Jump to content

Talk:Sambhaji

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delete ref 32, vindicating Ganoji Shirke & family

Dear sir or madam, Chatrapati Sambajaji was captured due to his close Brahmins. As the solid proof from Martin's diary is sufficient along with rest of the available proofs at the government of Maharashtra, currebtly with the Pooratatva Vibhag. According to the current historical documents, the close Brahmins of Sambahji Maharaj not only assisted to capture Smabhaji Raje multiple times but also vindicated the closest relatives of Sambahji Maharaj that is his wife Maharajni Yesubai & her brother & family Shirke. So much so that all power control was shifted to Bramhins & maratha was mis used & saturated in Pune in the hands of Peshwa. Until Maratha empire lost its armed navy & shortly everything at the feet of British empire. The reference number 32 ignore all these facts, also the letter from Government of Maharashtra that "the historical department has no proof against Ganoji Shirke for helping Mughal army. not to mention that Ganimi Kawa was very important to Shirke & Bhosale family. There many Shirke family member spies had changed their names & lived near the toorps of the Mughal army. However history was written by upper cast Bramhins therefore had been unkind to Ganoji Shirke, blamed Yesubai's brother; in fact the close Brahmins of Sambahji Maharaj betrayed the Chatrapati on many occasions, where Anna hi Datto & his close associates were found guilty more than once; hence beheaded by Sambahji Maharaj. Killing a bramhin had been considered the greatest sin the ancient India, therefore all the close relatives of Anna ji Datto & supports planned to take revenge of Chatrapati Sambhaji. Neither the Bramhins at the time supported Shivaji Maharaj during his coronation nor support his elder son Sambahji. In the end these bramhin families were able to behead Chatrapati with the help of Mukkabar Khan, the Mughal army general appointmented by Emporer Aurangzeb. Anvesh.rajeshirke (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Avnesh.rajeshirke, only martin's diary cannot be considered as a reliable proof. There should be a secondary supporting reference for it. Therefore I have removed the information regarding Martin's diary in capture and execution section. Mahusha (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect... This needs to be amended... And the title should be Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj.... Not Sambhaji... 38.41.89.166 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, the title should be Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj 174.165.71.29 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read about Chhava book, don't give is this false proof 2409:40C2:1033:2CEC:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not some 3rd rate Sambhaji Brigade article, where you can malign Brahmins for the fault and treachery of your ancestor “Ganoji Shirke”.
It is well known and well recorded that Ganoji Shirke earned the favor of Alamgir immediately after this incident and the patronage continued till Ganoji’s death in 1702. Dharmakriti (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2025

192.140.152.1 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi Empire

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji Maharaj served Maratha empire not Mughal empire

"Sambhaji briefly served the Mughal empire when Shivaji was involved in the campaign against the sultanate of Golconda".

I think Sambhaji serverd Maratha empire not Mughal empire as he was successor of first Maratha Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Can we correct it. Abhaypatidar20 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the source. There is nothing to correct. Dympies (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share the source to check. 103.86.137.14 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can find some of them at Sambhaji#Arrest and defection to the Mughals. Dympies (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
right 2409:4081:2C88:AEB2:3E9F:2C51:2252:AA86 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2025

The entire history of Shambhaji has been changed to portray him as a traitor of the maeatha empire. Addy1710 (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

addiction to sensual pleasures

I want to tell every user, This is a sentence that defames a great king. This is not mentioned in any source. This has been proven that Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj knew many languages, he was a poet, he wrote the Budhbhushan Granth (treatise). Of course, it is found in many references that his nature was irritable, but it is not mentioned anywhere that he was 'addicted to sensual pleasures'. Kiranpawar3210 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notice at the top of this talkpage which clearly states "Q: Why does it say "addiction to sensual pleasures"? I do not like that!
A: That is exactly what the cited source says, and other sources note allegations that he behaved inappropriately with a Brahmin woman, or may have committed some other offense. Suffice to say, for whatever reason, Shivaji confined him to Panhala. If you know of an alternate theory for that confinement, and have a reliable source, you can add that as an alternative theory, but you cannot simply remove that explanation unless you have very strong evidence that such story is obsolete according to modern scholars.". You are only bringing up that old chestnut with the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no STRONG evidence/source/reference anywhere to support this statement, so nobody can't state it clearly. Source that only the exact words contain should be published here as it is, or the statement making this allegation is completely false.
There is no source has been written word to word as 'addiction to sensual pleasures'.
That sentence seems based on guesswork.
The sentence needs to be changed. Kiranpawar3210 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article:
"Sambhaji's behaviour, including alleged irresponsibility and addiction to sensual pleasures,...."
The sources:
"Though a fine soldier, he became addicted to sensuous pleasures and easy life on attaining maturity and displayed irresponsible conduct unbecoming of a crown prince "
  • Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005-01-01). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6.
"when he came in direct contact with the loose life led by the Mughal grandees. It was at this time that he must have contracted the evil habits of addiction to sensual pleasures in severe contrast to the austere life of his father’s surroundings.... Soon after coronation ceremony of 1674, complaints reached Shivaji's ears of his son's evil habits. Shivaji kept him under surveillance at Shringāpore during 1676. "
- Ratnahastin (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all these mentioned sources are from writers who have had a biased hand in most of their writtings and hence can't be considered as a reliable source..! 49.128.163.172 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro Kiran, you can't fight with @Ratnahastin. He is on mission to create anti-India, anti-Hindus narrative, trying to demean. You can look at all his old edit history. Iamgreatbaby (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence need to change its wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40C2:700C:D988:3C1A:948:C12A:F721 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theories for his confinement at Panhala

