Talk:Hindavi Swarajya

Interpretation of title meaning

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindavi_Swarajya&type=revision&diff=840437329&oldid=823344401

I see the source saying different. Can someone review? --G (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hindavi Swarajya discussion at Talk:Shivaji

Trascluded from Talk:Shivaji

The article currently has this sentence:

Around 1645–46, the teenage Shivaji first expressed his concept for Hindavi Swarajya (Hindu self-rule), in a letter to Dadaji Naras Prabhu.

References

The first two sources do not support the content:

• The Pearson article has the passage

The Maratha success became self-sustaining after the mid-i66os, and went on and on in a self-generating fashion. The initial successes were a result of several well-known factors: the terrain of the Maratha swaraj (homeland), so difficult for a cumbersome Bijapuri or Mughal army; Shivaji's tactical expertise, especially the use of light fast horses and the strong yet inexpensive hill forts; the existence of happy hunting grounds in the weakened sultanate of Bijapur; Aurangzib's involvement in the war of succession just when it seemed that he could and would turn on Shivaji and nip him in the bud.

Not only does this not have any "hindavi" in it, but it translates swaraj as homeland, which is definitely the right translation in this context. It seems that Shivaji might have used swaraj in this sense multiple times.

• The Malavika Vartak article has the passage:

The kind of interpretation that Phule had warned against is exemplified in the works of his contemporary, Eknath Annaji Joshi. Joshi published his work in 1877 titled 'The Advice Given by Dadoji Kondadev to Shivaji Maharaj'. Besides the use of classical Marathi which was used only by the brahman literati, the title gives a strong indication of the ideological leanings of the work as it focuses on Dadoji Kondadev's contribution, an approach which as we have'seen is diametrically opposite to that adopted by Phule. Joshi lays emphasis on the role of Dadoji Kondadev in moulding Shivaji's character and inspiring him to establish a Hindavi Swarajya by resisting Mughal rule. Joshi's work differs with Phule's in terms of the imagery used for instance, central to Joshi' s work is the idea of Ramrajya to signify an age of peace and prosperity while Phule, to make the same point uses the concept of Balirajya [O'Hanlonl983:25].

This is dealing with Annaji Joshi's portrayal of events, not sure if he is an authentic historian. But it says nothing about Shvaji writing a letter when he was a teenager.

• I can't access the occurrence of Swaraj in the Vijayanagara Voices book. I wonder if somebody can provide a quotation? But, given that it is a book covering "Voices", it is unlikely that it is talking about actual events either.

All said and done, it looks like the sentence is wholly unsupported by sources. I am deleting it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also add that hindavi (equivalent to hindi) most likely meant "Indian" in this time period. It could not have meant "Hindu". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, The Vijayanagara voices does mention Shivaji's use of the phrase "Hindavi Swarajya".The author also cites other older books from which got he the information.I hope you do not mind me reverting your edit with modifications. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

When a talk page discussion has been opened, I would hope you would wait for the discussion to conclude before reinstating material unilaterally. You have not provided a quotation from the third source. You have reinserted Malavika Vartak citation even though I said it doesn't support the content. And, you haven't addressed "Hindu self-rule" business. So, I think this is a half-baked reinstatement and quite surprising coming from an experienced editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for the haste.I distinctly remember adding one or more of these sources years ago in the lede.Hence the eagerness to put the sentence back.Anyhow, here is the footnote from "Vijayanagara" source:

"Probably the earliest use of a word like Hindu was in 1645 in a phrase in a letter of Shivaji "Hindavi swarajya",meaning independent from foreign rule,'self-rule of Hindu people'.

