Shivaji

Motivation

  • “The CKP dispute at Shivāji’s court appears to have arisen before the dispute regarding Shivāji’s own eligibility for royal coronation.”
  • “It was Balāji Avaji Chitnis,[4] a CKP, who assisted Shivāji’s search for his Rajput Kṣatriya roots by sending investigators to the north (cf. Shejwalkar 1964: 477; Sriśivadigvijaya, pp. 249 ff.), and, according to the Chitnis-Bakhar, it was Balāji Avaji who suggested to Shivāji that he invite Gāgābhaṭṭa in connection with the coronation. .. In the CKP documents, including the Citnis Bakhar, the role of Bālājī āvaji is somewhat exaggerated. It is not clear how much convincing Gāgābhaṭṭa needed from Bālāji Avaji.”
  • “The Sabhāsad Bakhar attributes the initiative regarding coronation to Gāgābhaṭṭa himself. If the date of the śyēnavi-jāti-dharma-nirṇaya of 1664 AD is valid, then Shivāji was already in touch with Gāgābhaṭṭa in such Dharmaśāstric matters. … According to Sabhāsad (pp. 78) Gāgābhaṭṭa said that in his opinion, the Muslim kings sat on their throne and ruled with a royal umbrella. Shivāji on the other hand, who had defeated four sultans, had seventy-five thousand troops and had forts, had no throne. He stated that the Maratha Raja should become a Chattrapati “holder of the umbrella.””
    • “bhaṭ gosāvī yāmce mateṁ, musalmān pādsahā takti basavūn, chatra dharūn, pātasāhī karitāt, āni sivājīrāje yāṁṇīṁhi cār pātaśāhī dabāvilyā āni pāūn lākh ghoḍā laṣkar gaḍ koṭ aseṁ asatām, tyāms takta nāhim̐. yākaritām marhāṭhā rājā chatrapati vhāvā aseṁ cittāṁt āṇileṁ.”
  • “From the time of Shivāji to Pratapasiṁha of Satara, the constant effort of the Maratha lineages was to establish their ancestry from the Rajput lineages of Rajasthan, and this was assumed to be a sufficient proof of Kṣatriyahood.”

GagabhaTTa’s decision

  • “From his preamble to the śyēnavi-jāti-dharma-nirṇaya, composed ten years before Shivāji’s coronation in 1674AD, it is clear that Gāgābhaṭṭa accepts Shivāji’s father Shahāji as someone born in a pure royal family [vimala-rāja-kula], and he glorifies Shivāji’s achievements against the Mughals of Delhi, and addresses him as Shivāji-Rājā. While this does not touch the Dharmaśāstric question, it shows Gāgābhaṭṭa’s acceptance of Shivāji both as a person born in a “pure royal family” and as a de facto Rājā “king”, ten years before the question of his eligibility for the consecration ceremony was raised.”
  • “Given his own Dharmaśāstric views (regarding whether a shUdra king can be served), Gāgābhaṭṭa was most likely as anxious about having Shivāji properly consecrated, as Shivāji himself may have been about his own consecration. "
  • “While none of the texts composed by Gāgābhaṭṭa that are available to us explicitly discuss the issues involved in how he decided the question of Shivāji’s authentic Kṣatriyahood, the surviving text of the Rājyābhiśeka-paddhati “Procedure for the Royal Consecration” composed by Gāgābhaṭṭa on the occasion of Shivāji’s royal consecration includes Vedic mantras, and hence one must conclude that by the time of the actual royal consecration, Shivāji was deemed to be completely eligible to be treated as a full Kṣatriya. While the text of the Rājyābhiśekapaddhati does not tell us that Gāgābhaṭṭa made Shivāji to undergo a purificatory rite, the received reports from other sources do indicate this purificatory rite, and the fact that Shivāji underwent the ceremony of Upanayana, and then his queens were dharmically remarried to him.”

Later disputes

  • The anti-CKP document dating to Sake 1671 (1749 ad) openly criticizes Gāgābhaṭṭa and says that his decision on performing upanayana for Shivāji was a mistake, and it calls it amārga: pahile veda-śāstra-sampanna kailāsa-vāsī gāgābhaṭṭayāmni kṣetrīśarmāms adhikāra rājyās vr̥tabandha karūn, gāitrī-upadesa karūn sthāpile. te karma siddhīs gele nāhi - donahī vaṁśāne nirmūla jāhāle. he pratyaksa jānūn āmārgāne vartalyās sādhya śrīkr̥pā nāhi. (P.N. Patwardhan 1912: 96) “This statement from the Brahmins of the Peshwa period claims that Gāgābhaṭṭa was mistaken in treating Shivāji as a Kṣatriya and offering upanayana to him with the teaching of the Vedic Gāyatri mantra, and that the non dharmic coronation eventually resulted in both the branches of Shivāji’s line drying up without (non-adopted) descendants.”
  • “Gupte (1919: 99) reports that the Brahmins of Maharashtra had excomunicated Gāgābhaṭṭa for approving the Kṣatriya status of Shivāji.”
  • “In opposition to Gāgābhaṭṭas opinion, Nānā Phadnavis, the Kārbhāri of the Peshwas allowed only a Paurānika Upanayana for the king of Satara (Gupte, 1919: 95-96).”

marATha grAmaNya-s of 1800s

  • “The Gramaṇya between the Brahmins and the Marathas evolved out of the Prabhu Gramaṇya of 1826. The brahmins were not ready to accept the Chhatrapati of Satara and other maratha families as Kshatriyas. According to the brahmins, Parshuram eradicated the Kshatriyas twenty-one times and there fore no Kshatriyas were left on earth. So the present Marathas were Kunbis and not the Kshatriyas.”
  • “The jagirdars of Satara in their letters addressed to Pratapsinha only as Chhatrapati and not Kshatriya Kulwantansa as we find in the original title of the founder of the Maratha power—Shivāji. We do find a reference in the Rojnishi of Raja Pratapsinha that he refused to reply to Chintamanrao Patwardhan of Sangli as he did not address him as Kshatriya Kulwantansa.”
  • “This dispute, briefly outlined here, resulted into a full blown dispute in subsequent times and spread to Kolhapur, Baroda, and Pune, and under the general title of “Vedokta Dispute,” this conflict between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas has been richly documented by Copland (1973), Wagle (1987), O’Hanlon (1983 and 1985) and Pawar (1985). "