Thread by @TrueIndology

Recently, Dhruv Rathee @dhruv_rathee has published a video titled 'Aurangzeb and Modi'.

The entire video is full of factual blunders, false equivalences and downright fraudulent claims. Its purpose is Hindu holocaust denial.

The following is the gist of his video :

1) Shivaji Maharaj was 'Secular' like Congress. He worshiped Sufis and had Muslims in his army.

2) Modi=Aurangzeb.

3) Aurangzeb did not have any religious fanaticism, but simply used religion for his purpose.

4) There was no Hindu Muslim conflict in India before the advent of Hindutva, BJP, Godi Media and 'whatsapp university'.

5) Hindus were never oppressed by Muslims. Hindus were never enslaved by Muslims. Hindus and Muslims lived together in perfect harmony until the advent of Hindutva, BJP, Godi Media and 'Whatsapp university'.

This thread is a fact check

🧵

Blunder 1:

Dhruv Rathee uses an article from Govind Pansare, a CPI communist politician, to claim that Shivaji Maharaj was worshiper of a Muslim Sufi named Yakut Baba of Kelsi.

Note: Pansare was no historian but a card carrying communist comrade.

indianhistorycollective.com/shivaji-hindut…

Fact Check 1: Shivaji Maharaj NEVER worshiped any Yakut Baba.

There is not a SINGLE contemporary document which shows any association of Shivaji Maharaj with Baba Yakut.

Shivaji Maharaj was associated with Hindu Holy men like Samarth Ramdas, Mauni Bava and Deo of Chinchvad in his lifetime. We have contemporary sources.

But Yakut Baba is COMPLETELY ABSENT in contemporary records of Shivaji Maharaj.

Despite this, the myth is often regurgitated by usual suspects that Shivaji Maharaj was a Sufi lover.

It is an open challenge to those who disagree. Show us a single contemporary sources which associates Shivaji Maharaj with Baba Yakut.

Blunder 2: Dhruv Rathee uses FAKE QUOTE

Dhruv Rathee claims that Sabhasad Bakhar records Shivaji Maharaj looking after Mosques. He uses the below quote

“There were places of worship all over. Proper arrangement of their worship and care was made. He(Shivaji Maharaj) also looked after the arrangements in pirs and mosques.”

Great! But there is a small problem.

This quote is FAKE. No such sentence is found in Sabhasad Bakhar. This was completely fabricated by Govind Pansare in his article and regurgitated by Dhruv Rathee. Skeptics are free to verify themselves. A digital copy of Sabhasad Bakhar is available online.

Blunder 3: Shivaji Maharaj never demolished any Mosques.

Both Dhruv Rathee and his source Pansare have claimed that Shivaji Maharaj never demolished a single mosque. Rathee Quotes Pansare saying:

"However, is there the tiniest of evidence that he demolished a single mosque? Or is there any evidence of him having constructed a temple in place of a mosque, which was supposed to have been built by demolishing a temple? Not at all. On the contrary, there are records that he donated money and land to mosques"

Fact Check 3: Rathee's statement is a factual blunder. Shivaji Maharaj indeed demolished and repurposed Mosques, which we will see below. That said, some context is needed here.

Shivaji Maharaj was a devout practicing Hindu and he possessed innate Hindu tolerance towards those professing other forms of worship. He was not a hater or bigot. As such, he would in theory not attack worship sites of Non-Hindus. However, Mosque in Muslim India was much more than that. It was a very instrument of Islamic colonialism. Many mosques were built on top of Hindu temples. This 'conversion' involved lots of bloodshed and enslavement of Hindus. Therefore, as a liberator of Hindus, it could expected that Shivaji Maharaj would demolish Mosques and restore temples. He did exactly that in some instances.

Shonachalapati temple and Samottir Perumal temple were destroyed by Muslims and converted into Mosques.Shivaji Maharaj demolished both these Mosques and reestablished Shiva temple.

This evidence is borne out by Raja-Vyavahara-Kosha which was officially sponsored by Shivaji Maharaj himself.

That Shivaji Maharaj demolished mosques (which were built on top of Hindu temples) is borne out by all contemporary sources.

1) Hindu sources
2)Muslim Sources
3)Jesuit sources
4)Foreign sources

Hindu sources: According to contemporary source Shivabharat(which can be regarded as his official biography), Shivaji Maharaj 'has been insulting yavanas(Muslims) since his childhood'. Shivabharat Quotes Afzal Khan saying 'You conqured Kalyan and demolished Mosques there'.

Jesuit sources: A reference appearing in a contemporaneous Jesuit letter about Shivaji Maharaj's Karnatak expedition says,“Shivaji desecrated their mosques.”

Foreign sources: Dr. John Fryer traveled to Kalyan in 1675 which was then part of Shivaji Maharaj's kingdom. The Maratha havaldar there allotted a large mosque for Fryer’s overnight stay. Fryer notes that there were several mosques in Kalyan but Shivaji Maharaj "converted them into granaries".

There is a slight possibility that Muslim sources are false accusations. There is also a slight possibility that Hindu sources are exaggerations. But the sources of foreigners and their personal experiences, which have been written by contemporary foreigners in their own language for their own people, can hardly be lies. Especially when they corroborate with all other sources. Thus, it is certain that Shivaji Maharaj demolished Mosques and converted some of them to temples.

Contemporary Portuguese traveler Cosme De Guarda gives more background. After Afzal Khan wantonly demolished temples such as Tulja Bhavani and Pandharpur, Shivaji Maharaj asked him "what share had these idols in the offences you say I committed? A brave exploit was it indeed to destroy stone buildings and to break mute images that could not offer you any resistance. Do you know that if you had not committed these barbarities, I would never
resolve to seek you?"

After this incident, Gauda says 'Shivaji swore that
henceforth he would do the same thing in the mosques he found'.

Blunder 5: Shivaji Maharaj was secular because he had Muslims in army.

First of all, Dhruv Rathee is an utter idiot to suggest that Shivaji Maharaj was secular BECAUSE he had Muslims in his army.

By this logic, Dhruv Rathee could well argue that Hitler was secular towards Jews and Holocaust never happened.

After all, there were 150,000 Jews in Nazi army.



But as we will see, even this is largely a farce. The 'Muslim soldiers' in Shivaji's army were mostly inherited Adil Shahi soldiers from his father's Jagir. Most of these soldiers were eventually dismissed by Shivaji Maharaj. Many others turned traitors. Some were kept in the army only because of their specialization and eventually removed. More on this further.haaretz.com/2003-10-30/ty-…

While talking about Muslims in Shivaji Maharaj's army, we must not forget that Shivaji Maharaj inherited his earliest Jagir (Pune) from his father who was an employee of Adil Shahis. Therefore, it is but natural that the earliest core of Shivaji's army had Muslims.

However, after Shivaji Maharaj took over, he dismissed two big Muslim officers. Zaina Khan the sarhavaldar of Pune and Siddi Ambar the havaldar of Pune.These were in fact Shahji’s officers.

After Shivaji revolted against Adil Shahis, there was not a SINGLE Muslim officer in Shivaji’s civil service.

We know the names of 200 officers: NOT ONE of them is Muslim.

What Dhruv Rathee tells you: Noor Khan Beg was Chief of Shivaji Maharaj's infantry.

What Dhruv Rathee DOES NOT tell you: Shivaji Maharaj dismissed Noor Khan and replaced him with Yesaji Kank as Noor Khan was suspected of collaboration with Aurangzeb!

There is more.

Dhruv Rathee claims that Shivaji had a secretary of intelligence whose name was Maulana Haider Ali.

Here is my open challenge. Find me this intelligence secretary Maulana in any document. Any primary source.

He is simply absent. Imaginary. Zilch. 404. Nada.

You will see a lot of secularists regurgitating this myth, but he simply does not exist in any primary source. He is an imaginary creation of secular authors.

More travesty!

Quoting Ram Puniyani, Dhruv Rathee says that Shivaji Maharaj had a bodyguard named Rustam-E-Zaman. He further says that it was Rustam who advised Shivaji to carry Iron claws against Azam Khan.

But there is a small problem. There was never any Shivaji's bodyguard by the name Rustam-E-Zaman. Shivabharat mentions the names of Shivaji's 10 bodyguards during the encounter with Afzal Khan. There is no Rustam-E-Zaman in the list.

Infact, Ram Puniyani and Dhruv Rathee have made a major blunder. Rustam-E-Zaman was NOT Shivaji's bodyguard. He was an Adilshahi commander and Shivaji's enemy all his life.

This is their academic standard!

Here is the list of Shivaji's ten bodyguards from contemporary source Shivabharat. Apart from Siddi Ibrahim who was originally an Abyssinian slave taken as servant by Shahaji, all are Hindus.

Where is Rustam-E-Zaman?

The person who gave iron claws to Shivaji Maharaj was Krishnaji Naik.

The rest is Ram Puniyani and Dhruv Rathee's imagination!

Not satisfied with just fake history, Dhruv Rathee next ventures into Anti-Brahmanism.

He claims that Brahmans performed a Yajna praying for defeat of Shivaji Maharaj.

Hello liar @dhruv_rathee, I challenge you to produce primary evidence for this claim. I challenge you to show a single primary source which says that Brahmans performed Yajna praying for defeat of Shivaji. Have some shame before peddling such lies.

In his video, Dhruv Rathee quotes James Laine to show Shivaji Maharaj as a secular king.

However, in the same book, the author describes an incident. A young shivaji gets incensed at cow slaughter and executes a butcher at Bijapur. Of course, Dhruv Rathee will never talk about this as it doesn't suit his agenda.

There is also a letter of Shivaji Maharaj written to his half brother rebel Vyankoji wherein he castigates Vyankoji for keeping Muslims in army. Shivaji describes himself as 'kiIIer of Turks(Muslims)'. Shivaji says "You should have thought [to yourself]: ‘He [Shivaji] is blessed by Shiva and Bhavani. He kiIIs the wicked Turks [Muslims].How could I win when my army also has Turks? How would the Turks hope to escape with their lives?’"

So much for 'Secular' Shivaji. One needs to understand that the very concept of Secularism had not existed in India in those times.

Not satisfied with Shivaji, Dhruv Rathee moves onto Aurangzeb and tries to whitewash his crimes. But the dumbtard uses the same warped logic and the same logical fallacy.

Dhruv Rathee claims that Aurangzeb cannot be a Hindu hater because he had Hindus in his army.

Well, 92% of soldiers of British Indian army were Indians in 1857. Using the same dumb yardstick, Rathee could even argue that the British were seculars and not colonialists, that there was never any British conquest and it was actually Indians who fought each other, and that Indians were always independent.

But even this claim of more Hindus in Aurangzeb's employment is largely a farce as we will see.