This poor chap, @BharadwajSpeaks stayed up all night to cra…

This poor chap, @BharadwajSpeaks stayed up all night to craft abuse & bluster. For all his fury and performance anxiety, he has not countered a single refutation I had made.
Mediocrity sells and lies sell even better, but you can’t fool all the people, all the time!
#Thread

Taqiyya: The art of lying and deception to promote a violent cult.

In this thread, I will show you how this fraudulent @yusufpore lies through his teeth and deceives readers for his cultic promotion and fraudulently distorts the image of Shivaji Maharaj https://t.co/W9NlFvmoli
— Bharadwaj (@BharadwajSpeaks) February 21, 2021

The prolific use of Islamophobic terms such as “Madarsa-chhaap”, “desert-cult” and “Taqiyya” in this context, may appeal to lumpen minds. But they are no substitute for historiographical method and knowledge. The latter rely on facts and a correct interpretation of those facts.

So let us see the evasive, not to mention cut-paste jobs this syndicated-pamphleteer indulges in.
That Shivaji’s civil service numbered a mere 200 officers is a bad joke. It ignores the extent and structure of Maratha administration and the inter-operable roles of it’s officers.

By excluding several layers of Maratha bureaucracy, to posit his claims, @BharadwajSpeaks completely ignores the structure of the Ashta Pradhan, or Ruling Council of 8, each with elaborate and large secretariats of officers; civil and military.
Read this!
https://t.co/9gNalWq1ST

In a bid to outshout historiographical facts, he makes loud claims such as these below. Besides the fact that the original argument was not about periods/timings of service, but service itself!
But shifting goalposts is a giveaway. The next tweet demolishes this claim however!

While @BharadwajSpeaks makes special mention of Daraya Sarang while simultaneously claiming all Shivaji’s Muslim officers had been dismissed by 1660, historical evidence proves this is not the case. Take the example of Sarang himself!

chrome://external-file/3-11-60.pdf

Not only this; Siddi Hilal and his son Siddi Wahwah, Muslim commanders who led both infantry and cavalry divisions at different times were present at the siege of Panhala, in 1664.
Hilal was in fact serving Shivaji until his death in 1674, fighting Adil Shahi forces at Nesari.

Much was made of my use of newspaper articles as sources. This happens when you are not familiar with the difference between citation and quotation.
I merely quoted that Hindutva icon, “Guruji” Golwalkar as cited in @the_hindu, and do so again. The source is Golwalkars own book!

This brings us to the question of that ‘red-herring’ Madari Mehtar. In a rush to bull-doze facts @BharadwajSpeaks has ignored the source I have quoted (note:QUOTED), as cited in a published article.
That source is no less than Golwalkar; Hindutva’s founder, from his own book.

Kazi Haider was Shivaji’s Munshi (secretary). Following Shivaji’s death in 1680, several Maratha chieftains including Shivaji’s kinsmen joined Mughal service. Haider did so in 1683, as did Shivaji’s son-in-law Achloji Raje Mahadik. Others like Kanhoji Shirke did as well.

As far as the “secularisation” of Shivaji is concerned, I had merely said, “Shivaji’s successors continued his secular policy of recruitment and appointment in both civil and military positions.”
It seems this was enough to rile up the imbeciles!
Read up and learn.

In his fascinating book, “Rebel Sultans”, @UnamPillai makes a sound conclusion, reproduced below.
And this tallies with the historiographical view that Shivaji used all the means at his disposal to wage both diplomacy and war.
Religious bias was not an end in his world-view.

And finally, nothing could be more complimentary for me than abusive tirades coming from the likes of @BharadwajSpeaks.
Once more, I appeal to all genuinely interested parties to never be intimidated by two-a-penny pamphleteers.
Always inform yourself and do learning a service.