Did Congress Try To Erase Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj From History?

There is no direct evidence that the Congress officially tried to erase Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj from history, but there have been instances where its approach towards history and historiography led to the downplaying of his legacy. The claim that Congress deliberately tried to erase Shivaji Maharaj is often seen as political propaganda. However, some decisions and narratives promoted by Congress-led governments and leftist historians have contributed to this perception.

Instances That Created This Perception

1. Influence of Leftist Historians in Congress-Era Textbooks

During Congress rule, the writing of history textbooks was largely influenced by left-leaning historians. Many of these historians tried to portray Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as just a “regional chieftain” rather than a national hero. They downplayed his military strategies and his vision of Hindu self-rule (Swarajya), often portraying him as merely a secular ruler without acknowledging his resistance to Islamic imperialism.

For example, some NCERT textbooks during Congress rule focused more on Mughal rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb while giving only limited space to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. His portrayal was often neutralized, and his military campaigns against the Mughals were softened.

2. The “Secularization” of Shivaji Maharaj’s Legacy

Congress, particularly in the post-independence era, followed a policy of secularism that often led to the downplaying of Hindu cultural figures in official narratives. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was a Hindu king who resisted Mughal rule and established Hindu self-rule (Hindavi Swarajya). However, some Congress-backed historians tried to focus only on his administrative policies while avoiding the religious and cultural aspects of his rule.

For example, some narratives overemphasized his appointments of Muslim generals while downplaying his larger mission of Hindu self-rule. While Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was indeed fair to all religions, the Congress-sponsored historical narratives often tried to diminish his Hindu identity to fit a broader secular agenda.

3. Opposition to the Shivaji Memorial and Statues

In Maharashtra, various political parties, including the Congress, have faced criticism for delaying or opposing projects related to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. For instance, the ambitious Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Memorial in the Arabian Sea faced several bureaucratic delays, which some alleged were due to Congress-led governments not prioritizing it. This added to the perception that Congress was not interested in promoting his legacy.

Similarly, there have been cases where Congress politicians opposed the installation of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s statues in certain regions, citing secularism or political neutrality. This led to protests from regional parties like Shiv Sena and BJP, who accused Congress of disrespecting Maharashtra’s pride.

4. Controversial Statements by Congress Leaders

Over the years, some Congress leaders have made statements that fueled this perception. For example, Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar once suggested renaming places named after historical Hindu figures, which sparked controversy. Though not directly about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, such statements contributed to the belief that Congress was trying to diminish the role of Hindu kings in history.

Similarly, in 2017, the then Congress leader and former Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah’s government renamed a proposed Chhatrapati Shivaji statue project in Belagavi as “Kittur Rani Chennamma Circle.” While Rani Chennamma was also a great freedom fighter, many saw this as an attempt to replace Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s prominence.

5. Congress’s General Approach to Indian History

Congress’s historical narratives have often focused more on Mughal and Nehruvian history rather than indigenous Hindu rulers. School textbooks have given extensive coverage to Mughal rulers, British colonial administrators, and Congress’s role in the freedom struggle, while leaders like Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Maharana Pratap, and Rani Durgavati were often given less importance.

This pattern has created the impression that Congress preferred to highlight rulers who aligned with its secular narrative while ignoring or downplaying Hindu kings who resisted Islamic invasions.

Counterarguments – Was It Really an Erasure Attempt?

While there are valid reasons to believe that Congress did not actively promote Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy as much as it did for other historical figures, it is incorrect to say that Congress completely tried to erase him. Some counterarguments include:

• Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj has always been part of school textbooks, even if his contributions were not highlighted as much as they deserved.
• Several Congress leaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, have praised Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Nehru called him a “constructive genius” in The Discovery of India.
• Maharashtra Congress has often paid tribute to Shivaji Maharaj, and several Congress politicians have participated in Chhatrapati Shivaji Jayanti celebrations.
• Congress governments have funded the restoration of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s forts and historical sites.

Conclusion – A Mixed Reality

The claim that Congress tried to erase Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is a mix of truth and political propaganda. While there was no direct attempt to remove him from history, Congress-era historians and governments did not give him the prominence he deserved. Their secularist approach which infact was totally misunderstood by congress as secularism doesnot mean undermining own heros. Their secularist approach sometimes led to the underplaying of his Hindu identity and resistance against Mughal rule.

On the other hand, Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy was too strong to be erased. His memory lives on through forts, festivals, oral traditions, and political movements. While Congress may not have actively promoted him, the people of Maharashtra and India have ensured that his legacy remains untouchable.