There appears to be a general agreement among authors writing about Sambhaji that he was confined to Panhala because of his "misconduct", some say that he was addicted to sensual pleasures, while others say that he attempted to "violate" a Brahmin woman. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misbehavior with a Brahmin woman

He further adds that Sabhasad, the chronicler of Shivaji, may not be correct literally in this respect, but the implication therein appears to be probable.24 Jadunath Sarkar comments on this point: "Shambuji (was) a grownup youth notorious for his violent temper and self-indulgent character. . .Shambuji's own conduct brought matters to a crisis. For having violated a beautiful Brahmin woman who was visiting the palace on a religious festival, the prince was removed to Parli

During his life-time his son Sambhaji's conduct was a source of grief and vexation to him. When Sambhaji attempted to violate a Brahman's wife, Shivaji confined his son for a time in Panhala fort and, after his release, placed a strict watch over him.

  • Saletore, Rajaram Narayan (1978). Sex in Indian harem life. New Delhi: Orient Paperbacks. p. 143. OCLC 565662028.

Sambhaji had been confined at Panhala as a punishment for attempting " to violate the person of the wife of a Brahmin. ( Duff ). This is also referred to in a Bombay letter already noted. Shivaji was so strict and strong in his respect for women that, like Mahmud of Ghazni, he would not spare even his son if he offended in this respect. Sambhaji was put in confinement at Panhala and though subsequently released from Panhala he was kept under strict surveillance at Parali.

"Sensual pleasures"

when he came in direct contact with the loose life led by the Mughal grandees. It was at this time that he must have contracted the evil habits of addiction to sensual pleasures in severe contrast to the austere life of his father’s surroundings.... Soon after coronation ceremony of 1674, complaints reached Shivaji's ears of his son's evil habits. Shivaji kept him under surveillance at Shringāpore during 1676

Above all, he was incredibly, almost insanely brave. Unfortunately, all these stilling qualities were obscured if not altogether obliterated by an addiction to drugs, an excessive fondness for women, a streak of cruelty and, even more than all these, a consuming distrust towards his father's advisers and associates.

His eldest son Sambhaji became addicted to sensual pleasures and Shivaji had to take severe measures to wean him away from his habits. The prince was kept under surveillance at Sringarpur and was later transferred to the Fort of Panhala from which he escaped and joined the Mughal general Diler Khan.

"Unlike his father," observes Khafi Khan, "Sambhaji was addicted to wine, and fond of the society of handsome women, and gave himself up to pleasure. He was not merely dissolute; in 1678 he had actually deserted to the Mughal camp and had attacked the Maratha fort of Bhupalgad, and Shivaji had been forced to keep him in confinement at Panhala."

Though an excellent warrior, he became addicted to sensual pleasures on attaining maturity and displayed irresponsible conduct, unbecoming of a crown prince. What Salim had been to Akbar, Sambhaji was to his father Shivaji.

@Hargoa: - read these and stop removing sourced content. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anvesh.rajeshirke: @Addy1710: @Kiranpawar3210: @Akshay sawant ka: @Tanishq Lokare: Pinging all those who have shown objection. Content is well sourced and there is nothing like defamatory or biased. Btw, welcome to Wikipedia, you're all new here (except Anvesh.rajeshirke). NXcrypto Message 13:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It Is Biased You Have Intentionally Added Sambhaji Maharaj Wrong History If It's Not Wrong Then Tell The Sources From Where You Collected Information Tanishq Lokare (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[If It's Not Wrong Then Tell The Sources From Where You Collected Information],
Please read above ref quotes cited by @Ratnahastin and verify those references for your self satisfaction. NXcrypto Message 16:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2025

Subject :- false information about chhatrapati sambhaji maharaj First of our maharaj was not addicted to sensual pleasure or any kind of inappropriate act neither he violted any brahmin woman. He was never like that. Infact in his rule no one can even misbehave with any women. His upbringing was so good that his was taught the women who are elder than you are respected as your mother and the women of your age or younger than you are respected as sister. And chhhatrapati shivaji maharaj father of chhatrapati sambhaji maharaj never confined his son. Infact he was so proud of him that he also have the motive of swaraj. He was a great warrior, a great king, a great son, a great father , a great husband and a great maratha. And he was always obedient towards his father and his swaraj. 2405:201:302E:F88F:7CDF:CED8:4419:386C (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2025 (2)

Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after attempting to violate a Brahmin woman. He later defected to the Mughal Empire and served under Diler Khan while Shivaji was campaigning against the Sultanate of Golconda. He ascended the throne following his father's death, his rule being largely shaped by the ongoing wars between the Marathas and the Mughal Empire, as well as other neighbouring powers such as the Siddi of Janjira, Wadiyars of Mysore and the Portuguese Empire in Goa. Early on, Marathas under Sambhaji attacked and disrupted supply lines and raided into the Mughal territory, although they were unsuccessful in taking over main forts.

