Shivaji-centric ensign for Navy holds political promise; Cholas offer none

In a robustly delivered address to reflect the militariness of the occasion,  Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while commissioning the INS Vikrant in Kochi on September 2, stated that India had “changed another chapter in history. Today, India has taken off another burden of colonial rule”.

In this aside from the centrepiece of his quasi-electoral speech, he was referring to the fact that the Navy adopted a new ensign, claimed to be shorn of its colonial legacy that featured the blood-red Cross of St George.

Watch: INS Vikrant heralds in a new era in India’s domestic defence capabilities

The PM added that prior to the decision of his government to adopt a new flag, “the reflection of the colonial times remained on the flag of the Indian Navy. But from today, inspired by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the new Navy flag will flutter in the sea and the sky”.

The Navy’s website to attract young Indians into joining the force states that the country has, “a rich maritime heritage and the earliest reference to maritime activities is contained in the Rig Veda”.

History and scriptures

Modi also stated in his speech that various scriptures described that “we used to have ships and boats of different sizes and types like Gallika, Tarani, Lola, Gatvara, Gamini, Jangala, Plavini, Dharini, Vegini etc. There are many mantras related to boats, ships and seas in our Vedas too. From the Vedic period to the Gupta period and the Maurya period, India’s maritime power was well known all over the world. Chhatrapati Veer Shivaji Maharaj had built such a navy with sea power that it would scare the enemies”.

Thereafter, dramatically, he declared that the new flag was being dedicated to “the Father of the Navy, Chhatrapati Veer Shivaji Maharaj.”

Giving the founder of the Maratha empire the honorific title of ‘Father of the Indian Navy’ is at odds with the Navy’s claim in its recruitment website. It states that “the Indian sub-continent exercised supremacy over the Indian Ocean from very early times up to the 13th century”.

Opinion: Why INS Vikrant is a stunning feat and what India should do next

Ancient India’s prowess

The website provides introductory notes on the naval prowess during various periods and also the capacities of different dynasties that ruled parts of India in history. The listing of India’s maritime activity begins from the Indus Valley Civilisation (as revealed by the excavations at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa). It, thereafter, includes a vast number of dynasties across the Vedic era, the Mauryan period and mentions Emperor Ashoka specifically.

Thereafter, the website lists the Satavahana between 200 BC and 220 AD, the Gupta dynasty till 500 AD and then writes in detail about ‘southern dynasties’ – the Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas. The website states that the Cholas expanded their political dominance across the Indian Ocean to “Malay Peninsula, Java, Sumatra and some neighbouring islands”.

The new Naval ensign features the tricolour at the top left, with the Indian Navy crest in an octagon, representing Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s rajmudra, replacing the Saint George’s Cross.

There are not many sources in which Shivaji is referred to as the ‘Father of Indian Navy’. One of the earliest writers to use this honorific was Manohar Malgonkar, the noted author of fiction and non-fiction books. One of his books that remained little noticed when first written in 1959, The Sea Hawk – Life And Battles of Kanhoji Angre, remains the first known reference to Shivaji as the patriarch of the Indian Navy. This book has been re-issued now because of renewed interest in romanticised history.

Also read: Modi’s lucky to be PM in transition era of regional parties; will it last long?

In fact, the first line of the book on an admiral of the Maratha Navy made it clear that the primary sources are oral accounts of his descendants. It stated: “This is a true story, so far as reconstructed story can be a true story”. In the preface, he thanked Sardar CS Angre, the ’present head’ of the family, “who was good enough to discuss the family history” with the author and “took an interest in the project from the start.”

Angre was the main lieutenant of Maharajah Jivaji Rao, ruler of Gwalior State who was married to Vijaya Raje Scindia and, after his death, played a crucial role in the royal family’s internal feuds besides becoming a Member of Parliament.

Multiple traditions

Questions have been raised on the government’s decision to limit India’s maritime heritage to Shivaji and his navy’s dour defence of the western coastline of his empire. In a discussion conducted by a YouTube channel (Barkha Dutt’s Mojo Story), Commodore (Retd) C Uday Bhaskar contended that India’s maritime history was extremely rich and its extent could have been better drawn on the new ensign and not keep it limited to being a legacy of just one tradition.

Without questioning the naval exploits of the Marathas, especially Shivaji, Bhaskar was of the opinion that naval capacity of some of the older dynasties and rulers could have also been incorporated in the new ensign. In fact, even if this was not done, there is no reason for Modi not to have mentioned other rulers and their dynasties who took political control of territories across the Indian Ocean purely on the strength of their maritime capabilities.

Long-time defence writer Rahul Bedi in an article claimed that a significant section of retired and even serving officers were disappointed with the new ensign.

Blue-water vs brown-water

Among maritime experts, there is a growing chatter that while the Chola navy, possibly other southern dynasties too, had ‘blue-water’ naval forces, Shivaji’s naval infrastructure was essentially ‘brown-water’ that was mainly deployed to keep the coastline and thereby his empire, safe and secure from invading armies that were trying to storm it from the seas.

Also read: Modi’s critique of ‘Opposition freebies’ unfair, he needs to turn gaze inward

On the one hand, this debate involves maritime history and capacities of the various naval forces. On the other hand, it is also important to examine the political motivation for Modi and his government to project India’s maritime heritage as Shivaji-centric. 

Undeniably, Shivaji has been an icon for the Hindu nationalistic forces from the late nineteenth century onward. Even today, the name of Shivaji is evoked mainly to project contemporary Muslims as progenies of the Mughals against whom the Maratha warrior-emperor had a running battle.

Linking the Indian Navy with Shivaji through its ensign is a Hindutva ploy to draw linkages with the pre-history of Hindu nationalism and to undermine the secular fabric of the armed forces. It is also a fact and this cannot be ignored, that putting Shivaji time and again on a pedestal and depicting contemporary symbols and insignia as his legacy, can possibly yield electoral benefits for the BJP. 

This stems from the fact that the Maratha emperor is a big draw in the states that form the core constituency of the party and his memory is used for two purposes: to give a martial dimension to contemporary institutions of the state and to draw on the animosity towards Muslims, which is triggered by the revival of the memory of Shivaji.

Watch: Indian democracy of, by, for the people? Off The Beaten Track Ep 5

By now, it is fairly well-known that Modi is a great admirer of the Maratha Emperor’s military and intelligence gathering techniques and the choice of Shivaji’s rajmudra to replace the Saint George’s Cross would have factored the PM’s appreciation.

Not much in the South

In contrast to the gains that the BJP hopes will accrue to it by linking Shivaji with the Navy’s ensign, there is little hope of benefits by accepting the legacy of the Cholas and other southern dynasties. This is paradoxical for a party that launched Operation Coromandel some years ago to emphasise that the party was keen to make political inroads into states on the east coast of India.

Not making India’s maritime heritage more composite indicates that the BJP has possibly become more realistic regarding its prospects in southern India.

One of the principal reasons for the government not considering making India’s maritime heritage more broad-based, and not Shivaji-centred, is that the Sangh Parivar’s idea of Bharat is geographically limited to northern and western India – the Hindi heartland and the cradles of Hindutva politics in western India, mainly Maharashtra and Gujarat.

As a result, southern kingdoms and their expansion across the seas on the back of their capacity in crossing the seas and carrying large number of soldiers so that kingdoms could be subdued, do not ‘fit’ into the Sangh Parivar’s discourse because there are no gains to be made.

The Cholas, for instance, are not just completely out of their imagination. Also, their mention or inclusion among past icons does not evoke anger against contemporary Muslims to enable the BJP to point to an imaginary ‘other’ that can be countered only if the saffron party continues being in power.

For most of the 75 years since independence, defence and external affairs were considered holy cows and domestic political interests were taken into account while framing policies and taking decisions. But, as the new Navy ensign shows, this is no longer the case.

(Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a NCR-based author and journalist. His latest book is The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India. His other books include The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin)

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)