Bhonsle | |
---|---|
Maratha clan | |
Ethnicity | Deccan-Marathi |
Location | Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu |
Language | Marathi |
Religion | Hinduism |
The Bhonsle (or Bhonsale, Bhosale, Bhosle) [1] are a prominent group within the Maratha clan system.
The earliest accepted members of the Bhonsles are Mudhoji Bhonsle and his kin Rupaji Bhonsle, who were the village headman (pāṭīl) of Hingani — this branch has been since known as Hinganikar Bhonsles. [2] A branch seem to have split soon, who went on to claim an ancestral right to the post of district steward (deśmukhī) of Kadewalit: Suryaji Bhonsle during the reign of Ahmad Nizam Shah I (early 1490s), and his son Sharafji Bhonsle during the conquest of the region by Daniyal Mirza (1599). [2] [a] [b] This branch has been since known as Kadewalit Bhonsles. [2]
The next significant Bhonsle was probably Maloji Bhosale from the Hinganikar branch. [3] He was the great-grandson of one Kheloji (c. 1490). [3]
In the opinion of Jadunath Sarkar and other scholars, Bhonsles were predominantly Deccani tiller-plainsmen from the Shudra caste; they were part of the Marathas/Kunbis, an amorphous class-group. [4] [5] [6] [7] [c] Scholars have however disagreed about the agricultural status of Bhosles. [3] Rosalind O'Hanlon notes that the historical evolution of castes grouped under the Maratha-Kunbis is sketchy. [8] Ananya Vajpeyi rejects the designation of Shudra, since the category has remained in a state of flux across centuries; she instead notes them to be a Marathi lineage, who enjoyed "reasonably high" social status as landholders and warlords, being in the service of Deccan Sultanate or Mughals. [3] [d]
According to R. C. Dhere's interpretation of local oral history and ethnography, Bhonsles descend from the Hoysalas and Yadavas of Devagiri, who were cow-herding Gavli sovereigns. [3] [9] [e] [f] In early thirteenth century, "Baliyeppa Gopati Sirsat", a Hoysala cousin of Simhana migrated from Gadag to Satara along with his pastoral herd and kul-devta; the Sambhu Mahadev was thus installed at a hill-top in Singhnapur. [3] [g] [h] Historical records indicate that this shrine received extensive patronage from Maloji onwards. [3] [i] Further, there exists a branch of the Bhosles named "Sirsat Bhosles" and Bhosle (or "Bhosale") is linguistically similar to "Hoysala". [3] M. K. Dhavalikar found the work to convincingly explain the foundation of the Bhosle clan (as well as Sambhu Mahadev cult). [10] Vajpeyi too advocates that Dhere's theory be probed in greater detail — "[f]rom pastoralist big men to warlords on horseback, is not an impossible distance to cover in two to three centuries." [3]
By 1670s, Shivaji had acquired extensive territory and wealth from his campaigns. [5] [11] But, lacking a formal crown, he had no operational legitimacy to rule his de facto domain and technically, remained subject to his Mughal (or Deccan Sultanate) overlords; in the hierarchy of power, Shivaji's position remained similar to fellow Maratha chieftains. [5] [3] [11] [j] Also, he was often opposed by the orthodox Brahmin community of Maharashtra. [3] A coronation sanctioned by the Brahmins was thus planned, in a bid to proclaim sovereignty and legitimize his rule. [5] [11] [13]
On proposing the Brahmins of his court to have him proclaimed as the rightful king, a controversy erupted: the regnal status was reserved for those belonging to the kshatriya varna. [14] [15] Not only was there a fundamental dispute among scholars on whether any true Kshatriya survived in the Kali Yuga, [k] having been all destroyed by Parashurama but also Shivaji's grandfather was a tiller-headman, Shivaji did not wear the sacred thread, and his marriage was not in accordance with the Kshatriya customs. [11] [13] [16] Thus, the Brahmins had him categorised as a shudra. [11] [13]
Compelled to postpone his coronation, Shivaji had his secretary Balaji Avji Chitnis sent to the Sisodiyas of Mewar for inspection of the royal genealogies; Avji returned with a favorable finding — Shahji turned out to be a descendant of Chacho Sisodiya, a half-Rajput uncle of Mokal Singh. [3] [l] Gaga Bhatt, a famed Brahmin of Banaras, [m] was then hired to ratify Chitnis' find, and the Bhonsles were now permitted to stake a claim to Kshatriya caste. [18] [3] [15] [n] The coronation would be re-executed in June 1674 but only after going through a long list of preludes. [3] [o]
Led by Bhatt, who employed traditional Hindu imagery in an unprecedented scale, the first phase had Shivaji penance for having lived as a Maratha despite being a Kshatriya. [3] [11] [20] Then came the sacred thread ceremony ('maunjibandhanam') followed by remarriage according to Kshatriya customs ('mantra-vivah') and a sequence of Vedic rituals before the eventual coronation ('abhisheka') — a public spectacle of enormous expense that heralded the rebirth of Shivaji as a Kshatriya king. [3] [p] Panegyrics composed by court-poets during these spans (and afterward) reinforced onto the public memory that Shivaji (and the Bhonsles) indeed belonged from the Sisodiyas. [3] [15]