See Wilfred Cantwell Smith,The Crystallization of Religious communities in Mughal India',reprint from Yad-Name-ye-Irani Minorsky,Tehran,Tehran University 1969,p.21".ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

In "Hindavi Swarajya", Swarajya means Self-rule and not homeland. The Pearson text uses 'swaraj' rather than 'swarajya' and is in a specific context explicitly meaning homeland ("the terrain of the Maratha swaraj"). "Swarajya" was used by Bal Gangadhar Tilak also. Hindavi does not mean 'Hindi', it probably means Hindus. It is possible that subconciously you are reminded of Hind Swaraj written by Gandhiji. But it is different from "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Shivaji. --G (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Hindavi

Don't be so sure about what "Hindavi" means. Hind definitely meant India, and Hindu meant the non-Muslims of India. The extreme closeness of the two terms should tell you to be very very cautious in making any claims. We know for certain that "hindavi" was the language of Amir Khusrau[1] (for which we now use the names Hindustani or Urdu). So, I find it unlikely that anybody would use hindavi in a sense that excluded Muslims. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, whose book was referenced by Jackson, says this:

The earliest relevant usage that I myself have found is Hindavi swarajya from 1645, in a letter of Shivaji. This might mean, Indian independence from foreign rule, rather than Hindu raj in the modern sense. A little later this same champion of the country's indigenous traditions is referred to by his son Sambhaji as Haindava dharmoddarika, later in that century.

So Smith is interpreting "haindava" "hindavi" to mean Indian rather than Hindu. Sambhaji's Sanskrit phrase doesn't help us either. "Haindava" could have meant "Hindu" in adjectival form, but it could have also been just a Sanskritisation of hindavi. Note that "Hindu dharmodharaka" could have served equally well. So, why go to the extra trouble of coining "Haindava"? (I am also not sure why oddarika appears with an i, which makes it feminine. Whoever coined that term had only hazy knowledge of Sanskrit.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I only said "Hindavi does not mean 'Hindi', it probably means Hindus.". I think you will concede that it does not mean Hindi like you stated. I have my doubts about 'Hindus' too hence I used 'maybe'. But that is a reasonable interpretation indeed at the given time of history and present in one reference that Jonathan used and one I mentioned. Please do not confuse it with Khusrau's language, Shivaji spoke in Marathi, it is also spoken as Haindavi Swarajaya in Marathi but popular English spelling became Hindavi. How do you conclude what Sambhaji said was a Sanskrit phrase? --G (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My two cents:Isn't it the case that words like Hindi,Hindavi,Hindu are of Persian/arabic origin?In those languages these words either mean India,or Indian.In Shivaji's days,persian was the court language of the Adilshahi and other islamic powers.Adilshahi did,however, use Marathi for revenue records etc., but Marathi used in those days was heavily laced with persian vocabulary.So a hybrid phrase such as Hindavi (Persian) Swarajya/Swaraj (Marathi/Sanskrit).ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Irfan Habib telling us how these terms were used in medieval times:

But almost simultaneously, from the 14th century onwards, a new word 'Hindi' (also 'Hindustani') began to be used for the general category of Indians, irrespective of religion, for now Muslims too were natives of India, and the term Hindu with its religious connotation would not serve to include them. So Amir Khusrau (d.1324), the famous Persian poet, would say with pride that he was "a Hindustani Turk", and that Hind was his "home and native land". In his Nuh Sipihr he speaks of India's contributions to the world (the numerals, the Panchatantra and chess!), and of the several regional (Hindawi) languages, the Sanskrit of the learned and the common 'Hindi' tongue; but then Persian, he claimed, was now also a part of the Indian language-stock, having been brought hither by the Ghorians and Turks.

So, I suspect that Shivaji's Hindavi could either be a national term (meaning Indian) or an ethnic term (speaker of native Indian languages), but most likely not a religious term. Hindavi and Hindi were synonymous, one being drawn from a Persian root and other from a (borrowed) Arabic root. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did Khusrau not say he was a "Hindi Turk"? How do you conclude what Sambhaji said was a Sanskrit phrase? What does Irfan Habib say directly about Shivaji's invocation of Hindavi Swarajya in 17th century (instead of superimposing remarks about Khushro of 14th century)? --G (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe sources with direct mention of the phrase "Hindavi Swarajya" as coined by Shivaji are dependable. The other doubt I have is what was the meaning of the term "Hindu" in 14th century and 17th century? It also has Persian origin and had a regional rather than religious appeal at a time. --G (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See Hindu. "Hindu" was originally a national term for Indian. But when the Muslim rule started in Sindh, people that accepted Islam were not referred to as "Hindu" any more. Thus a religious connotation started, which persisted. By the 14th century, the people that we now call Hindus seem to have accepted the label and ascribed it to themselves (as a secondary identity; the primary identity was their jati). Others such as Jains, tribals, dalits, and foreign groups didn't do so. But, again, I don't think the acceptance of the Hindu label was all that widespread. The elites who contested for power used it. A farmer in a village probably had no need for the "Hindu" label. If a Muslim tax-collector came and called him a "Hindu", he would have said "yeah, whatever". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As for sources, we need to use WP:HISTRS. Jackson does qualify, but he doesn't seem knowledgeable about the issue. His footnote [11] claims that "Hindavi Swarajya" was "probably the earliest use of a word like Hindu". He doesn't seem to know that Hinduraya Suratrana had been used a couple of centuries earlier. It is all the more astonishing because he is studying Vijayanagara, which was itself a "Hindavi Swarajya" of its time. I will have to see what the book reviews say about the book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Swarajya

