Afzal Khan is a villain Maharashtra loves to hate, but history tells a more complex story

by Guest Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:13 pm

Back in 1659, on November 10, Khan and Shivaji met in private, unarmed, at the base of the fort to discuss the terms of the Maratha’s surrender. What followed next is a Rashomon-like tale that depends greatly on the source. In the Marathi bakhars, the tale goes that Khan resorted to treachery, attacking Shivaji with a kataar (dagger) hidden on his person. Parrying his blow, Shivaji hit back, disembowelling Khan with a concealed weapon of his own — a set of tiger claws. In the Persian accounts of the Mughals and Bijapuris however, historians such as Khafi Khan claim Shivaji was the first to attack. No matter the means, the end result was that Shivaji ended up killing Afzal Khan. Immediately after, Shivaji’s forces attacked the unsuspecting Bijapur army in Par. In the ensuing Battle of Pratapgarh, victory came swiftly for Shivaji — one of many instances when his intelligence combined with his remarkable personal bravery resulted in an improbable win.

Khan was buried at the base of the fort and, chivalrously, Shivaji even had a tomb constructed for his fallen opponent. Time passed, and the tomb became a local shrine for the area’s Muslims.

In 2004, all this came to a grinding halt when, right before the general elections, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad made an issue of the tomb’s existence. They threatened to demolish the structure. The place was rife with tension and “for months, no tourists came to Pratapgarh,” says Tanaji, my guide. Bowing to pressure from political parties, the police closed down the tomb for visitors and it remains shut to this day. Even now, a garrison of nearly 30 policemen stand guard outside Khan’s tomb. Ironically, 10 years after the VHP’s call for the demolition of Afzal Khan’s tomb, it is the sister outfit — the BJP — that is being compared to the Bijapuri general. Both incidents indicate how history has been twisted to conform to modern politics.

Once distorted as a Hindu versus Muslim battle, the Battle of Pratapgarh now is being presented as a Maharashtrian vs non-Maharashtrian one. Both the armies, Bijapur’s and Shivaji’s, were made up of a mixture of faiths, as was the norm in the Deccan at the time. Shivaji’s closest confidant was a Muslim called Nur Khan Beg; his line of defence began with Sidi Ibrahim; Afzal Khan’s most trusted aide, Krishnaji Bhaskar, was a Marathi Brahmin. And both opposing armies consisted primarily of Marathi-speaking Marathas. Religious or linguistic identity was not equated with political loyalty as is often imagined these days.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/know/history-retold/article6530010.ece

by Guest Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:16 pm

There is considerable evidence that Shivaji welcomed Muslims in his state. The court proceedings of 1657 lists names of Muslim qazis (judges) who received regular salary to adjudicate on cases.
Shivaji also welcomed Muslims in his army. The first unit was a group of 700 Pathans, who had left Bijapur after the treaty with Mughals. Individual Muslims like Sidi Ibrahim, was a trusted commander in Shivaji's army. Nur Khan Beg was one of Shivaji's closest confidants.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/Shivaji-Islam/articleshow/213291.cms

Afzal Khan is a villain Maharashtra loves to hate, but history tells a more complex story

Afzal Khan is a villain Maharashtra loves to hate, but history tells a more complex story

Re: Afzal Khan is a villain Maharashtra loves to hate, but history tells a more complex story