In 1683, following a plot to assassinate him, Sambhaji executed 24 members of influential families including top government ministers. [1]: 106  By 1685, Mughals had gradually pushed back Sambhaji's forces by taking over their strongholds. In 1688, Sambhaji was captured by Mughal forces and executed. A year after his execution, Mughals had been in control of most of Khandesh, forts of northern Maharashtra and Konkan. He was succeeded by brother Rajaram I as the next Chhatrapati and continued the Mughal–Maratha Wars.

This paragraph of introduction should be removed as it has none use of it to this information on introduction part.. 2409:40C2:3019:CBC5:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference stewart was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Please remove the statement: "Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after attempting to violate a Brahmin woman" as there is no genuine historical record to support this claim.

As a prince, Sambhaji Maharaj always displayed boldness. Despite his young age, he never hesitated to point out and correct the mistakes of senior ministers in Shivaji Maharaj's court. This was one of the reasons why Brahmin ministers like Annaji Datto and Balaji Awji harbored resentment toward him and never wanted to see him as their future king.

When Shivaji Maharaj went on his Dakshin Digvijay campaign in the south, Sambhaji Maharaj was systematically cornered and psychologically tormented by these cunning ministers and his stepmother. As a result, he became mentally distressed and was left with no other option but to leave Swarajya and join the Mughal camp as he was appointed as a Panch Hajari Mansabdar in the Mughal Empire under the Treaty of Purandar, which had been signed by Shivaji Maharaj himself. However, upon Shivray's return to Maharashtra, Sambhaji Maharaj left the Mughal camp and rejoined Swarajya.

After Shivray's death, these same ministers conspired to keep Sambhaji Raje away from the throne. With the help of his stepmother Soyrabai, whom they had manipulated, they attempted to arrest him. Their plan aimed to accomplish two goals in one move: to imprison Sambhaji Raje and seize control of the Maratha throne by installing the young Rajaram Raje as a puppet ruler. However, Sambhaji Maharaj managed to escape their trap and successfully claimed the Maratha throne as the second Chhatrapati. Despite their betrayal, he forgave these ministers and gave them a second chance—an act that demonstrated his noble character.

If Sambhaji Maharaj was such a noble ruler, why should we blindly believe the facts written by those who wish to distort history?

Even after receiving a second chance, these ministers did not change their mindset. Their jealousy and hatred for Sambhaji Raje only grew stronger. At one point, they even attempted to poison him and later conspired with Aurangzeb's rebel son, Akbar, offering to help him defeat Sambhaji in exchange for half of Swarajya. However, Akbar informed Sambhaji Raje of their betrayal, and as a result, these ministers were sentenced to death.

After Sambhaji Raje's death, the first act of historical distortion and character assassination was carried out by a successor of one of the ministers he had punished. Later, some Brahmin historians continued to defame Sambhaji Raje by writing false and misleading accounts about him in history, driven by their hatred towards him for punishing corrupt Brahmin ministers. Even today, some individuals persist in attempting to tarnish his legacy.

Therefore, I sincerely request you to remove this misleading and false information as soon as possible. 103.133.50.102 (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please provide reliable sources. SKAG123 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2025

Change Title from Sambhaji to Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj or Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje Bhonsale 59.184.217.214 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:HONOURIFICS, we can't add a prefix such as "Chhathrapathi" or "Mahraj" to someone's title, unless their real name comes so.--Imperial[AFCND] 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj History Is Defamed Intentionally On This Site.

Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Never Had Sensual Pleasures His History Was Misunderstood And Defamed. Vasudev Bendre Has Proved That Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Was Not A Bad King,He Always Followed The Learnings Of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj And Rajmata Jijau.He Never Violated Any Brahman Women.Improve Your History From This Site.This Is Intentional Act To Defame Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Tanishq Lokare (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

❌ Not done: This has already been discussed. Please refer to previous discussion SKAG123 (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't give authentic history then please don't even give false information like this and for your answer if you want proof against all the fake information you posted then read shambhu raje by प्रा.सु.ग.शेवडे where all this false information have been proved wrong@SKAG123 2409:4080:E05:C343:0:0:2508:BA13 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2409:4080:E05:C343:0:0:2508:BA13 You need to provide citations, its not our headache to find random stuffs. NXcrypto Message 14:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His most celebrated work remains Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj (1960). In it, Bendre paints a portrait of Sambhaji as a glorious, dutiful, and valiant leader who devoted his kingship to battling invasive forces Tanishq Lokare (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your Headache Seriously You Guys Are Spreading Misinformation About Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj And Saying That We Are Wrong. Tanishq Lokare (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide exact quotations from your sources and explain how they support your changes. Until then there is nothing to discuss. SKAG123 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Aurangzeb's time his minister wrote that sambhaji maharaj was brave his eyes were removed and same torture was performed on kavi kalash.Masir-e-alamgir is the book for reference how brave was he. Tanishq Lokare (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a quotation. Please link the sources and page numbers and state why they supports your statement. SKAG123 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

There is controversial statement I saw on the page - "Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after violating a Brahmin woman." This line is incorrect and even there is no such a historical proof available to claim this line. Sambhaji maharaj was confined by his father at Panhala Fort but it was part of their politics. 103.57.172.58 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

❌Not Done this is sourced and has been discussed before. Please provide reliable sources that state otherwise. SKAG123 (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added text regarding the disputed nature of this narrative with a proper source (Jadunath Sarkar is an authority on Mughal-Maratha history), thereby giving readers a fair picture, but it has been reverted by User:Dympies as POV push here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=1276168307&oldid=1276166426. Per MOS:LEADBIO, lead of biographies should not suppress or overwhelm relevant material. My edits set right this imbalance by mentioning the counter narrative and removing excessive citations (3 are enough for a sentence but there are 5). Let us just provide the readers with bipartisan information without any sinister motives from our side. Rim sim (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEADBIO applies to BLPs, Sambhaji has been dead for centuries! Regarding imbalance, you have only cited a single source, you cannot add it to lead as it is not due. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single source provided is the highest authority on this topic, when we add 5 citations to vehemently push a narrative that is widely disputed here almost everyday, its not out of place to put a counter narrative and balance this issue once and for all. Rim sim (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The single source provided is the highest authority on this topic" - Not at all, consider reading more modern and scholarly introductory works authored by John F Richard. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Jadunath Sarkar is not an authority on Mughal-Maratha history, he himself kind of acknowledged this when he said "Aurangzib is my life's work; Shivaji is only an incidental off-shoot of it." - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article, Sambhaji, was executed by Aurangzeb, and since sarkar is an authority on Aurangzeb's actions, his views deserve a mention. A high quality single source is enough. Note that i'm not removing any sentence from the article, but only adding info to balance what clearly looks a pov pushed narrative that is disputed here almost everyday. Rim sim (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to see how Sambhaji defecting to Diler Khan can be relevant to Aurangzeb, that was an action on part of Sambhaji not Aurangzeb. Him being executed by Aurangzeb is immaterial here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is about balancing a clearly pov pushed narrative, the provided source is a reliable one and it doesn't alter any of your written text nor does it change the narrative that has been set, but only provides a counter to it and will shut the allegations of sinister motives by editors here. Rim sim (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FALSEBALANCE - Most historians agree and report these facts, by disputing them using the lone opinion of Sarkar you are pushing for an unbalanced view. Dympies (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of WP:NPOVD — For controversial issues, we just have to present the readers with "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", instead we are only pushing a single narrative in the lead. Rim sim (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"all significant views" - This is not a significant view and it cannot be added in lead. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A counter view to a controversial view in lead is significant, the wording can be improved for more neutrality. Rim sim (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial? According to whom? Most scholarly sources mention them without ascribing any controversy to them. It doesn't belong in the lead. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When scholars ascribe no controversy to them, then providing a scholarly view that counters their view shouldn't be a problem to anyone whatsoever. Rim sim (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead can be written by properly ascribing the views, say "According to majority of historians, (or) the general historical consensus is ____. And than state according to Jadunath sarkar ___. This would make it balanced and neutral. If you guys don't revert i would give it a try. Rim sim (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is not a place for this. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead summarises the body text, and an important piece of info that gives context to its predecessor text should be in lead. Rim sim (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, lead is not a place to push minority views. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, then I will add it in the body atleast. Rim sim (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agenda driven blanking of counter narratives will only lead people to make all sorts of allegations and lose their trust in wikipedia, which is being achieved here considering all the Talk posts. If this is not set right than its better to add a neutrality disputed tag to the article. Rim sim (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are we going to remove and replace historical records, because "will only lead people to make all sorts of allegations and lose their trust in wikipedia"? This could possibly become a trend that a group of people will team-up, raids Wikipedia talk pages pushing us to think that they will lose trust in WP, and us, being in a fear of abandonment, does what they offers. Never. Imperial[AFCND] 13:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and it's the removal of properly sourced material that is being contested. Hope the other editors don't remove material that goes against their narrative. Rim sim (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fact added without citation

In 1683, he invaded Portuguese Goa, during which Maratha soldiers raped Christian women and later sold captured men and women to Arabs and the Danish

There is no citation added to above claim in the article. I read sources near the sentence but none of them have this.

please add the source or if it's added elsewhere, point me to it.

Thank you Ashu4111 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source in the body [1] says:

According to this account, on entering ‘Bardez and Salcette, the Mahrattas resorted to plunder and arson, demolishing a number of Christian churches and the images therein,®* raping a number of Christian women," carrying off a number of men, women and children and presenting many of them to their soldiers. Some were sold in Vengurla harbour to some Arabs or to Dutch factors. The Portuguese protested to Sambhaji about this.

. This seems to clearly support the statement. The only issue is whether we should attribute it as the source seems to have done. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wrong disputed narrative content with added wrong sources

Please remove the statement: "Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after attempting to violate a Brahmin woman" as there is no genuine historical record to support this claim. BigReads2000 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BigReads2000, can you please address the array of sources presented in the section below which do appear to support this claim? On what basis are you arguing against them? signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct . Although Zee24 Tas has highlighted this news and Maharashtra CM has instructed cyber team to take out wrong information on this page, it is observed these details are still there. Sambhaji maharaj was never addicted to anything and he never violated women, false information is spread here. Also in many places of Shivaji’s maharaj’s information on Wikipedia Marathi and English , wrong information is added. Wikipedia needs to
always ensure on authenticity of the information SmiSV (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the sources explaining this? In our efforts to follow Wikipedia policies and ensure the verifiability of information, the 30-odd academic sources supporting the current text, which are linked below, need to be addressed, and in the absence of decisively stronger sources, they are the most authoritative account presented here thus far. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the lead and the body

I have no horse in this race, but I thought it was worth highlighting the differences between the way the sensual pleasures and rape accusation are covered in the lead and body:

Lead:

Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after violating a Brahmin woman

Body

Sambhaji's behaviour, including alleged irresponsibility and addiction to sensual pleasures, led Shivaji to imprison his son at Panhala fort in 1678 to curb his behaviour. While another theory suggests that Sambhaji was imprisoned at the Panhala because he "attempted to violate a Brahmin's wife".

Which more correct/faithful to what scholarly sources say about the topic? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: - Some say that he was addicted to sensual pleasures, while others say that he attempted or violated a Brahmin woman, some however only mention "misconduct" as the reason for confinement. Here are all the sources with varying degrees of reliability. [Credits: MathewVanitas for compiling most of them]

  • Besides the fact that Shivaji grew up apart from his father, we are also aware of his testy relationship with his oldest son Sambhaji, who deserted his father's cause for a time and allied with the Mughals, and is primarily remembered for his affronts to the chaste virtue of brahmin women, his drug use, and his association with Tantric priests of questionable integrity

  • In December 1678, in disgrace for the rape of a respectable Brahmin woman, [he] escaped his father's surveillance and fled.

  • Sambhaji was held prisoner in the Panhala fort because of his misbehaviour with a young woman. The relations between the father and the son went sour.

  • He says that Sambhaji fell in love with the daughter of the Surnis, and that Shivaji wanted to punish him severely for this act. Obviously Surnis meant Annaji Datto Surnis, the revenue minister of Shivaji. There is no reason to disbelieve Sambhaji's irresponsible behaviour. Although it is not known whether and if so, Sambhaji was punished, it is certain that Shivaji, so chivalrous where women were concerned, must have been greatly distressed at his son's misbehaviour.

  • Since it is written after the Shivaji Bakhar of Malhar Ramrao Chitnis, whose period of writing is 1811 A. D. it is probable that the cause stated by Chitnis in it for the desertion of Yuvaraj Sambhaji to the Mughals that "Sambhaji committed an outrage on a married Brahmin woman and therefore Shivaji wanted to punish him" might have found an echo in the Busatinussalatin.

  • He further adds that Sabhasad, the chronicler of Shivaji, may not be correct literally in this respect, but the implication therein appears to be probable.24 Jadunath Sarkar comments on this point: "Shambuji (was) a grownup youth notorious for his violent temper and self-indulgent character. . .Shambuji's own conduct brought matters to a crisis. For having violated a beautiful Brahmin woman who was visiting the palace on a religious festival, the prince was removed to Parli

  • He did not hesitate to punish his own son, Sambhaji for misbehaviour with a Brahman woman at Sangameshwar.

  • But he had washed away all the hopes of Shivaji. He had started getting the information of Sambhaji's ill-character after his coronation only. They say that Sambhaji had infringed the modesty of a Brahmin woman. When Shivaji returned to Maharashtra after Karnataka triumph

  • Mr. Laine further made one objectionable statement referring it from Sarkar that, "Sambhaji was chastised for "violating" a brahmin women." (P. 48), is ... this is a chapter of violating a brahmin woman, whether this is a chapter of violating a daughter of Suranis Annaji Datto which is mentioned in Busatin-us- Salatin.

  • It is alleged that Sambhaji's indecent behaviour with women was a common thing. The matter precipitated when he misbehaved with a Brahmin woman and people fled away from the village.

  • His return to Raigad was the signal for renewed intrigues by Queen Soyra, urging the claims to the succession of her son Rajaram. As if to justify her insinuations of Sambhaji's instability and selfish indulgence, the senior prince became involved in a discreditable intrigue with a Brahman woman. Shivaji had him arrested and confined in Panhala Fort.

  • During his life-time his son Sambhaji's conduct was a source of grief and vexation to him. When Sambhaji attempted to violate a Brahman's wife, Shivaji confined his son for a time in Panhala fort and, after his release, placed a strict watch over him.

  • Sambhaji had been confined at Panhala as a punishment for attempting " to violate the person of the wife of a Brahmin. ( Duff ). This is also referred to in a Bombay letter already noted. Shivaji was so strict and strong in his respect for women that, like Mahmud of Ghazni, he would not spare even his son if he offended in this respect. Sambhaji was put in confinement at Panhala and though subsequently released from Panhala he was kept under strict surveillance at Parali.

  • Sambha or Sambhaji or Shambhuji, the eldest son of Shivaji, was born on 14 May 1657. He grew a reckless youth devoid of every spark of honour, patriotism or religious fervour. Shivaji failed to reform him and put him in confinement.

  • when he[Sambhaji](sic) came in direct contact with the loose life led by the Mughal grandees. It was at this time that he must have contracted the evil habits of addiction to sensual pleasures in severe contrast to the austere life of his

  • Above all, he was incredibly, almost insanely brave. Unfortunately, all these stilling qualities were obscured if not altogether obliterated by an addiction to drugs, an excessive fondness for women, a streak of cruelty and, even more than all these, a consuming distrust towards his father's advisers and associates. Apologists for Sambhaji argue that these failings were the consequence of his father's disapprobation, more than their cause; they say that if Sambhaji was wicked and disloyal...

  • The fate however condemned the fort of Bhupalgad to witness in the last days of Shivaji, his strained relations with his son Sambhaji. ln the course of his great achievements, Shivaji, cursed by the cruel wheel of history, met with one cause of vexation, for his son Sambhaji was a man of unruly habits and vices. Finding that Sambhaji would not listen to his words, the dutiful father confined the son at fort Panhala.

  • His eldest son Sambhaji became addicted to sensual pleasures and Shivaji had to take severe measures to wean him away from his habits. The prince was kept under surveillance at Sringarpur and was later transferred to the Fort of Panhala from which he escaped and joined the Mughal general Diler Khan.

  • Sambhaji had never been liked by his father because of his wild and licentious ways. During his own absence in the far south Shivajl had not entrusted him with any administrative work. Further, because of his immoral behaviour, he had been incarcerated in the fort of Panhala.

  • Unlike his father,' observes Khafi Khan, 'Sambhaji was addicted to wine, and fond of the society of handsome women, and gave himself up to pleasure. He was not merely dissolute; in 1678 he had actually deserted to the Mughal camp and had attacked the Maratha fort of Bhupalgad, and Shivaji had been forced to keep him in confinement at Panhala.

  • Though an excellent warrior, he became addicted to sensual pleasures on attaining maturity and displayed irresponsible conduct, unbecoming of a crown prince. What Salim had been to Akbar, Sambhaji was to his father Shivaji.

  • That this was the approach of Shivaji is abundantly clear from a number of his orders and instructions to the officers under him. Let it be noted, in this connection that Shivaji's sincerity with regard to his subjects is established unquestionably by the confinement of Sambhaji, his son and successor designate for misbehaviour, at the Panhala Fort in 1678 A. D. under his own orders.

  • During the absence of Shivaji in Karnatak, his eldest son Sambhaji had stayed at Shringarpur. There were reports about his misbehaviour when he was at Raigad earlier. It was to keep him away from the capital that Shivaji had arranged for him and his wife to live at this small place in the Konkan. In September 1677, Sambhaji begot a daughter. More reports came in regarding the misdemeanour of the young prince and Shivaji ordered him to move to Sajjangad.

  • A sudden and extreme depression took possession of his mind probably on account of his son Sambha- ji's misbehaviour.Sambhaji fell under disfavour and was kept confined with Umaji Pandit to give him lessons at Shrin- garpur.13 Thereafter Sambhaji was for a time put under Ram- das's care also. But there was no improvement in him...

  • The main points in this connection, which require more detailed study are — (l)Why and when the question of partitioning the kingdom came before Shivaji — Whether at the instance of Sambhaji's misbehaviour and immoral ways of life or at the instance of Soyrarai's selfish greed.

  • the elder Sambhaji, then twenty-two years old, though brave and intrepid, had misbehaved himself and was, therefore, not trusted by his father, but was kept confined in the fort of Panhala.

  • Sambhaji had been attracted by the courtly Afghan,5 whom he seems to have met at Aurangabad. He had recently quarrelled with his father and had been confined in Panhala.

  • The good news from Bijapur was spoilt by the conduct of Shivaji's eldest son Sambhaji. He had a large share of his father's talents and courage but, born a king's son, he was impatient of control. He quarrelled with his father, who confined him in Panhala fort.

  • Before Shivaji the Great died in 1680, his eldest son Sambhaji, due to his misconduct, was being kept at Panhala under strict surveillance.