The next question is, what did "Swarajya" mean? Here is a source that clarifies:

Words undergo a change of meaning with succeeding generations and a historical dictionary of a language is really necessary. When Shivaji spoke of Swarajya in 1645, he may not necessarily have meant an independent State. He was perhaps referring only to securing a free control over his jagir at Poona. To Brahme of Chakan he wrote:... (Because of your grace, I became entitled to this rajya). Here also Shivaji refers to his jagir when he speaks of the rajya. We should not import 20th century meanings into 17th century words... even if Shivaji mentioned hindavi swarajya or rajyache adhikari in 1645 or 1648 it does not necessarily mean that he was contemplating the establishment of an independent State.

Monier-Williams dictionary gives the meaning for svarAjya as

n. independent dominion or sovereignty RV. AV.; own dominion or kingdom R. Katha1s.

This suggests that he was talking about an independent dominion for hindavi people, whoever they might have been. "Self-rule of Hindu people" seems like a big stretch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of Swarajya was never contested in the article. I had replied earlier.--G (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am contesting it now. And opposing your interpretation and what is in the article currently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am probably not getting this, I am under the impression that what you understand of Swarjya is the same in the article and same in my view. Are we contradicting? --G (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is contradicting Jackson's interpretation, "self-rule of Hindu people", in two ways. First, it is interpreting rajya as kingdom/dominion rather than as "rule". Second, it is making no allusion to all "Hindu people" or "hindavi people". This is merely saying an independent dominion of hindavi people, however small it might be. Even Shivaji's original jagir of Poona was admitted. But it had to be independent.

I believe that in the medieval times, there was a tacit balance of power between Hindu and Muslim warrior clans. When the Vijayanagara empire was in the play, Vijayanagara and the Bahamani sultanate (or its successors) balanced each other. When it shrank, that balance was destroyed. Shivaji needed to reestablish it, by creating a hindavi kingdom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Swarajya" or "Swaraj" means self-rule or home-rule (unless explicitly redefined by certain author in their text for some limited context). Pleae refer to Swaraj, Purna Swaraj, Hind Swaraj, Gandhiji's usage of it, Dayanand Saraswati 's usage of it. It is not required to reconstruct its meaning from parts when the word has a definite unambiguous meaning. If I may give a crude analogy, you are taking the meaning of 'crore' (ten million) and 'pati' (husband) to reconstruct the meaning of 'crorepati' (rich) as ten million husbands. Your inference that Swarajya does not mean self-rule is wrong. On "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Sivaji in 17th century:

In Sivaji's case, the struggle for national independence was not so much for the sake of mere political autonomy as for religious freedom, which was being curtailed by the Muslim conquerors. Nor was Sivaji's goal the establishment of a democracy, but rather the reestablishment of the traditional Hindu order of society according to the ideals of class and stage in life. It is not surprising, then, that Sivaji referred to the goal of his nationalist efforts as Hindavi-Swarajya'.

In Maharashtra today Shivaji is the most important of all heroes, father of an exclusivist Marathi identity and an early warrior in the fight for indigenous (in this case Hindu) self-rule.

Historical records indicate that he was a man of immense charisma and great personal courage and that he did indeed, found a Hindu kingdom that invoked classical Hindu modes and modalities of kingship.

