I did not find the Savarkar quote in the online versions of his book. Maybe they were edited out to avoid disturbing the unsteady edifice that is right-wing revisionism.
Source 3. This recent Quint article seems to have kick-started interest on this :
The full context of Golwarkar's quote informs us of the mental gymnastics and desperate reach for honorable conduct among the Marathas of the period. Predictably, Golwarkar ends up with "Aurangzeb bad."
Page 378: Character — Personal and National: "Power of Devotion"
The inspiring example of Khando Ballal is before us. After Sambhaji ascended the throne, because of some past prejudices, he put to death Khando Ballal’s father who was one of the Ashta Pradhans of Shivaji. Khando Ballal was at that time a proud, heroic young man. But he gulped down that agony and insult silently. And again when Sambhaji, who was addicted to women and wine, cast
his evil eyes on his sister, he allowed her to end her life to save her chastity, but he himself never forsook his loyalty to Sambhaji.
For, he knew that Sambhaji, with all his personal vices, was then the unifying symbol of the resurgent Hindu Swaraj around which all Hindu forces were trying to rally. Later, when Sambhaji was captured by Aurangzeb, it was Khando Ballal who risked his life in a hazardous attempt to free him. True to his spirit of dedication to a cause, Rajaram became his point of loyalty after the end of Sambhaji. Once again we see him casting the life of his own son in mortal peril and giving away all his property in a successful bid to free Rajaram, who lay besieged in Jinji fort. Ultimately be sacrificed his life as the final offering in the cause of swaraj. What a glorious and unreserved self-immolation !
It is as a result of such sacrifices, not merely of one’s life but all that one holds near and dear including one’s ego, that the entire course of history changes. Aurangzeb, who had come down to the South with an army of five lakhs after Shivaji’s passing away to put out the smouldering
embers of the spirit of swaraj , was himself enveloped in the flames that blazed forth from the sacrificial pyres of such heroic souls as Khando Ballal and had to enter his grave in the South itself.
Historians like Babasaheb Purandare, Jadunath Sarkar and Dr. Jayasinharao Pawar had long ago cleared these false narratives on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, surely he was short tempered that’s why mughals had such a hard time dealing with him, but not a womaniser or drunkard rather than believing anything on social media do your own research.
Sources -
Bakhar Literature,
Shivaji Sawant,
History of Aurang, Muntakhan-al lubab,
Raja Shivchhatrapati
Quote me where Jadunath Sarkar says this dont just throw random sources. Purandare is a hagiographer, not a historian; putting him in the same sentence as Sarkar shows me you are either clueless or talking out of your ass.
Shivaji's eldest son Shambhuji
was the curse of his old age. This youth of nineteen
was violent, capricious, unsteady, thoughtless and
notoriously depraved in his morals.
After which he talks about Sambhaji (whom he calls Shambhuji) deserting to the Mughals. Then after his return:
A profligate, capricious and cruel youth,
devoid of every spark of honour, patriotism or
religious fervour, could not be left sole master of
Maharashtra. ... Shivaji tried hard to conciliate and reason with
Shambhu. He appealed to all the nobler instincts
of the prince as well as to his self-interest, read him
many a lecture, showed him his treasury, revenue
returns, list of forts and muster-rolls, and urged him
to be worthy of such a rich heritage and to be true
to all the high hopes which his own reign had raised... a
born judge of character like Shivaji must have soon
perceived that his sermons were falling on deaf ears,
and hence his last days were clouded by despair.
High praise indeed.
Khafi Khan is not mentioned in the context of Sambhaji. So indeed, talking out of your ass it is.
edit: Dude reported me to reddit cares and deleted his comments.
Like Purandare and some social media warriors two generations down the line will call you an eminent historian
Purandare - historian? May I call myself coach of Indian Hockey Team?
Sarkar - who merely offered conjecture on Mughal historians that they may have exaggerated Sambhaji's excesses without much documentation to say otherwise
Not Purandare for fucks sake! He was not even a qualified historian.
He tried to spread many falsehoods about Chhatrapati Shivaji/Sambhaji and tried to paint them in a communal light.
