Professor Shraddha Kumbhojkar, Department of History, Pune University and Professor Aniruddh Deshpande, Department of History, Delhi University visited the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) on 12 March 2025 for a Roundtable Discussion to celebrate commemoration of the 350^th anniversary of the grand coronation of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.

Prof. Kumbhojkar spoke on ‘Maratha Patshah – The Uniqueness of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as Head of State’, and Prof. Deshpande spoke on ‘Salient Features of Shivaji’s Military Strategy and Campaign Tactics – A Contextual View’.

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, chaired the discussion. The scholars of MP-IDSA were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The roundtable discussion on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj brought together experts to analyse his enduring legacy, strategic leadership, and military strategy. The discussion provided valuable insights into Shivaji Maharaj’s life, governance and relevance.

Detailed Report

Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy made Introductory Remarks. Prof. Shraddha Kumbhojkar highlighted that Sabhasad Bakhar is the first biography of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, representing an indigenous way of recording history. While several historical accounts exist, this one is considered closest to his life history. The author of Sabhasad Bakhar referred to Shivaji as “Maratha Patshah,” a unique and rare designation. The term Patshah has Islamic origins, yet it was used for a Hindu king in this context, reflecting the fusion of Sultanate traditions with Maratha rule and showcasing a distinctive political and cultural identity. Shivaji Maharaj issued two coins—Shivraee, a copper coin, and a gold commemorative coin – which are important primary sources. Additionally, public memory serves as a valuable historical source.

While not strictly academic, secondary sources are essential for those unfamiliar with historical scripts. The tradition of writing about Shivaji Maharaj has continued since 1826. Jyotirao Phule, for instance, interpreted Shivaji as a king of the Kunbi (agrarian) community, presenting him as a ruler of the people rather than one from a Brahminical tradition. Dr Kumbhojkar mentioned several documents shedding light on Shivaji’s personality. One document on land tax and interest by Patangrao provides insights into his governance. Another account narrates that when Rajaram was born as a breech baby, Shivaji remarked that he would “turn Delhi upside down”, showcasing his pragmatic nature and dismissing superstitious beliefs.

In 1697, discussions on forming a naval force included individuals like Darya Sarang and Mainak Bhandari from seafaring communities, underscoring Shivaji’s practical approach. However, after Shivaji’s time, when the Marathas fought the British, the Peshwas could not sustain the naval force, leading to its eventual decline. Prof. Kumbhojkar pointed out that while modern terms like “secularism” and “nation” do not apply to 17th-century India, the western coast had 27 different powers at the time, with Shivaji being one of them. A document even records Shivaji granting land to a dancing woman who sought his help, reflecting his inclusive governance.

Shivaji’s administrative policies also prioritised language reform. The Rajya Vyavhar Kosh mentions that many Persian-origin terms were used in governance, and Shivaji had instructed Raghunath Pandit to refine the language by replacing them with indigenous words. However, it remains unclear whether this glossary was ever finalised. Shivaji’s governance also reflected concern for public welfare. A letter from Shivaji to his military officers, still cited today, instructs soldiers to care for their horses before themselves. He also commanded that troops must not forcibly seize food and resources from civilians. Another letter rebukes a Brahmin Subedar for negligence, asserting that caste would not grant anyone immunity from accountability, showcasing his commitment to professional governance.

On identity, Prof. Kumbhojkar noted that Shivaji maintained cordial relations with the Qutub Shahi dynasty of Golconda. A document records that the Qutub Shah personally welcomed Shivaji, breaking protocol. Shivaji, in turn, called for all Maratha Jaati to unite with Qutub Shah—not in a caste-based sense, but as a geographical and linguistic identity. This Deccani or Dakshini identity was emerging as a counterforce to the northern Mughal influence, with Shivaji asserting that the Deccan should remain under its own people’s rule. Finally, Prof. Kumbhojkar emphasised that Shivaji’s legacy is complex and must be viewed in its 17th-century context. While some of his values are timeless, modern interpretations sometimes impose contemporary ideals onto his image. He has consistently been revered as Rayatecha Raja—the King of the People. As historian Ibn Khaldun noted, history is deeply connected to the philosophy of its time, and Shivaji’s legacy must be understood within that framework.

Prof. Aniruddh Deshpande emphasised that history is a subject of philosophy and hermeneutics. History is often interpreted based on contemporary concerns rather than objective facts. Govind Pansare’s book Shivaji Kaun Hota? (1988), built upon Jyotirao Phule’s perspective, portrayed Shivaji as Kulwadi Kulabhushana, a title signifying him as the crown jewel of the lower castes. Pansare applied the class analysis framework to re-imagine Shivaji as a proponent of Bahujan concerns and essentially as a leader of the subaltern classes. This interpretation, he clarified, was not anti-Brahmin but rather anti-Brahmanical, a distinction that is often misunderstood. He also pointed out that India lacks a strong theoretical tradition in history and strategic studies, affecting how historical figures like Shivaji are analysed. Shivaji’s political and strategic views should be contextually studied rather than applying a modern framework.

