Chhatrapati Shiva ji Maharaj
In 2023 Apte posted pictures of the clay model of the statue on his social media account. (From The Indian Express online)
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Statues of the national hero
A history
The statue that recently fell in Maharashtra’s Sindhudurg had Chhatrapati Shiva ji with a scar on his forehead – a rare depiction of the Maratha warrior king with the injury mark
Last year, sculptor Apte had posted pictures of the clay model of the statue on his social media account.
The many Shiva ji statues
[Between 1928 and 2024], hundreds of statues of the Maratha king have been erected, with differing aesthetics.
It is widely acknowledged that the first-ever sculpture of Shiva ji was created in the 18th century, showcasing him astride a horse with his sword in hand. The granite carving was commissioned by Belawadi Mallamma, the wife of Ishaprabhu Desai, the ruler of a fiefdom whose territory covers present-day Belagavi and Dharwad districts of Karnataka. While Ishaprabhu Desai was killed by Shiva ji’s army, the Maratha king, in a mark of appreciation for the fight put up by Mallamma, is said to have handed the fief back to her. Overcome by gratitude, Mallamma is said to have got the statue built which now stands at Yadwad in Belagavi district.
Of the earliest contemporary statues of Shiva ji is the one unveiled in 1928 at a park in Pune which is now part of the Shri Shiva ji Preparatory Military School (SSPMS). The 13.5-foot statue, showcasing the king astride a horse and brandishing a sword, was sculpted by artist Vinayak Pandurang Karmarkar at the insistence of Kolhapur ruler Shahu Maharaj.
Since then, there have been many more statues of the Maratha king, in Maharashtra and beyond – all highlighting his physical strength and dominance.
Contemporary descriptions
However, the earliest available descriptions of Shiva ji paint a …picture of the man.
In his journal Les Voyages aux Indes Orientales, French explorer and linguist Jean de Thevenot describes the Maratha king thus: “The Rajah is small and tawny, with quick eyes which indicate an abundance of spirit.” These are part of a handful of descriptions left behind by people who met him.
Historians say that much before his statues came up, Shiva ji was represented in about 22 miniature portraits drawn in the 17th and 18th centuries
Six of these portraits, said to have been drawn by Shiva ji’s contemporaries, are presently located in various parts of the world, including the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the British Museum in London, the Louvre in Paris and the Chhatrapati Shiva ji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya in Mumbai.
These portraits, too, don’t depict Shiva ji with the scar.
A caste angle
In his book Shiva ji: His Life and Times, historian Gajanan Mehendale claims that Krishnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni was killed in the Battle of Pratapgarh in which Shiva ji sustained the injury.
While some historical records claim that Shiva ji himself delivered the fatal blow to Kulkarni, others argue that Shiva ji’s bodyguards were responsible.
Sawant says there are numerous historical accounts that support the former narrative.
A scar on the forehead
A scar on the forehead of Chhatrapati Shiva ji’s fallen statue at Rajkot Fort in Sindhudurg has turned into a lightning rod.
On August 25 2024, the 35-foot-tall statue collapsed, …another controversy is brewing – over the presence of a scar on the statue, on the left side of the warrior king’s forehead, right below his turban.
While most historians agree that Shiva ji did nurse such a scar, they say it was never depicted in any of the known sculptures or portraits of the warrior king because it was hidden under his jiretop, the unique conical headgear that was worn by Chhatrapati Shiva ji.
This scar is said to have been inflicted on Shiva ji during the Battle of Pratapgarh in 1659, when he killed Afzal Khan, the general of the Adil Shahi dynasty.
Unlike the popular view held by many Maratha historians that it was Krishnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni, the Brahmin envoy of Khan, who delivered the blow that left Shiva ji with the scar, [Sculptor] Apte claimed that the scar was caused by the blow from Afzal Khan. “In 1659, during the Afzal Khan campaign, Shiva ji Maharaj was injured above his left eye by Khan’s sword. That’s the reference I have used here,” Apte said.
