• On Shivaji, the Marathas and the Brahmin Peshwas (Re: Kurmi and Kun

    From potnis.ashutosh15@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Sameer M. Jalnapurkar on Fri May 10 01:09:00 2019
    On Friday, June 14, 1996 at 12:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, Sameer M. Jalnapurkar wrote:
    The reason why most castes are lowly today is due to Brahmanical
    >manipulations -- Kurmis and other castes such as Kahars or even
    >Nishads who had their own kingdoms during the days of the Rama. It
    >was Brahminical manipulation which prevented Shivaji from acquiring
    >the throne despite the fact that he was born of a Kurmi father and a
    >Yadav mother because the Brahmins had declared Rajputs the only
    >Kshatriyas of the land.

    FYI, Shivaji was indeed coronated the King of Maharashtra.
    Shivaji's Guru Samartha Ramdas Swami happened to have been born
    in a Brahmin family. Also, the coronation ceremony was performed
    by a Brahmin priest from Benaras.

    Ha, ha, ha. This guy is totally off his rocker. First of all it took
    some doing on Shivaji's part to be coronated. His lineage was
    questioned because he was not a Rajput. And secondly the Brahmin
    priest from Benaras was said to have used his feet to "tilak" him
    because he was not sure of his lineage. If you want references to
    prove that his lineage was questioned by the Brahmins, and there is
    even a possibility that he may have had to falsify it to some extent
    and pay the Brahmins a lot of money to be coronated, I could easily
    refer you to a number of history books including Will Durant.

    I would like to see you quote from some reliable references
    (giving page numbers etc). I am particularly interested
    in your allegation that during the Raajyaabhishek ceremony,
    the Banaras pundit used his feet to put 'tilak' on Shivaji.
    Also provide reliable references that Shivaji had to pay
    money to get himself coronated.

    I may be true that *some* people questioned his lineage, but
    that reflects only on those people who raised the questions
    and not on any particular caste. In Maharashtra, Shivaji was
    revered by all sections of society, including Brahmins (and even

    Shivaji was neither a Kurmi nor a Yadav. He was a Maratha.
    There are no Kurmis and Yadavs in Maharashtra. FYI, several
    of Shivaji's most trusted generals were Brahmins. Baaji Prabhu
    Deshpaande's name comes to mind. Also, Bajirao Peshwa, who
    destroyed the Mughal power in North India also happened to
    be a Brahmin.

    Want a bet ? Shivaji's father was a Kurmi and his mother was indeed a >Yadav. It was his mother who largely raised him after she was forced
    to flee after the death of his father. Kurmis are known by various
    names in different regions of India including Kunbis etc. Most of the >Maratha chiefs were Shudras who actually were the first to establish
    the power of the Marathas. I refer you to Will Durant's "Our Oriental >Heritage." If you want, I could get the quotes for you.

    The caste structure in Maharashtra has evolved separately from that
    in the cowbelt. I doubt that the Kunbis have anything to do with
    the Kurmis of Bihar/UP. Also, there are NO Yadavs in Maharashtra.

    As for the Peshwa alliance with the Marathas whom the Brahmins seem so
    fond of alluding to, it was one of the most detrimental to the
    Marathas. The Peshwas were actually responsible for the fall of the >Marathas.

    First of all the terminology you use is misleading. It is incorrect
    to say that there was an alliance between the Peshwas and the Marathas.
    The Peshwas were part and parcel of the Maratha struggle. The word
    'Maratha' is derived from 'Maharashtra' and the word 'Marathi'
    comes from 'Maharashtri'. The name Maratha was used to denote
    all the Marathi speaking people (including backward castes, Brahmins
    etc). When Lokmanya Tilak founded the newspaper 'The Maratha', he was
    not referring only to a particular caste group. However the name
    has now come to aquire a caste connotation.

    There was a very significant battle at Panipat during which
    time the Marathas were carrying a lot of booty with them. The Shudra >Maratha chiefs, during a meeting with their allies, advised that they >should first return to their fort and leave the wealth secured before >proceeding to fight the Mughals.

    This exposes the shallowness of your historical knowledge. The battle
    you are referring to was against the Afghans and not the Mughals.
    The Marathas (led by Bajirao Peshwa) had long before subdued the
    Mughals and were even extracting taxes from them.