--G (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

These are all Religious studies scholars. I have no information about their knowledge of history. James Laine's book was extremely controversial. So were the books of Wendy Doniger, Arshia Sattar's Ph.D. supervisor. And, Mackenzie Brown is using translations from 1926, a time of intense Hindu-Muslim conflict. He doesn't seem to have seen the Marathi texts for himself. Here is a statement of Shivaji that he quotes:

I have formed a league of all Maratha chiefs with the object of preserving their estates, in order that we should be masters in our own home: that we should preserve or destroy Moslem Kingdoms at our pleasure.

Notice that there is no occurrence of "Hindu" anywhere, or hindavi even. The whole meaning of the passage now rides on the word "Moslem". Suppose the original Marathi source had used "Turk" instead. Then his whole theory falls flat. This is not a reliable source for history.

I would also be curious to know what was the original source wording for "own home".

And, please don't bring up Gandhi and Dayananda Sarasvati. They have absolutely no bearing on what Shivaji thought or said. And also, please look up meanings of words in dictionaries before claiming to know what they mean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The dictionary meaning of Swarajya is Sef-rule. I see several journal article unambiguously interpreting it as Self-rule. Please provide sources that interprets Swarajya as self-land/homeland.--G (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have bolded the words of the scholar at the top of this subsection. You should read that and his entire commentary (the source is available online), and reflect on it. Please don't keep making the same bad argument again and again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Meaning of the direct phrase "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Shivaji in 17th century

Some sources that directly interpret the Phrase "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Shivaji: . Other Journal articles that are based directly on Shivaji and the context for this phrase: . I believe taking apart each word in some other era or context then stitching them to reconstruct a meaning is not needed here. --G (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There are thousands of sources, G. Please consult WP:HISTRS. I won't bother looking at others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And also, please state what it is the source says that is relevant for the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a Marathi scholar stating the meaning in unequivocal terms:

Shivaji's coronation and setting himself up as a sovereign prince symbolises the rise of the Indian people in all parts of the country. It was a bid for Hindawi Swarajya (Indian rule), a term in use in Marathi sources of history.

I think I have discussed this enough now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a Govt Publication. Peer reviewed Journals have discussed it in detail, we also discussed in previous section. Please don't imply Shivaji meant 'Indian' in 17th century. --Gian (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

But this source is currently being used on the page. Has anybody contested its accuracy?

In any case, here is a source from Shivaji's own time period:

As narrated by 'Abdul in the Ibrahim nama when Sultan Ibrahim 'Adil Shah invited him to compose a book of verses, 'Abdul asked the sultan what medium of communication he could possibly use, as he is merely a Dehlavi (that is, of Delhi) who knows nothing of Arabo—Persian poetry and whose language is merely Hindavi, that is, of India (not Persian, we might add).[8]... As the Ibrahim nama records, 'Abdul's patron encouraged him to compose his poetical work in the local idiom, arguing that it is poetry that brings rup (form) to a language... He further reasons with 'Abdul, telling him that the poet's use of "his country's language" would go a long way in promoting it as a medium of literary expression.