James laine boom is already banned due to wrong fake information so all these reference above are irrelevant. Read the book “ Sambhaji” by @Vishwas patil indian author; “ Chhava” by author @shivaji Sawant . You will come to know real information. Sambhaji was a great warrior and a great human being. He was falsely blamed by Anaji datto surnis as Sambhaji maharaj used to regulate all rules strictly. He always tried to defame Sambhaji maharaj in many ways throughout his life. Shivaji maharaj kept sambhaji majaraj on panahala fort not due to punishment but for security from enemy from that region. Shivaji maharaj only made plan with Sambhaji to act like he is with Mughal so his military troop can rest for some time who was just returned from karnataka victory and Mughals get distracted. Sambhaji maharaj always worshipped his father and never beyond his words , it’s just some jalous people who always defamed him and doing same this now also. @maharashtra cyber please take proper action here. SmiSV (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Chhaava by Shivaji Sawant is a novel. It is not a reliable history text but rather a work of fiction. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, SmiSV I'd advise you to retract your legal threat to contact "Maharashtra Cyber" above, or you will be blocked. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmiSV Chhava by Shivaji Savant is neither a historical work nor a scholarly analysis. It is a fictional novel based on a historical figure, somewhat like Rao based on Bajirao, or recent example being Amish's Shiva series Seyamar01 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've fixed the lead to be more in-line with the body text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Lala Lajpat Rai:

Among the ladies invited on this occasion was a young Brahman female of exceptional beauty. Sambhaji was smitten with her beauty, and managing to have her taken to his room, violated her chastity. Shivaji was extremely angry at the news of this heinous act. He said that the prince was the heir to the throne and yet was guilty of such an evil action.

— Rai, Lala Lajpat; Puri, R. C. (1980). Shivaji, the Great Patriot. Metropolitan., p.469

I should add that this particular account seems to have a precursor in Keluskar, K. A.; Takakhav, Nilkant Sadashiv (1921). The Life of Shivaji Maharaj: Founder of the Maratha Empire. Vol. 2 (reprinted 1985 Sunita Publication ed.). Manoranjan Press. p. 469.

Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that per WP:LEAD, "He was confined by his father at Panhala Fort, reportedly for his addiction to sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman." does not seem to belong in the lead per article content, there is hardly anything else about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Him being confined and then rebelling to join the Mughals does seem to be a key narrative episode in his life that is worthy of being included in the lead in some form regardless as to the details of why he was there. That said, I am a bit dubious about this bit: ... during which Maratha soldiers raped Christian women and later sold captured men and women to Arabs and the Dutch is that actually relevant enough to Sambhaji to include in the lead? People did shitty things in basically all historical wars, and we don't include the alleged atrocities that Roman soldiers are suggested to have committed in the lead section fo Roman emperor biographies for example. To someone unfamiliar with the subject, it might seem like just simply adding negative material to the lead for the sake of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with removing that part too. It’s too much detail for the lead. I would keep the other parts though. SKAG123 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do keep it, I think we have to consider whether to attribute it. It's attributed in the body and in the source. Given this, I don't know if we should be mention it as a simple fact in the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surge of requests incoming!

Apparently, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has instructed the Maharashtra Police to have certain "derogatory" remarks about Sambhaji removed from Wikipedia. I just hope this doesn’t lead to another legal case. That aside, there will likely be a surge of requests to remove the remarks, some possibly accompanied by legal threats. The AP (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through several Indian news sources like [2], however, none of them seems to be willing or allowed to tell me what the objectionable content is, which I find frustrating, or even if this concerns en-WP. Can someone tell me? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll hazard a guess: does it have to do with "He was confined by his father at Panhala Fort, reportedly for his addiction to sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this appears to be the wording at issue. It once stated as if it was certain fact, which I've toned down, but the fact is that this is a clearly notable and discussed in numerous sources so it should stay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The flashpoints, in order of prominence seem to be 1) "addiction to sensual pleasures" 2) violating a Brahmin woman 3) that his forces raped Christian women in his Goan campaign 4) that he ever fought on the side of the Mughals. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, that helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we put one of those "Warning! Article subject currently in the news, content may change swiftly per new reports!" banners on the article..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like it's not quite the right fit, as there's no new reports to speak of. If memory serves I think we have edit notices to address cases of people being mass-canvassed to an otherwise-static issue due to political and media attention. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The blue-lock does have a quality of its own. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading some more Indian media reactions. Added a few to this talkpage:[3] It's interesting that some note that WP:s references are also objectionable, not just the content. This is a difference from the Asian News International-thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are taking an offence over James W. Laine#Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India source. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks! If only The Hindu could have been arsed to tell us that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the interested, India seeks to arrest US scholar from 2004. Also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_being_reported_to_cyber_police. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, similar issue is going on Execution of Sambhaji. Please have a look at it. Imperial[AFCND] 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it in the AN-thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, we're in trouble with the Maharashtra cyber police! Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång What was the reason you are editing the page only after the movie is released? Rushikesh90 (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If by "the page" you meant Sambhaji, I learned it (and the film, and Devendra Fadnavis, etc) existed yesterday, so it was hard for me to edit it before that. Press coverage of Wikipedia sometimes interests me. If you meant something else, clarify. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am talking about Sambhaji where the entire paragraph was removed mentioning how he implemented draught relief measures on 17th February. I don’t seem to think why was that even though it is present with enough evidence. This looks very deliberate and opportunistic timing. Rushikesh90 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you think I removed that paragraph? Fwiw, I didn't. One thing to consider is that this article has a bit more views atm than it usually does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all objectionable comments

There is no credible source to defame the Sambhaji and since the page is protected the objectionable content should be removed until it is proven true. The users have removed the content praising him already shows clear evidence that they are under outside pressure or influence to defame the great Sambhaji Maharaj. Rushikesh90 (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sambhaji/FAQ may or may not be of interest to you. Consider that other editors might not fully understand what "all objectionable comments" means to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of moral misconduct: The idea that he was confined due to indulgence in sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman seems to have emerged from later British and Persian sources, which often painted Indian rulers in a negative light. Marathi sources such as Bakhar literature and Sabhāsad Bakhar do not support such allegations. Zebahumac (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of Confinement by his father at Panhala Fort due to sensual pleasure

The claim that Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj was confined at Panhala Fort by his father, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, due to indulgence in sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman is largely a product of later colonial-era narratives and lacks strong historical evidence from contemporary Maratha sources.