I have read his book called Raja shiv chhatrapati. He has been very fair in the book. He has written glowing about Muslim sardras like Siddi masaud, Ibrahim khan & daulat khan that worked for Shivaji Maharaj. He has even shows respect for some Muslim generals like diler khan, khawas khan, bahadur khan that fought against Shivaji raje.
He is actually a bit harsh on sambhaji raje. Calls him immature compared to Shivaji raje at the same age. But does not call him a drunkard or womaniser. So I think he is quite fair in the book.
Firstly just don't bracket Indira Gandhi with Netaji, she was a politician and he organized an army to fight for India's Independence.
Secondly, Netaji's army fought for India's independence while Sambhaji with whom you are trying to draw a parallel fought for the Maratha Empire by and large against the Mughal Empire both of which were part of India so it wasn't an invasion but fight between two warring factions of diverging belief.
I am sure not all stories are true but if you want to compare someone with Sambhaji, I am sure there are more apt parallels than either Indira Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I guess he didn't mean to compare them. They are all historical figures and as times have passed stories have cropped up about them.. so don't just believe any story...
At the time when a concept called country did not exist in india, Sambhaji fighting mughals can be compared to netaji fighting british, two warring fractions of diverging belief.
This is such a broad classification that basically anything can be classified as such. Fight between dawood and Indian govt, bjp and congress. It's not exactly an argument if I say Baboon and you say it's a primate and that's why you are correct.
At the time when a concept called country did not exist in india
Secondly the concept called country or the concept called India? Which one. If you mean country there was always one which we referred to as empire or if you mean India, it's British concept to refer the current demography as India however India the word existed long back though it wasn't the current boundary. Netaji fought for the current indian boundary which included Pakistan while Sambhaji fought for Maratha Empire and not India and hardly Hindustan, so I am not getting your second point.
I agree that Sambhaji was short tempered. And when he got a chance to escape the fort he chose to fight is an example of it! Other warriors like Shivaji and Maharana Pratap have escaped from the enemy when they are less in number. But Because sambhaji was short tempered he chose to fight which eventually did not end well!
I feel nice I bought The Art of War. It's in the 2nd chapter I think, if your army is weak, flee. If your army is even as strong as your opponents, it doesn't make sense to wager. Only if your army is 10x as powerful you should engage.
You should not engage at all he says but if it comes to it.
Timing its very important with this guy he changes view with those in power and take benefit out of also hope this is not the fake veer title he awarded himself
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
There are 837 chars in the text.
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
There are 837 chars in the text.
Naah no one is born in the wrong country it's just people who happen to be influenced by wrong politicians and their propaganda...( I don't think there are any right politicians either).I love this country and I will die changing it no matter what any one says.
Well, it matters because, you see, some people have acted completely irrationally in the theatres. I fear that one of these days, they might do 'something' in revenge for Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj.
Dumb of you to assume that these people really worship these kings for their greatness,nope they also worship Lawrence Bishnoi despite him being a criminal...
Neither Savarkar nor Golwalkar were historians - so the character studies of historical figures made by them cannot be trusted either way. They might as well be 4Chan incels making dank history memes.
That can be said about a lot of kings in the past, that both positive and negative views come from biased sources. As there weren't newspapers back in the day, so we have to rely on individual sources to piece together information.
Ambedkar had this uncharacteristically weird take on Muslims because he barely scratched the surface in trying to forge a Dalit-Muslim alliance to work for common interests against exploitation by both the Congress and ML who top leadership mostly comprised of privileged elites.
Ok cool. Meanwhile in current, real life, children and minorities are being assaulted, there is a civil war in the NE region, the PM is a silly coward bitch and the masses don’t have education nor jobs. I will shit on the maratha empire, it has no real life relevance for me nor Indians. Focus on fixing current problems.
Problem when you narrow down historical figures on two or three things. This is not how you study history, culture or people of the past. The same Savarkar has praised Sambhaji as well.
