31

Mar

 Chhava Movie : Using Selective Historiography For Political Ends

image

Prof Ram Puniyani

A person wearing glasses and a blue shirt AI-generated content may be incorrect.

New Delhi | Monday | 31 March 2025

As communal hate rises through the political use of history, new dimensions have emerged in recent years. Besides propaganda through RSS Shakhas, social media, BJP’s IT cell, and mainstream media, films have become a major tool for spreading misconceptions.

Recent films like Kerala Story and Kashmir Files fueled hatred, while others like Swatantraveer Savarkar, 72 Hoorain, and Samrat Prithviraj were less impactful. The latest film Chhava is taking communal sentiments even further. Based on Shivaji Samant’s novel, it is not a historical film, and its makers have already apologized for inaccuracies.

 

Article at a Glance
The rise of communal hate in India has been exacerbated by the political manipulation of history, with films becoming a significant medium for spreading misconceptions. Recent films like "Kerala Story" and "Kashmir Files" have intensified communal sentiments, while "Chhava," based on Shivaji Samant’s novel, further distorts historical narratives. The film focuses on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj’s life, portraying Aurangzeb as exceptionally cruel while neglecting the complexities of historical alliances and the brutal nature of all medieval kings. It emphasizes a Hindu vs. Muslim narrative, ignoring the fact that both Hindu and Muslim rulers engaged in violence and political maneuvering. Historians argue that communal interpretations selectively highlight events to fuel divisive politics, undermining India's constitutional fabric. The portrayal of historical figures like Aurangzeb and Shivaji is often oversimplified, leading to a distorted understanding of their legacies and the socio-political dynamics of their time.

 

The film selectively portrays Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj’s life, emphasizing Aurangzeb’s cruelty and anti-Hindu stance. Out of 126 minutes, 40 minutes focus on Sambhaji’s torture, a section where the filmmaker may have taken creative liberties. The film follows the Hindu vs. Muslim narrative, distorting medieval history.

Sambhaji Maharaj, Shivaji’s eldest son, inherited his father’s legacy. Shivaji’s administration included many Muslims, such as Maulana Haider Ali (confidential secretary) and generals like Siddi Sambal and Ibrahim Gardi. Shivaji’s subordinate, Rustom-e-Zamaan, provided him with iron claws for his fight against Afzal Khan. Meanwhile, Afzal Khan’s secretary, Krishnanji Bhaskar Kulkarni, attempted to attack Shivaji.

Aurangzeb’s army against Shivaji was led by Raja Jaisingh. When Shivaji was imprisoned, a Muslim prince, Madari Mehtar, helped him escape. Despite Hindutva ideologues Savarkar and Golwalkar questioning Sambhaji’s character, his alliances were strategic. At times, he sided with Aurangzeb, including against Adilshah of Bijapur.

After Shivaji’s death, Sambhaji’s half-brother Rajaram attempted to poison him. In response, Sambhaji executed many Hindu officers involved in the conspiracy. Aurangzeb’s general Rathod led battles against Sambhaji, who was eventually captured and tortured. The film dramatizes this suffering, reinforcing misconceptions about Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb is portrayed as exceptionally cruel, ignoring the brutal nature of all medieval kings. Historian Ruchika Sharma notes how Chola kings mutilated Chalukya generals. Ashoka’s Kalinga war was marked by severe brutality. Kings commonly inflicted atrocities on enemies, a practice that cannot be judged by modern standards. Contemporary parallels include bulldozing Muslim homes without legal trials.

One Hindu king executed conspirators by throwing them off cliffs. Bal Samant describes Shivaji’s army’s brutal plundering of Surat. Portuguese records cited by historian Jadunath Sarkar describe Sambhaji’s Marathas as exceptionally barbaric in their attack on Goa. Such instances highlight that violence was pervasive in that era.

Was Aurangzeb anti-Hindu? Unlike Akbar or Dara Shikoh, he was orthodox and opposed non-Sunni sects. However, he also had numerous Hindu officers, comprising 33% of his administration, according to historian Athar Ali. While he destroyed some temples, he also donated to many, including Kamakhya Devi (Guwahati), Mahakaleshwar (Ujjain), and temples in Vrindavan and Chitrakoot. Similarly, Shivaji donated to Sufi dargahs.

Temple destruction was often a political act rather than a religious one. Richard Eaton explains that victors targeted enemy rulers’ places of worship. However, communal historians selectively highlight Muslim rulers’ temple destructions while ignoring their donations to Hindu temples.

Aurangzeb imposed Jizya after 22 years in power, exempting Brahmins, women, and disabled people. It was not a conversion tool but a 1.25% property tax, compared to the 2.5% Zakat paid by Muslims. His actions against Sikh Gurus were more about political struggles than religious persecution.

Communal historians cherry-pick events, ignoring the broader medieval context. Kings used religion to mobilize armies, with Hindu rulers invoking Dharma Yudh and Muslim rulers calling for Jihad. Right-wing narratives view kings through religious lenses rather than as rulers pursuing power and wealth. These distortions fuel divisive politics, threatening India’s constitutional fabric.

**************

The writer is a human rights activist. The views are personal.

 

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed