M A Hossain

The recently released film "Chhava" has sparked significant controversy for its portrayal of Maratha leader Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj as a heroic figure and Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb as a villain. While creative freedom is a cornerstone of cinematic expression, the deliberate distortion of historical facts and the glorification of one faction at the expense of another is a disservice to history. This film, like many others, appears to be a tool for propaganda, aiming to manipulate historical narratives to serve contemporary political agendas. Such portrayals not only misrepresent the past but also deepen communal divides, particularly in a country as diverse as India.

The True Character of Sambhaji Maharaj

The film elevates Sambhaji Maharaj to the status of a valiant hero, but historical records paint a more nuanced and often unflattering picture of his reign. Sambhaji, the eldest son of Shivaji, was indeed a significant figure in the Maratha Empire, but his rule was marred by cruelty, mismanagement, and internal dissent. Far from being a unifying leader, he faced opposition from within his own ranks, including prominent Maratha nobles who questioned his leadership.

Sambhaji’s reign was characterized by relentless raids and plunder, targeting not only Mughal territories but also other regions in the Deccan. His forces were notorious for their indiscriminate looting, which affected both Hindus and Muslims alike. One of the most egregious acts attributed to Sambhaji was his involvement in piracy against Hajj pilgrims. He established a formidable naval force in the Arabian Sea, which targeted ships carrying pilgrims to Mecca and Medina. This act of aggression earned him the ire of the entire Muslim world, not just the Mughals.

While the film portrays Sambhaji as a symbol of resistance against Mughal oppression, it conveniently omits these darker aspects of his rule. His legacy is far more complex than the one-dimensional heroism depicted in "Chhava".

Aurangzeb: A Misunderstood Ruler?

In stark contrast to Sambhaji’s glorification, Aurangzeb is depicted as a tyrannical and fanatical ruler in Chhava. This portrayal, however, is a gross oversimplification of a man who was one of the most powerful and controversial emperors in Indian history. Aurangzeb was indeed a strict administrator, but he was also a ruler who valued justice and governance. His reign saw the Mughal Empire reach its greatest territorial extent, a feat that would have been impossible under a purely despotic ruler.

Aurangzeb’s policies were often pragmatic rather than purely religious. He appointed Hindus to high-ranking positions, such as Raja Jai Singh and Raja Man Singh, demonstrating a willingness to collaborate across religious lines. Moreover, Aurangzeb’s personal life was marked by austerity. He earned his livelihood by copying the Quran and sewing caps, a far cry from the opulence typically associated with autocratic rulers.

The film’s depiction of Aurangzeb as a one-dimensional villain ignores these complexities and reduces his legacy to a caricature. Such portrayals not only distort history but also fuel communal tensions by perpetuating stereotypes.

The Defeat of Sambhaji and the Expansion of the Mughal Empire

"Chhava" portrays Sambhaji as the sole challenger to Aurangzeb’s authority, but this narrative is historically inaccurate. Sambhaji’s rebellion against the Mughals was marked by internal divisions within the Maratha ranks. In 1689, Sambhaji was captured by Mughal forces and executed on Aurangzeb’s orders. His death was not merely the result of a personal vendetta but a consequence of his repeated attempts to destabilize the Mughal Empire.

Following Sambhaji’s death, his half-brother Rajaram and later his wife, Tarabai, took up the Maratha cause. However, despite their efforts, the Marathas were ultimately defeated by Aurangzeb in 1705. The film’s attempt to portray Sambhaji as an undefeated hero is a clear distortion of historical events. While the Marathas did emerge as a formidable force under his leadership, their inability to sustain their resistance against the Mughals is a testament to the challenges they faced.

The Propaganda in "Chhava"

The historical inaccuracies in Chhava suggest that the film is less about educating audiences and more about promoting a specific ideological agenda. By glorifying Sambhaji and vilifying Aurangzeb, the film aligns itself with a narrative that seeks to rewrite history to suit contemporary political interests. This is particularly evident in the context of recent events, such as the renaming of Aurangabad to Sambhajinagar and calls to demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb.

The film’s portrayal of the Marathas as noble warriors overlooks their role as plunderers, particularly in regions like Bengal. The Maratha invasions of Bengal between 1741 and 1751, led by the notorious Bargis, are a dark chapter in Indian history. These raids were marked by widespread looting, destruction, and violence against civilians. The Bargis’ atrocities were so severe that they became ingrained in Bengali folklore, as reflected in the popular rhyme:

“Khoka ghumalo, para juralo, Bargi elo deshe…”
(“The child sleeps, the neighborhood is quiet, the Bargis have come to the land…”)

This rhyme captures the terror inflicted by the Marathas, who targeted not only Muslim rulers but also Hindu landlords and ordinary villagers. The Bargis’ legacy is one of destruction and cruelty, a far cry from the heroic image projected in Chhava.

The Danger of Historical Distortion

Films like "Chhava" are not merely entertainment; they are powerful tools for shaping public perception. By distorting historical facts and promoting a biased narrative, such films contribute to the polarization of society. The glorification of figures like Sambhaji and the demonization of Aurangzeb serve to deepen communal divides and reinforce stereotypes.

History is not a tool to be wielded for political gain. It is a complex tapestry of events, personalities, and motivations that must be understood in its entirety. The selective portrayal of historical figures and events, as seen in "Chhava", does a disservice to this understanding. It is imperative that filmmakers, historians, and audiences alike approach history with nuance and integrity, recognizing that the past cannot be reduced to simplistic binaries of heroes and villains.

In a country as diverse as India, where history is often a contested terrain, the responsibility to present it accurately is even greater. Films like Chhava may succeed in stirring emotions, but they fail in their duty to educate and inform. As consumers of media, we must demand better—a commitment to truth, fairness, and respect for the complexities of our shared history. Only then can we hope to build a society that is informed, inclusive, and just.

The wirter is a, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.