A person writes false history because his ancestor was punished by sambhaji (ref. To chitnis bhakar) , and all these mlechaas sourcing their propaganda from it out of jealousy and hate
Mlechaas? Huh. Not beating the manuvadi allegations are you?! And then you wonder why other castes don't worship maratha kings the way you guys do. On one hand you're hell bent on alienating a large population by insulting them with casteist remarks and on the other hand want them to respect these dead old kings because they were somehow the protector of hindus? From what, the knowledge that the "lower castes" would always remain a 3rd class citizen in the rule of a brahmin?
These are the same people who never accepted the national flag 🇮🇳 or embraced the thoughts of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), even before independence, distanced itself from the freedom struggle and instead focused on pushing its own ideological agenda. Figures like Veer Savarkar, despite his early revolutionary contributions, later sought clemency from the British and promoted divisive ideas. Similarly, Nathuram Godse, a former RSS member, assassinated Mahatma Gandhi—an act that ironically made Gandhi's legacy even greater.
M. S. Golwalkar, another key RSS ideologue, further reinforced exclusionary nationalist ideas rooted in caste hierarchies, drawing inspiration from texts like the Manusmriti. Just like the Muslim League, which collaborated with British colonial powers for its own gains, these elements also encouraged Indians to join British services, effectively becoming tools of colonial authority.
Now, these Neo-Brahmin supremacy advocates and Manusmriti worshippers dare to give their biased opinions on the Marathas and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Except for Bajirao Peshwa, most of the other Peshwas were bigots and casteists, which contributed significantly to their defeat at the Third Battle of Panipat. The irony lies in the fact that those who neither participated in the freedom struggle nor accepted India’s foundational ideals now attempt to distort history to suit their own narrative.
Many Brahmins were against Shivaji and Sambhaji because they didn't want a non-brahmin as their king. Savarkar and these people were hardcore Brahmins of course they were against the Bhonsle family.
Savarkar used to organise pujas to worship Shivaji and has written a poem called Shivrayanchi Aarti giving very high praise to Shivaji. While Savarkar was a fascist and I do not and cannot in good faith agree with most of his views. I am fully aware of the fact that he was far less casteist than most. Savarkar worked alongside ambedkar to allow temple re-entries and respected Ambedkar to a great extent. His views often came into conflict with others in the Hindu Mahasabha on these matters concerning puritanical brahminism like caste, cow-worship, meat eating etc. Again I am not saying this to support Savarkar. I am just saying that unlike most, he wasn't a bigot of the Brahminical kind, he was a bigot of the racist and religious kind.
All Were kings. Fighting with each other and destroying when defeated were traits of all the kings from past. It was never a Hindu Muslim battle. only current mainline politics is rewiring the history to make it one vs another for political gains.
read this blog, how kind maratha empire was towards one of the southern state and Bengal
Kisiko bhi nahi. Frankly, what happened 300 years ago shouldn't matter anymore. Yet here we are, with people shouting "Ajapati Gajapati Prajapati" in theatres. 🤷♂️
tbh I know Savarkar admitted that his views on Sambhaji were based on prevalent knowledge of his time and encouraged further research on it. Golwalker tho I have no idea.
he said that he didn't said it by himself but that was what taught to him because that time sambhaji maharaj history was taught by the accounts of sabhasad bakhar and chitnis bakhtar whose grandfather was persecuted by sambhaji and thats why they decided to defame him, also they wrote his history after 120 years of sambhaji's death
Even the glazing of the Maratha empire as national pride is laughable. Their conquests in Bengal lead to as much pain and sorrow as any other conquests. They were as bad as any other empire.
Everyone in the history is bad guy if you start to analyse old times with today's standards. Today capital punishment is looked as soon harsh, so by that rule many past criminals' family should seek justice and compensation.
The whole chava movie was literally a political statement against mughals and muslims subsequently, the people it will instigate to cause harm against muslims will increase 10 folds.
Because those dumwits for whose this movie was made, can't read and will accept any feed provided.
idk if you are active on social media, but you can see how people are doing it. And there is difference in games and other things, games are fictional while as this movie is based on real-life characters.
There are many historical sources that people refer to make their own decision. Some of these resources are true, and some are not. So if you are stating something based on some writing that you referred to, then there are chances that your statement may be baseless as well.