However, the Kshatriyization was not unanimous; a section of Brahmins continued to deny the Kshatriya status. [21] Brahmins of the Peshwa period rejected Bhatt's acceptance of Shivaji's claims and blamed the non-dharmic coronation for all ills that plagued Shivaji and his heirs—in tune with the general Brahminical sentiment to categorize all Marathas as Shudras, carte-blanche; there have been even claims that Bhatt was excommunicated by Maratha Brahmins for his role in the coronation of Shivaji! [16] Interestingly, all claims to Rajput ancestry had largely vanished from the family's subsequent projections of identity. [3]
Vajpeyi notes the "veridical status" of Chitnis' finds to be not determinable to "historical certainty" — the links were tenuous at best and inventive at worst. [3] Shivaji was not a Rajput and the sole purpose of the lineage was to guarantee Shivaji's consecration as a Kshatriya, in a tactic that had clear parallels to Rajputisation. [3] [q] Jadunath Sarkar deemed that the genealogy was cleverly fabricated by Balaji Awji and after some reluctance accepted by Gaga Bhatt, who in turn was "rewarded with a huge fee". V. K. Rajwade, Dhere, Allison Busch, John Keay and Audrey Truschke also agree with Sarkar about the fabrication. [7] [22] [20] [15] [23] G. S. Sardesai notes that the descent is "not authentically proved". [24] [r] Stewart N. Gordon does not pass any judgement but notes Bhatt to be a "creative Brahmin". [3] [11] [s] André Wink deems that the Sisodia genealogical claim is destined to remain disputed forever. [18] [t]
Satara State, Kolhapur State, Thanjavur State, Nagpur State, [25] Akkalkot State, [26] Sawantwadi State [27] and Barshi [28] were amongst the prominent states ruled by the Bhonsles.
Obviously, Ambedkar had in mind the Brahmin's refusal to recognize Shivaji as a Kshatriya. His theory, which is based on scant historical evidence , doubtless echoed this episode in Maharashtra's history, whereas in fact Shivaji, a Maratha-Kunbi, was a Shudra. Nevertheless, he had won power and so expected the Brahmins to confirm his new status by writing for him an adequate genealogy. This process recalls that of Sanskritisation , but sociologists refer to such emulation of Kshatriyas by Shudras as ' Kshatriyaisation ' and describe it as a variant of Sanskritisation.
Bhonsle | |
---|---|
Maratha clan | |
Ethnicity | Deccan-Marathi |
Location | Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu |
Language | Marathi |
Religion | Hinduism |
The Bhonsle (or Bhonsale, Bhosale, Bhosle) [1] are a prominent group within the Maratha clan system.
The earliest accepted members of the Bhonsles are Mudhoji Bhonsle and his kin Rupaji Bhonsle, who were the village headman (pāṭīl) of Hingani — this branch has been since known as Hinganikar Bhonsles. [2] A branch seem to have split soon, who went on to claim an ancestral right to the post of district steward (deśmukhī) of Kadewalit: Suryaji Bhonsle during the reign of Ahmad Nizam Shah I (early 1490s), and his son Sharafji Bhonsle during the conquest of the region by Daniyal Mirza (1599). [2] [a] [b] This branch has been since known as Kadewalit Bhonsles. [2]
The next significant Bhonsle was probably Maloji Bhosale from the Hinganikar branch. [3] He was the great-grandson of one Kheloji (c. 1490). [3]
In the opinion of Jadunath Sarkar and other scholars, Bhonsles were predominantly Deccani tiller-plainsmen from the Shudra caste; they were part of the Marathas/Kunbis, an amorphous class-group. [4] [5] [6] [7] [c] Scholars have however disagreed about the agricultural status of Bhosles. [3] Rosalind O'Hanlon notes that the historical evolution of castes grouped under the Maratha-Kunbis is sketchy. [8] Ananya Vajpeyi rejects the designation of Shudra, since the category has remained in a state of flux across centuries; she instead notes them to be a Marathi lineage, who enjoyed "reasonably high" social status as landholders and warlords, being in the service of Deccan Sultanate or Mughals. [3] [d]
According to R. C. Dhere's interpretation of local oral history and ethnography, Bhonsles descend from the Hoysalas and Yadavas of Devagiri, who were cow-herding Gavli sovereigns. [3] [9] [e] [f] In early thirteenth century, "Baliyeppa Gopati Sirsat", a Hoysala cousin of Simhana migrated from Gadag to Satara along with his pastoral herd and kul-devta; the Sambhu Mahadev was thus installed at a hill-top in Singhnapur. [3] [g] [h] Historical records indicate that this shrine received extensive patronage from Maloji onwards. [3] [i] Further, there exists a branch of the Bhosles named "Sirsat Bhosles" and Bhosle (or "Bhosale") is linguistically similar to "Hoysala". [3] M. K. Dhavalikar found the work to convincingly explain the foundation of the Bhosle clan (as well as Sambhu Mahadev cult). [10] Vajpeyi too advocates that Dhere's theory be probed in greater detail — "[f]rom pastoralist big men to warlords on horseback, is not an impossible distance to cover in two to three centuries." [3]
