Development of Propaganda.
A rumour first starts in 1676 that Yuvaraja Sambhaji Bhonsale (19 at the time) meets some "Brahmin Chief's daughter" outside Raigad.
A clear slander using intercaste taboos.
However this lie only involved a Single person, and implied CLEAR *consent*.
A rumour first starts in 1676 that Yuvaraja Sambhaji Bhonsale (19 at the time) meets some "Brahmin Chief's daughter" outside Raigad.
A clear slander using intercaste taboos.
However this lie only involved a Single person, and implied CLEAR *consent*.
Slander is repeated by hearsay peddlers Khafi Khan (1736 Post Hoc) & Manucci. Except they make it a HABIT.
Yet no contemporary Maratha source supports this.
But Manucci met Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaj himself, saw how bloodthirsty he was & conflated it by European stereotypes.
Yet no contemporary Maratha source supports this.
But Manucci met Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaj himself, saw how bloodthirsty he was & conflated it by European stereotypes.
For those who don't know, Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja bragged about cutting off heads of 30 or so traitors with his own sword, and he showed it off to Manucci during their dialogue.
Manucci's brain projected some classic lusty Spanish Baron's image on Chattrapati after this.
Manucci's brain projected some classic lusty Spanish Baron's image on Chattrapati after this.
"Violent = also Lusty" is standard stereotype in any European novel of Manucci's era.
So with no doubt Manucci supported the 1676 rumour, as popular bazaar gossip.
So now we have 1 British & 2 Mughal sources. The ONLY contemporary mudslinging on Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja.
So with no doubt Manucci supported the 1676 rumour, as popular bazaar gossip.
So now we have 1 British & 2 Mughal sources. The ONLY contemporary mudslinging on Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja.
As far as Khafi Khan is concerned, he is known for his cheap bias.
His propaganda is "Sambhaji takes "izzat" of a woman, that too of his own officers." (Whether consensually or not is of no concern to Khafi Khan)
Turning RUMOUR of a SINGLE instance into a HABIT is an old trick.
His propaganda is "Sambhaji takes "izzat" of a woman, that too of his own officers." (Whether consensually or not is of no concern to Khafi Khan)
Turning RUMOUR of a SINGLE instance into a HABIT is an old trick.
Propaganda premise by Khafi Khan.
XYZ meets officer's daughter regularly
Twisted to:
XYZ "takes izzat" of officer's daughter regularly
Then Daughter = Women, so:
XYZ takes izzat of *Women* of OWN officers regularly!
& if officers aren't safe, he likely targets civilian women!
XYZ meets officer's daughter regularly
Twisted to:
XYZ "takes izzat" of officer's daughter regularly
Then Daughter = Women, so:
XYZ takes izzat of *Women* of OWN officers regularly!
& if officers aren't safe, he likely targets civilian women!
"Likely targets civilian women", is turned into "surely", with great ease.
The Portuguese were in direct correspondence with Mughals in the war waged by Marathas (even Aurangzeb's son Akbar was there, so it was important) & their vulgar priests' propaganda was relayed as well.
The Portuguese were in direct correspondence with Mughals in the war waged by Marathas (even Aurangzeb's son Akbar was there, so it was important) & their vulgar priests' propaganda was relayed as well.
The Portuguese colonialist bigots exaggerated and lied shamelessly, not just for Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja but they also did it for Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaja and others.
However, when you have a man whose reputation is already stained, this just further supports it.
However, when you have a man whose reputation is already stained, this just further supports it.
Bangali propagandist Jadunath Sarkar made propaganda very famous.
He took a SINGLE rumour of Maratha Army's soldiers violating women in Goa in 1680s, & stitched it with fake claims of Bangali sources of 1750s.
Gap of nearly 65-70 years was used claim it was regular by Marathas!
He took a SINGLE rumour of Maratha Army's soldiers violating women in Goa in 1680s, & stitched it with fake claims of Bangali sources of 1750s.
Gap of nearly 65-70 years was used claim it was regular by Marathas!
In fact Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is recorded supervising discipline even of soldiers who were far away from his direct command, threatening them with death simply for practicing "Scorched Earth Warfare", forget about escalation to violations or other atrocities on civilians.
But now since the base was ready, the propaganda got a new life when Malhar Chitnis worked with Grant Duff (who likely supplied British reports to him as well) to prepare his Bakhars, which were done in a span of ONE week, after which the Maratha primary sources were destroyed.
A single instance of 1676 rumour by the British, was supported by 1707-1732 Post Hoc synthesis by Khafi Khan and others, but was legitimized in the 1810 Post Hoc propaganda in Bakhars by Malhar Chitnis.
And in 1811 Busatin-Us-Salatin of Muhammad Ibrahim extrapolates it further.
And in 1811 Busatin-Us-Salatin of Muhammad Ibrahim extrapolates it further.