Taking exception to Apte’s depiction of Shiva ji with the scar, historian Indrajit Sawant told The Indian Express, “There are hundreds of sculptures of Shiva ji Maharaj, and this is the only one in which he is shown with a scar. I do not see why he did this.”
Sawant also questioned Apte’s theory that it was Afzal Khan who inflicted the injury on Shiva ji’s forehead. “Depictions of historical figures who are adored by millions should be based on historical facts. While a certain degree of artistic liberty is acceptable, incorporating elements that are historically untrue and that may hurt the sensibilities of lakhs of people should be avoided,” Sawant said.
Wagh Nakh
As in 2023
Chaitanya Marpakwar, Sep 8, 2023: The Times of India
From: Chaitanya Marpakwar, Sep 8, 2023: The Times of India
Mumbai:The ‘wagh nakh’ is coming home. With the UK authorities agreeing to give back the dagger shaped like tiger claws—used by Chhatrapati Shiva ji Maharaj to kill Afzal Khan, general of the Bijapur sultanate, in 1659—state cultural affairs minister Sudhir Mungantiwar will visit London later this month to sign an MoU with the Victoria and Albert Museum, where it’s on display. If everything works out as planned, the famed wagh nakh may be headed home this year itself.
“We have got a letter from the UK authorities saying they have agreed to give us back Chhatrapati Shiva ji Maharaj’s wagh nakh. We might get it back for the anniversary of the day when Shiva ji killed Afzal Khan, based on the Hindu calendar. Some other dates are also being considered and the modalities of transporting the wagh nakh back are also being worked out,” Mungantiwar said.
“Apart from signing the MoU, we will also look at other objects such as Shiva ji’s Jagadamba sword which is also on display in the UK, and take steps to bring these back as well. The fact that the tiger claws are on the way back is a big step for Maharashtra and its people. The date of Afzal Khan’s killing is November 10 based on the Gregorian calendar but we are working out dates based on the Hindu tithi calendar,” Mungantiwar said.
“Chhatrapati Shiva ji Maharaj’s wagh nakh is a priceless treasure of history and the sentiments of the people of the state are associated with them. The transfer must be done with personal responsibility and care. For this, Mungantiwar, principal secretary culture (Dr Vikas Kharge) and Dr Tejas Garge, director of the state’s directorate of archeology and museums, will visit V&A and other museums in London,” the government resolution issued by the cultural affairs department stated.
Maharashtra will spend around Rs 50 lakh for the threemember team’s six-day visit from September 29 to October 4, according to the resolution.
Officials said the wagh nakh made of steel has four claws mounted on a bar with two rings for the first and fourth fingers.
Debate
Vaibhav Purandare, Oct 2, 2023: The Times of India
From: Vaibhav Purandare, Oct 2, 2023: The Times of India
Chhatrapati Shiva ji's iconic wagh nakh is set to return to India on a three-year loan. But, historians aren't sure that this was the weapon used by the Maratha king to kill Afzal Khan
If there is a lack of clarity over whether Shiva ji Raje had actually used the 'wagh nakh' (tiger claw) on display at London’s Victoria & Albert Museum (V&A) that is being loaned to the state for three years, it can, in part, be explained by the way the wagh nakh found its way into Britain.According to the museum, the wagh nakh “was given to James Grant Duff who was resident of Satara by the prime minister of the peshwa of the Marathas” after the collapse of Peshwa rule in 1818. The word peshwa itself means prime minister, so who is the "PM of the peshwa" the museum is referring to? It’s not clear. Further, the museum states “it is possible” that Bajirao II, the last peshwa, “surrendered this weapon to Grant Duff.” And it wasn’t Duff himself who handed over the weapon to the museum when he returned to England in 1823; his grandson, Adrian Grant Duff, did, late in the nineteenth century.