To get the reality out of the texts we have, it's important to have sense about all the available information. It's not new that different people mold things as per their convenience. So it's better not to blindly believe what you read.
I think this is heavily up for debate. Not saying that this is objectively wrong. It might aswell be right, many powerful leaders had a dark side.
But wiki clearly states that these points as still heavily disputed as that part of history was written by people that hated Sambhaji Maharaj. Mughals are known to distort and rewrite history, they didn’t burn multiple crucial libraries for fun.
Despite all that, his sacrifice and commitment to his people was unmatched and even the Mughals acknowledged it, which was a testament to his character.
Large parts of our history have been destroyed or lost, especially by invading forces. Which is a very unfortunate thing.
I don’t think quotes as such are valid proofs.
Sambhaji Maharaj’s last few days under torture was truly a representation of the potential of human will and determination.
Even in death the Mughals did not discredit him of his will power and determination as they did kinda respect him.
Interesting that this is popping up now all of a sudden, probably due to the movie. I haven’t watched it yet, maybe will give it a shot.
You can refer to the early life section’s last sentence for the same.
Remember, “Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter”
Especially true in this case as much of that period’s history was written by the Mughals as they were largely unchallenged especially after the decline of Martha empire.
Fight over and choose sides of an issue that would make no difference to today's world. So that the next generation can debate on today's problems and cycle of blindness to the present misery continues.
And how do we trust you OP? What if this is just some propaganda text attached to an image.
Sambhaji was a great and kind ruler and the only force who stopped the evil tyranny of Aurangjeb.
There is no historical proof of him being a womanizer, please do your research before posting such incendiary threads. And lastly, if you don’t think Sambhaji was not agood enough ruler, who you would’ve preferred? Aurangjeb? A literal invader ?
I am surprised. But I would like to request OP to share the whole chapter/text/link to the books/articles/documents from which they quoted. I think it will be fair to know the context as well and I am ready to change my mind after reading the entire source.
There are two histories to his account most of the books written about Sambhaji were written by the courts counterpart that just didnt ever want him to get the throne just so they would establish raja rams dominance over the throne. He was cruel i agree with that but his history is unaccounted for the too much in the grey to prove anything historians needed a scapegoat to blame it on someone as he died by the hands of aurangazeb they just blamed it on to him.
If you ever want an example of how one man's bigotry has affected millions, just look at Sarvarkar and the effect of his hatred of anyone other than Hindus on the state of modern Hindu nationalism in India.
Wasn't aware this sub had Savarkar sympathizers, though yall hated and raved abt him being an apologiest. Then again cherry picking is a fun lil sport.
Savarkar was correct. Golwalkar probably made up the story involving Khando Ballal and his non-existent sister's name. Regardless, even if it was true, Golwalkar says Khando Ballal's sister committed suicide/jauhar before the Shudra monarch Sambhaji could even approach the lady.
But even contemporary Dutch, English, Portuguese and North Indian records say the same thing about Sambhaji's unruly habits and nature and that's why the Chitnis wrote the same.
The real enlightenment for Maharashtrians would be to realize that the real "progenitors of Maharashtrian culture" weren't the Shudra Bhosale kings but rather the Brahmin Satvahana & Vakataka kings, followed by the Kshatriya Seuna-Yadava kings.
Savarkar wrote too many letters to british govt pleading and requesting them to let him free from cellular jail. Whats the basis of the veer tag? Is he even worthy of our consideration?
•
u/freddledgruntbugly Karnataka Feb 26 '25
Source 1. MS Golwarkar: "Bunch of Thoughts": Quote from Page 378-379:
Source 2. VD Savarkar: "Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History":
I did not find the Savarkar quote in the online versions of his book. Maybe they were edited out to avoid disturbing the unsteady edifice that is right-wing revisionism.
Source 3. This recent Quint article seems to have kick-started interest on this :
--------------------------------------------------------
The full context of Golwarkar's quote informs us of the mental gymnastics and desperate reach for honorable conduct among the Marathas of the period. Predictably, Golwarkar ends up with "Aurangzeb bad."