values. Sub-Continent became the richest region of the world. Roads were made. Shelters were established. Security was gradually enhanced. Infrastructures were raised.
Reminds me of another movie “Padmaavat” where Alauddin Khilji was ridiculed. Yes, he was not particularly noble or righteous ruler, but he did stop mighty Mongols from invading the Sub-Continent. He raised a big military and reorganized it. He branded his cavalry. Trade, market, and economy were reformed under his rule. That was all ignored obviously. Historians do not write him off as he was portrayed in that blockbuster movie. He holds a significant value among historians.
Come to the First Battle of Panipat of 1526 again. Yes, an outsider Babar (a Mongol to establish Mughal Empire) captured Delhi. Died in 1530. Humayun ruled from 1530-56 (excluding 5 years of Sher Shah Suri from 1540-45). Then Akbar from 1556-1605. After Akbar, all Mughal rulers had Indian mothers’ generation after generation. Yet, they remain outsiders for idiots.
The movie “Chhaava” mentioned traitors on both Mughal and Maratha sides but kept on ridiculing one side more than the other. Even ridiculing a certain bloodline.
Then the guerilla actions were too funny. A whole troop was decimated by a small guerilla army of Marathas swinging with ropes through trees. Another troop was killed by guerilla jumping out of river to impossible heights. Another guerilla army was waiting underground. No, not in the underground bunkers but just underneath the earth (without oxygen) of a village which was already attacked and destroyed by the Mughals. Only after the village was burnt down, they jumped out of the earth to decimate the Mughals.
History isn’t a comedy like that.
Founder of Maratha Empire – Shivaji Maharaj – had a Treaty of Purandar (1665) with Mughals. Aurangzeb Alamgir treated him honorably and his Darbar referred to him as ‘Raja’. Shivaji was a progressive and brave ruler but no he wasn’t born in direct defiance of Mughals. He wanted to establish his own Maratha Rule, and he wanted his sons to take-over after him. It wasn’t ‘Sawaraj’ as depicted in the movie.
Marathas under Shivaji attacked Mughals first in 1650s. After Mughals defeated them, the above-mentioned treaty was signed. In 1666, he came to meet Aurangzeb who treated him not according to Shivaji’s expectations. He showed his anger by publicly protesting. Hence, the king ordered him to be placed under house arrest.
Could have been killed instantly along with his son by Aurangzeb as the later was portrayed overly ruthless in every scene of the movie. No?
Son of Shivaji, Sambhaji (later on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Vicky Kaushal) once defected from his father to the Mughals in 1667. He joined Mughals and left Marathas for a brief time. However, he went to join Marathas again later on. Did the movie provide the audience with even a minor hint of that?
According to certain historians – not entirely credible – in the Battle of Bhupargarh (1679), Sambhaji was fighting with the Mughal army against the Marathas. Again, this needs to be verified diligently as internet has so much varying information on this topic. Wikipedia claims it to be true, but Wikipedia is not always reliable.
Moreover, history is also divided on who Shivaji wanted to succeed him as the ruler of the Maratha Empire. It wasn’t Sambhaji as a clear successor, as depicted in the movie, and there were bloody rebellions against him.
Such a ridiculous movie.
Note: I wrote a post on ‘1799’ about a year ago. Can be found easily on the website of the page. Do read that too because that year holds a lot of significance in human history from America to Europe to South Asia. Other than the year 1453.