Claim and questionsHistorian Pandurang Balkawade of Pune’s Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal, the biggest repository of Maratha documents and artefacts, disputes this version. According to him, Bajirao II was banished to Bithoor near Kanpur in 1818 and the British East India Company installed Pratapsinh as Chhatrapati at Satara. Grant Duff was appointed as the Raja’s political agent and served in this role from 1818 to early 1823; Duff eventually wrote a 3-volume history of the Marathas. The wagh nakh was in the sanctum sanctorum of the Satara raja’s family, and it was he who gave it to Grant Duff, Balkawade said. “The object must have been sacred for it to be kept in the ‘dev ghar,’” he noted. What happened to the arsenal and the artefacts?
At the best of times, the origin of historical objects can be hard to find; things can get tougher if there’s decades of warfare involved. No contemporary catalogue of Chhatrapati Shiva ji’s arsenal at the time of his death in 1680 is available. Aurangzeb descended on the Deccan the next year (1681) in order to try and conquer it, and a big clash broke out between Marathas and the Mughals. It lasted over 25 years, ending with Aurangzeb’s death in 1707. As Shiva ji’s capital Raigad was among the places seized early by the Mughals, a majority of Maratha documents and artefacts there got destroyed or burnt. The Chhatrapati’s family mem bers, fighting the Mughals, carried several of the belongings, but the trail for a number of objects got eventually lost in the armed conflict. Until Grant Duff was handed the wagh nakh in Satara.Thus, it isn’t certain how the wagh nakh travelled for 160 years from 1659, the year in which Shiva ji used it against Bijapur general Afzal Khan. Yet, even the inexact journey would have been okay were it not for other assertions made soon after Duff got hold of the relic.A governor’s wife speaksLucius Cary was governor of Bombay between 1848 and 1853. He’s better known as Lord Falkland, after whom a road in the city is named.With his wife, the Viscountess Falkland, he travelled to Satara. In her account of her travels published in 1857, the Viscountess mentioned their meeting with the raja and ‘ranees’ of Satara. The ‘ranees,’ she stated, showed her “several varieties of ‘wagnuks’, and even the very one which Sivaji stuck into Afzool Khan’s side.” This was two decades after Duff had taken the 'gifted' weapon to England. So, which one was the genuine article? Also, mention of “several varieties of wagnuks” suggests Marathas had made many of them, complicating the picture.
Grant Duff’s son’s accountA little over a decade after Falkland’s Satara visit, Grant Duff’s son Mountstuart made a claim of his own. Mountstuart was an MP in the British Parliament and ser vedas Under-Secretary of State for India between 1868 and 1874. When he went to Satara, he was shown Shiva ji’s sword “Bhowanee” and “the two wagnuks which her illustrious owner used on a critical occasion.” Mountstuart wrote that according to his father’s history of the Marathas, Shiva ji had used one ‘wagh nakh’, but “Bhowanee’s guardians say he used two, which is improbable”. Mountstuart was right. Shiva ji’s contemporary chronicler Sabhasad writes he held the wagh nakh in his left hand and a bichwa (dagger) in his right when he retaliated against Afzal Khan. Mountstuart further wrote, “Of these two, one is a facsimile of that in my possession; but the other is smaller and more manageable, with only three claws – a very sweet thing of its kind.” Mountstuart here mentioned the wagh nakh in his possession (which his son Adrian later gave the museum) but did not dispute the claim made for the other wagh nakhs in Satara. So whose claim was correct – Adrian’s or that of Satara?
Likely candidate?At any rate, the Satara possessions seem to have not been brought into the spotlight after that. Nor have counter-claims been made, in the wake of government’s announcement about bringing back the ‘wagh nakh’, that the real article is in India. There’s no definitive answer, and certainly the most likely candidate at present to fit the bill – in the absence of any other contender-is the one in the V&A museum. But the story of the legendary tiger claws indicates how historical objects, like history itself, can have their own mysteries.