Muhammad Ibrahim took report of Brahmin Minister Annaji Datto's execution in 1680s (for completely different reason), & merged it with rumour of 1676 mentioning Brahmin Chief's daughter.
Now you have a spicy Mughal-tier drama, like Akbar marrying Bairam's wife after ridding him!
Now you have a spicy Mughal-tier drama, like Akbar marrying Bairam's wife after ridding him!
Without any basis, Mirza Muhammad Ibrahim Zubairi confirms there was a "Brahmin's daughter", specifically of the "Surnavis" (Annaji Datto's post).
Ibrahim's Busatin-Us-Salatin was written between 1811-1824. It is literally Anti-Maratha garbage.
But see how literature is piling!
Ibrahim's Busatin-Us-Salatin was written between 1811-1824. It is literally Anti-Maratha garbage.
But see how literature is piling!
And in 1822 this propaganda was further made mainstream Post Hoc by Kashirao Rajeshwar Gupte who wrote the early history of Maratha Empire (Nagpurkar Bhonsalanyachi Bakhar) for the Nagpur Resident and obviously referred to Chitnis Bakhar and Grant Duff only.
Lets look at the setup now.
So we have 3-4 commissioned Bakhars, 1 contemporary source, 2 Near-Contemporary to Post Hoc sources, 1 propaganda letter report.
Such a vast pile of garbage against one of the most pious Hindu kings.
Surely the Marahatti historians will defend him?
So we have 3-4 commissioned Bakhars, 1 contemporary source, 2 Near-Contemporary to Post Hoc sources, 1 propaganda letter report.
Such a vast pile of garbage against one of the most pious Hindu kings.
Surely the Marahatti historians will defend him?
In late 1800s, Nayikabheda, Nakhashikha, Saat-Shatak and Shri Budhabhushanam texts composed by Dharamveer Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja were discovered.
Marahatti academicians then did their best to hide them and avoid their diffusion. Especially Parasnis.
Marahatti academicians then did their best to hide them and avoid their diffusion. Especially Parasnis.
Nakhashikha is on Radha devi (taking her as Prakriti), describing the universe through her body from the Nakha (nail) to the Shikha (topknot).
Nayikabheda is on the Astha Nayikas, the METAPHORICAL female figures who represent the "themes, flavours" of classical Hindu paintng.
Nayikabheda is on the Astha Nayikas, the METAPHORICAL female figures who represent the "themes, flavours" of classical Hindu paintng.
What did the Marahatti historians do then?
After hiding these texts from public access, readers could only rely on their word.
So Nayikabheda was turned into descriptions of various concubines of Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja! And Nakhashikha was turned into wholly erotic poem!
After hiding these texts from public access, readers could only rely on their word.
So Nayikabheda was turned into descriptions of various concubines of Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja! And Nakhashikha was turned into wholly erotic poem!
Saat-Shatak was hidden and Budhabhushanam deliberately kept untranslated (even to this day) by the neech Marahatti Academia.
It is done to this day.
So now what image do we have of Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja?
A completely debauched alcoholic porn-writer who lost everything!
It is done to this day.
So now what image do we have of Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja?
A completely debauched alcoholic porn-writer who lost everything!
Bhalji Pendharkar and other Marahatti filmmakers worked to hammer his image in front of millions of audiences.
Then the idiotic Kolhapur Darbar also supported Dr. Bal Krishna's Shivaji the Great series to put down Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja's reputation, causing all out mess.
Then the idiotic Kolhapur Darbar also supported Dr. Bal Krishna's Shivaji the Great series to put down Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja's reputation, causing all out mess.
Always remember that Marahatti historians ruined reputation of the glorious Shirke Clan without a SINGLE shred of evidence.
According to them Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja was bad, and so were the Shirkes who "betrayed" him.
This is how they make a fool out of gullible readers.
According to them Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja was bad, and so were the Shirkes who "betrayed" him.
This is how they make a fool out of gullible readers.
Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja's rage is well documented in all sources. But claims of his alcoholism is pure imaginary Mughalia gutter propaganda.
However its meant to support the fake rumours on his character.
Mughal dogs inconsistently claim he was drunk even at Sangameshwar.
However its meant to support the fake rumours on his character.
Mughal dogs inconsistently claim he was drunk even at Sangameshwar.
Bhimsen Saxena confirms Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja was only there to do the appropriate Puja.
Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja simply could not vacate the premises.
The other Mughal authors turned it into his "alcoholic stubbornness" or superstition in Kavi Kalash's powers.
Chattrapati Sambhaji Maharaja simply could not vacate the premises.
The other Mughal authors turned it into his "alcoholic stubbornness" or superstition in Kavi Kalash's powers.
The ultimate Sangameshwar battle was fought well, the war-worn Marathas (Chattrapati had recently fought Shirkes at Khelna, and THEN LATER came to Sangameshwar) killed 250 of Muqarrab Khan's army, while Muqarrab killed 400, as Ishwardas Nagar records.
That's the way it is.
That's the way it is.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...