Conflict with Shivaji Maharaj: Sambhaji was indeed kept under close watch at Panhala Fort around 1678, but the reasons were political rather than personal misconduct. Sambhaji had strong leadership qualities, and there was some internal conflict regarding his independent decisions. His association with influential courtiers who opposed Shivaji’s policies may have led to his temporary confinement.

Reasons for Conflict and Confinement at Panhala (1678):

  1. Sambhaji’s Growing Influence: As the eldest son and heir, Sambhaji had a strong personality and military experience. He was eager to take on greater responsibilities, which sometimes clashed with the strategies set by Shivaji and his advisors.
  2. Association with Opposing Factions: Sambhaji reportedly grew close to influential courtiers like Annaji Datto and others who had strained relations with key figures in Shivaji’s administration. This may have created suspicion within the Maratha court.
  3. Independent Decision-Making: Sambhaji often took bold decisions, which were not always in line with Shivaji’s cautious diplomacy. His assertiveness may have worried Shivaji, leading to temporary restrictions on his movements.
  4. The Role of Yesubai and Other Advisors: Some sources suggest that Sambhaji’s wife, Yesubai, and other close allies played a role in easing tensions between father and son. However, the internal court politics remained complex.

Primary and Early Sources:

  1. Sabhāsad Bakhar (1694-1718) – Written by Krishnaji Anant Sabhasad, a contemporary of Sambhaji, this text provides an account of Maratha history. It mentions political tensions between Sambhaji and Shivaji but does not support the claim of personal misconduct.
  2. Chitnis Bakhar – Written by Malhar Ramrao Chitnis, a historian close to the Maratha court, this work also describes the political reasons behind Sambhaji’s confinement but does not mention allegations of sensual indulgence.
  3. Bhīmkarnī Bakhar – Another historical record that focuses on Sambhaji’s military and administrative struggles rather than any moral failings.

Colonial and Later Sources (Less Reliable for Bias):

  1. Grant Duff’s History of the Marathas (1826) – British historian James Grant Duff wrote extensively about Maratha history but relied on Persian sources and later accounts, which were sometimes biased or exaggerated.
  2. Persian Chronicles (Mughal Records) – Mughal historians like Khafi Khan often depicted Marathas in a negative light, and some of these accounts added moral accusations against Sambhaji, which do not align with Maratha sources.

Modern Historians:

  1. Jadunath Sarkar’s Shivaji and His Times (1920) – Sarkar, one of the most respected historians of the Maratha Empire, points out the political reasons for Sambhaji’s confinement but does not support the claims of immoral behavior.
  2. Govind Sakharam Sardesai’s New History of the Marathas (1946) – Sardesai’s work clarifies that Sambhaji’s imprisonment was due to internal political tensions rather than personal vices.

Zebahumac (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sabhāsad Bakhar (1694-1718) .... does not support the claim of personal misconduct"

Ch. [173] One day, on the occasion of the Haladkunkum festival, a beautiful lady came to the palace among the Swuvasinis (ladies whose - husbands are alive). She was taken into the Mahal and wrongly violated. When he got this information, the Maharaja said in disgust,— The heir to the crown has violated one of a higher caste. All the subjects are the king’s relatives. They are so many children to him. What can I do if the offender is my son,—I shall discard and punish him.” So said (the Raje) in his firm resolution

- Ratnahastin (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing the Authenticity of the Claim
  1. Sabhāsad Bakhar’s Reliability:
    • Sabhāsad Bakhar was written around 1694-1718, during the reign of Chhatrapati Rajaram (Sambhaji’s half-brother).
    • While it is one of the earliest Maratha chronicles, it was written after Sambhaji’s death and could reflect the political biases of that time.
  2. Potential Bias in the Narrative:
    • Some historians argue that the Bakhars were not purely factual accounts but often contained political propaganda to justify or tarnish certain rulers.
    • Since Sambhaji’s succession was contested and he had enemies among Maratha elites, this passage could be an attempt to discredit him.
    • The Mughals and some Maratha courtiers opposed to Sambhaji might have spread negative narratives. Since Rajaram was in power when Sabhāsad Bakhar was written, it may have been politically convenient to discredit Sambhaji. The Maratha court was divided, and Rajaram’s supporters sought to justify why Sambhaji was not an ideal ruler. It is possible that the incident was exaggerated or fabricated to create a moral justification for his temporary confinement.
Zebahumac (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sambhaji&oldid=1276531646"