    A Peshwa Brahmin chief retorted that
    only a shudra would ever think of such a thing. The Shudra Maratha
    chiefs were incensed by the remark. The caste tension created by the >Peshwa Brahmins can be imagined by the documented remark of a Shudra
    chief who said that if they won this war, the Shudra Maratha chiefs
    would be forever relegated to washing the Brahmins' loincloth. And
    the tension created by the silly Peshwa Brahmins may have been
    responsible for their losing the battle. The Marathas lost all their >wealth during the battle and never recovered from the loss, thus the >Peshwas would come to dominate the alliance. Actually, I even have >suspicions about why the Peshwa Brahmin insisted that the Shudra
    Marathas go into battle thereby putting a great deal of their wealth
    at risk.

    Once again, it is wrong to use expressions like 'a Peshwa Brahmin
    chief'. 'Peshwa' is a title which means chief minister. there can
    only be one Peshwa at one time.

    Much more serious, however, are your lies regarding the battle.
    All the Marathas (including the Peshwa) fought together in this
    battle. In fact, the Peshwa lost his life. Your accusations
    that the Shudras were sent into the battle so that the Brahmins
    could gain control is utter garbage.

    It is true that Panipat was a blow to Maratha power. Madhavrao
    Peshwa was able to reverse the decline, but tragically
    for Maharashtra (and India), he
    died of tuberculosis at a young age. His successors were
    nowhere near as great as Bajirao or Madhavrao. Internal
    dissensions arose amongst the Marathas. Nana Phadnavis
    tried to hold the fort for as long as possible, but the
    British were able to successfully exploit the dissensions
    in the early part of the 19th century.

    It may be true that a strategic mistake of one of the successors
    of Bajirao Peshwa caused him to lose the battle (and also his
    life.) That does not mean that a particular caste
    can be blamed for it. If we were to use that logic,
    then the Brahmins get the credit for destroying
    Mughal power in north India (as Bajirao Peshwa -
    who's military genius is universally acknowledged -
    was in command). When Raghunathrao was chasing the
    Pathans all the way across Punjab to Afghanistan
    Malharrao Holkar (who was 'Maratha' by caste) intervened
    and the Pathans could not be totally crushed. The price
    was paid in the Panipat battle. Does that mean we blame
    a particular caste? This kind of logic is meaningless.

    People like Chhatrapati Shivaji, Ramdas Swami, Tanaji
    Malasure, Baji Prabhu Deshpande, Bajirao etc are
    revered in Maharashtra by people of all creeds and
    castes (Yes, even by Muslims). We don't ask what caste

    As for Shivaji and the Marathas, they are quite popular in Bihar and
    serve as an inspiration to many of Bihar's lower castes, unlike the
    stupid Peshwas. Of course it must be said that a certain subcaste of >Bihari kurmis, have a particular love for the Marathas. There are
    actually Marathi kurmis in Bihar who have migrated there after the
    Marathas lost a battle at Panipat -- I wonder if the battle was the
    same one. I think their subcaste is called "Ghamaila." Anyway,
    unless you carried out a detailed investigation of their lineage, you >wouldn't be able to tell them apart from other farmers of the central >Magadha region of Bihar. They don't even know the Marathi language
    and speak the local language fluently, even their marriage traditions >aren't very different.

    You are welcome to draw inspiration from them as long as you leave
    them out of your casteist politics. Note the the 'Maratha' means 'Marathi-speaking' and all castes were part of the freedom

    My intention is not to praise Brahmins - but some people
    need to get over their caste paranoia.

    My intention is to expose the Brahmins and I shall continue to do so.
    Many people need to understand the manipulations of the Brahmins and
    its effects on Indian history and if they should choose to ignore it
    they do so at their own peril. Many would feel quite uncomfortable
    with the revelations as the truth is not quite what they are led to
    believe and popular misconceptions abound. However, I do not give
    much weight to such considerations.

    It is the obfuscation and the lies of the casteists that need to
    be exposed. Your knowledge of history is pathetic. Have you
    heard of Tanaji Malasure? Have you heard of Baji Prabhu Deshpande?
    I do not think you will ever understand Maratha history
    as long as you remain bogged down in your casteist cowbelt politics.

    Go enjoy your cut from the 2000 crore your Lalu has looted
    from the poor people of Bihar!!

    Thank you Sameer Jalnapurkar for exposing Kunal Singh's absolutely false, baseless and hateful rhetoric. We need more people like you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)