By 1670s, Shivaji had acquired extensive territory and wealth from his campaigns. [5] [11] But, lacking a formal crown, he had no operational legitimacy to rule his de facto domain and technically, remained subject to his Mughal (or Deccan Sultanate) overlords; in the hierarchy of power, Shivaji's position remained similar to fellow Maratha chieftains. [5] [3] [11] [j] Also, he was often opposed by the orthodox Brahmin community of Maharashtra. [3] A coronation sanctioned by the Brahmins was thus planned, in a bid to proclaim sovereignty and legitimize his rule. [5] [11] [13]
On proposing the Brahmins of his court to have him proclaimed as the rightful king, a controversy erupted: the regnal status was reserved for those belonging to the kshatriya varna. [14] [15] Not only was there a fundamental dispute among scholars on whether any true Kshatriya survived in the Kali Yuga, [k] having been all destroyed by Parashurama but also Shivaji's grandfather was a tiller-headman, Shivaji did not wear the sacred thread, and his marriage was not in accordance with the Kshatriya customs. [11] [13] [16] Thus, the Brahmins had him categorised as a shudra. [11] [13]
Compelled to postpone his coronation, Shivaji had his secretary Balaji Avji Chitnis sent to the Sisodiyas of Mewar for inspection of the royal genealogies; Avji returned with a favorable finding — Shahji turned out to be a descendant of Chacho Sisodiya, a half-Rajput uncle of Mokal Singh. [3] [l] Gaga Bhatt, a famed Brahmin of Banaras, [m] was then hired to ratify Chitnis' find, and the Bhonsles were now permitted to stake a claim to Kshatriya caste. [18] [3] [15] [n] The coronation would be re-executed in June 1674 but only after going through a long list of preludes. [3] [o]
Led by Bhatt, who employed traditional Hindu imagery in an unprecedented scale, the first phase had Shivaji penance for having lived as a Maratha despite being a Kshatriya. [3] [11] [20] Then came the sacred thread ceremony ('maunjibandhanam') followed by remarriage according to Kshatriya customs ('mantra-vivah') and a sequence of Vedic rituals before the eventual coronation ('abhisheka') — a public spectacle of enormous expense that heralded the rebirth of Shivaji as a Kshatriya king. [3] [p] Panegyrics composed by court-poets during these spans (and afterward) reinforced onto the public memory that Shivaji (and the Bhonsles) indeed belonged from the Sisodiyas. [3] [15]
However, the Kshatriyization was not unanimous; a section of Brahmins continued to deny the Kshatriya status. [21] Brahmins of the Peshwa period rejected Bhatt's acceptance of Shivaji's claims and blamed the non-dharmic coronation for all ills that plagued Shivaji and his heirs—in tune with the general Brahminical sentiment to categorize all Marathas as Shudras, carte-blanche; there have been even claims that Bhatt was excommunicated by Maratha Brahmins for his role in the coronation of Shivaji! [16] Interestingly, all claims to Rajput ancestry had largely vanished from the family's subsequent projections of identity. [3]
Vajpeyi notes the "veridical status" of Chitnis' finds to be not determinable to "historical certainty" — the links were tenuous at best and inventive at worst. [3] Shivaji was not a Rajput and the sole purpose of the lineage was to guarantee Shivaji's consecration as a Kshatriya, in a tactic that had clear parallels to Rajputisation. [3] [q] Jadunath Sarkar deemed that the genealogy was cleverly fabricated by Balaji Awji and after some reluctance accepted by Gaga Bhatt, who in turn was "rewarded with a huge fee". V. K. Rajwade, Dhere, Allison Busch, John Keay and Audrey Truschke also agree with Sarkar about the fabrication. [7] [22] [20] [15] [23] G. S. Sardesai notes that the descent is "not authentically proved". [24] [r] Stewart N. Gordon does not pass any judgement but notes Bhatt to be a "creative Brahmin". [3] [11] [s] André Wink deems that the Sisodia genealogical claim is destined to remain disputed forever. [18] [t]
Satara State, Kolhapur State, Thanjavur State, Nagpur State, [25] Akkalkot State, [26] Sawantwadi State [27] and Barshi [28] were amongst the prominent states ruled by the Bhonsles.
Obviously, Ambedkar had in mind the Brahmin's refusal to recognize Shivaji as a Kshatriya. His theory, which is based on scant historical evidence , doubtless echoed this episode in Maharashtra's history, whereas in fact Shivaji, a Maratha-Kunbi, was a Shudra. Nevertheless, he had won power and so expected the Brahmins to confirm his new status by writing for him an adequate genealogy. This process recalls that of Sanskritisation , but sociologists refer to such emulation of Kshatriyas by Shudras as ' Kshatriyaisation ' and describe it as a variant of Sanskritisation.