When Blood, Bravery, and Strategy Still Needed Clearance

  

Brahmanism or Brahmanvad, is not some shiny new invention of modern India. It has been around for centuries, quietly doing its job, deciding who is “pure,” who is “qualified,” and who should just stay quiet and grateful. Even kings were not spared. Yes, even Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and his descendants had to stand in line and ask, “Sir, am I king enough?”

Shivaji Maharaj’s Coronation: Caste First, Crown Later

The Rajyabhishek (Coronation) of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in 1674 was not just about putting a crown on a brave man’s head. It was more like a paperwork nightmare. At that time, many believed only a Kshatriya could become a Hindu king, and the officials of this rule were Brahmins.

Local Brahmins in the Deccan looked at Shivaji Maharaj, who had already built a kingdom with blood, sweat, and strategy and said, “Sorry, it’s a caste mismatch.” 

According to them, Marathas were Shudras, and Shudras apparently could fight empires but not sit on a throne with Vedic mantras.

So it was obvious, many Brahmins refused to perform the coronation. Bigger problem, no coronation meant other rulers could say, “Nice kingdom, but where’s your Kshatriya King?”

Solution? Call an expert from far away. Enter Gaga Bhatt from Kashi. He studied scriptures, searched family trees, and somehow found a genealogy linking Shivaji Maharaj to the Sisodia Rajputs of Mewar. Suddenly, the same man became a “true Kshatriya.”

And just like that, the Rajyabhishek happened at Raigad Fort in June 1674. Later, Shivaji Maharaj even did a second coronation, just to make sure no ritual loopholes were left. 

Practical man. He didn’t fight Brahmins blindly, and he didn’t bow blindly either. He played the system better than the system expected.

Lesson? Ability builds kingdoms. caste certificates are just added later.

Savarkar, Sambhaji, and the Magic Word “Nation”

Now comes another twist. Freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, in his book Hindu-Pad-Padashahi (1925), took a sharp jab at Sambhaji Maharaj. He called the Marathas’ leader “incapable of guiding a great nation” and painted Sambhaji as ill-tempered and indulgent.

With his line on 4th Chapter : “The Marathas had for their leader a man quite incapable of guiding a great nation. In addition to this incapacity to lead, Sambhaji had a bad temper, excessive indulgence in drinking and debauchery”

What stands out is not just the insult, but the word choice “Nation”. Maharaj was fighting for “Swaraj”, not a modern nation-state. By changing the language, Savarkar quietly changed the meaning. Swaraj becomes weaker, less rooted, less sacred almost like a failed startup instead of a freedom struggle. 

This wording makes the struggle look weaker and less rooted in its Hindu political vision to please then British Government.

Words matter. Change the word, change the story.

Shahu Maharaj vs. Mantra Monopoly

Fast forward to the early 1900s in Kolhapur. Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj faced a very familiar problem. Brahmin priests pecifically the Rajopadhye claimed Vedic mantras were strictly for Brahmins. 

Shudras? Not eligible. 

One priest even said he didn’t need to bathe before performing rituals for Shudras. Cleanliness, apparently, was caste-based too.

Shahu Maharaj asked a dangerous question: Why?

Not tradition for tradition’s sake, but fairness, logic, and proof.

Shahu Maharaj simply cut the head of snake & removed the compulsory vedic mantras from state rituals and allowed Puranic mantras, Marathi prayers, and simple Sanskrit. He supported non-Brahmin priests and broke the idea that religion was private property of one caste.

The priests protested loudly. Shahu Maharaj listened and then ignored them.

Important point, he didn’t reject Hinduism or the Vedas. He rejected monopoly. And that made all the difference.

The Divides: We Were Divided Even Before It Was Fashionable

 

Left wing, Right wing… relax. These terms came one full century after the coronation of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.

Before that, we were already experts in dividing ourselves.

Back then politics was simple.
Not Left or Right.

Only pure vs impure, high vs low, man vs woman. Very advanced system.

Patriarchy was not a problem, it was default setting.
Caste was not ideology, it was birthmark.

No debates, no TV panels, no hashtags. Decision was already made when you were born.

 

And just when we were a few years away from a real revolution, when people were slowly asking dangerous questions like “Why?” and “Who decided this?” boom.

Mughals arrived.

Our internal fights continued, but now with external supervision.

 

Then came the British.

They saw our divisions and said, “Nice system, we’ll manage it better.”

 

So don’t say India got divided because of Left and Right.

We were divided long before ideologies had English names.

We didn’t need outsiders to break us.

 

They just took advantage of the cracks we proudly maintained.

 

Different century.

Same habit.