Shivaji’s military strategy was shaped by his constraints and the necessity of asymmetric warfare. Unlike the Mughals, who drew vast revenue from Bengal and Punjab to sustain a large military machine, Shivaji operated within a relatively smaller territory with limited resources. Recognising this challenge, he adopted guerrilla warfare, or Ganimi Kava, which emphasised deception, rapid movement, surprise attacks, and strategic retreats to fight another day. He focused on mobility rather than heavy equipment, so his forces relied on light cavalry and infantry. The cavalry was composed mainly of locally available horses, but heavier shock troops’ horses were procured from Arabs and Kathiawadi merchants. Forts played a crucial role in his administration and were strategically located along trade routes, serving as governance and revenue collection centres. Unlike the commonly used terms Rajya or Rashtra today, Desh and Deccan were the prevailing geographical terminologies of that era.

Tactically, Shivaji never fought a set-piece battle. Stealth and secrecy were key tools in Shivaji’s battle tactics. As a master strategist, he exploited the local knowledge and debunked superstitions, including non-adherence to the religious calendar, to plan battles. He maintained strict secrecy in planning military movements, ensuring his enemy never detected his approach. His forces would converge from multiple directions at a distance from the target before launching brutal raids, after which they would withdraw swiftly to avoid prolonged engagements. Although these attacks were ruthless, plundering wealth and resources, Shivaji’s forces strictly refrained from harming women, children, the elderly, or religious objects. Unlike many rulers of his time, he enforced strict discipline within his army, forbidding concubines, prostitutes, and entertainers in military camps. Any soldier found violating these rules faced execution.

The structure of Shivaji’s army was well-organised and meritocratic. He maintained a balance between Shiledars, who owned their horses, and Bargis, who were allotted horses by the state, thereby ensuring individual responsibility and state control. The Pindari force served as scouts and spies, crucial in gathering intelligence. Over time, the Bargi system led to greater dependence on the government, ensuring discipline and loyalty among soldiers. Shivaji promoted people based on merit rather than identity, giving equal opportunities to capable individuals regardless of their social background. Additionally, he provided pensions to widows of fallen soldiers and ensured that the grievances of his troops were heard and addressed promptly. Corrupt officials were severely punished, reinforcing a governance system based on accountability. Similarly, while Shivaji initiated the formation of a naval force, it was not a full-scale navy. His maritime strategy relied on local seafarers and materials, and leaders like Tukoji Angre and Kanhoji Angre later carried forward this legacy. Some historians today refer to Shivaji as the “father of the Indian Navy,” but Deshpande argued that this characterisation oversimplifies history.

The identity of Maharashtra Desh was shaped by his rule, along with the growing influence of the Marathi language and the Bhakti movement. His legacy, however, must be understood within the context of his time. He was not attempting to build a modern nation-state, but he maximised his potential within the constraints he faced. His ability to adapt to challenges, focus on survival rather than reckless heroism, and build a disciplined and inclusive military made him an exemplary strategist whose influence continues to shape discussions on Indian history today.

Questions and Comments

Dr. Ajey Lele asked about Shivaji’s lineage, whether he belonged to the Sisodia clan, and the confusion surrounding his date of birth. Mr. Arvind Khare referred to historian Irfan Habib’s claim that Shivaji was secular and questioned whether modern historians imposed contemporary concepts onto him. Cmde. Abhay Singh sought insights into the role of the Maratha Navy. Dr. Saurabh Mishra questioned why Shivaji had a grand coronation despite opposition and how this was linked to his foreign policy, particularly the collection of Chauth. Ms. Khyati asked about the evolution of relations between Brahmins and the Marathas after Shivaji’s coronation and whether any principles from Angre’s navy could be applied to contemporary naval strategy. Col. Dharmendra Yadav asked why the Marathas, who initially excelled in guerrilla warfare under Shivaji, later transitioned to conventional warfare. Lastly, Dr. Arnab Dasgupta asked whether Shivaji had any explicit doctrine advocating using terror as a military strategy.

Both the speakers responded to all comments and questions from the Director General, Deputy Director General and MP-IDSA scholars.

Report was prepared by Mr. Rahul Wankhede, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre and Dr. Hirak Jyoti Das, Research Analyst, West Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.