From this it is clear that Hindavi was the name of the language that we now call Hindustani, and it was equally used both by Hindus and Muslims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we are not going to discuss meaning of individual words out of context. Just now you said it meant "Indian", now this. No scholar says Shivaji meant a language for 'Hindavi Swarajya'. This is a museum book on arts, it does not mention Shivaji anywhere. It is original research to find separate meanings of Hindavi and retrofit them into the phrase 'Hindavi Swaraj' coined by Shivaji. Peer reviewed Journal article directly commenting on the complete phrase as used by Shivaji are reliable sources for this. I think I will excuse myself from further discussion on this. --Gian (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• You have started this section yourself labelling it with "as used by Shivaji in the 17th century". However, pretty much none of your comments relate to Shivaji or the 17th century.
• You have cited Arshia Sattar's book review (which is not exactly a "journal article") to support the position that Shivaji meant "Hindu self-rule". However Sattar prefixes her sentence with "In Maharashtra today", clearly not Shivaji's meaning. You haven't pointed out where she made any claims about what Shivaji meant.
• Meckenzie Brown's journal article only makes vague references to religion and Hindu order, but doesn't say anything explicitly about what "Hindavi Swarajya" meant. Drawing any conclusions from this involves WP:SYNTHESIS.
• Finally, you have started shooting down Pagadi's book as a "Government publication", whereas it is published by Navajivan Trust, a Gandhian organisation founded by Gandhi himself to promote Hind Swaraj, whereas it is published by National Book Trust, an autonomous organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I think Jonathansammy, you and I had extensive discussion on article talk page. Thanks for reaching out, I am also feeling like you are doing original research by trying to synthesize meaning of a phrase by retro-fitting meaning of individual words from disparate context. To respond once again to some points you bring here, let me say I have provided journal sources that discuss Shivaji and the phrase directly. I provided the short quotes too. You mentioned that Pagadi book is by National Book Trust, why do you say now it is Navjivan Trust? --Gian (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am slow, I am having difficulty with edit conflicts. NBT website clearly indicates it is under Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt of India. Regardless, please confirm if you want to stick with Hindavi-meant-'India' in 17th century by Shivaji according to it? Because your following comment says it means a language. Earlier you said it means Hindi, then Hindustani. All that I am saying is stick to high quality source that talks directly of the entire phrase directly as used by Shivaji. I do not want to take this to wp:are and I am doing good reading and contributing positively in the ga contributions. --Gian (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Setumadhavrao Pagadi is a highly acclaimed source. So is Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Smith said, quite explicitly, that Hindavi Swarajya did not mean a "Hindu Raj". You are ignoring these statements repeatedly. It is quite obvious to any right-thinking person that Shivaji deliberately used Hindavi so as to be inclusive of both Hindus and Muslims. He could just as well have used "Hindu Swarajya" if that is what he meant. It is quite ridiculous to portray him as a Hindu nationalist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake with the "National Book Trust". The fact that it is managed by HRD doesn't mean a thing. Every central government university/institution is managed by HRD. They are not labelled as "government organisations". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A Publication with Govt of India in the logo itself is different from saying Delhi University is aided by Govt. Anyways, so Pagadi, in English, translates Hindavi as 'India', but you presented another sources saying it is a language, so what is it according to you? You also gave different interpretation of Swarajya as homeland instead of hom rule. So, please frame a complete meaning of "Hindavi Swarajya", if I may hazard a guess it is "Homeland of people speaking in Hindustani language", which was already there, so what was Shivaji trying to achieve? I believe the meaning of a phrase should not be re-constructed from component words in different context. Do you realize you are the one importing 20th century term into 17th century when you are talking about Hindu Nationalist? Mackenzie's analysis in the religious background is detailed and apt, it is a peer reviewed journal article. The religious conflict is also mentioned by John F. Richards, who is a scholar in this field. Why would Afzal Khan choose to "profaned the shrine of Bhawani at Tuljapur as well as several other major Hindu shrines in Maharashtra" to provoke Shivaji? Some scholars have already commented and we may not ignore them all and reconstruct the whole meaning from original research. --Gian (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Deccan Sultanates used Persian as the court language, as Jonathansammy already pointed out, and historians tell us that that they employed many foreigners. The rest of this post is WP:FORUMy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You have done synthesis and ignored good sources that contradict your world view. You selected multiple intent for individual words from out of context sources and synthesized a meaning that fits your view. What language Deccan Sultanates used, whether they employed foreigners, hence you want to disapprove of scholarly comment by your own logic is original research. I also presented why certain facts fit in place for which you talk insultingly and tell to go publish papers. There was least interest to listen and respond, there was a preconceived picture and you went after justifying it. I do not want to collaborate like this with you. --Gian (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Self-rule of Indian people

I originally wrote the literal meaning of "Hindavi Swarajya" as "self-rule of Hindu people". Somebody changed it later to "self-rule of Indian people".

On reflection, I decided that the latter is better and, so, retained it. I notice that somebody changed it back to "Hindu people". So I had to revert again.

The present day meaning of "Hindu" did not exist in Shivaji's time. "Hindu" meant Indic or native, without any particular religious significance. So, we shouldn't use present day "Hindu" to explain the meaning of anything, even the term "Hindu" itself.

Secondly, the term here is "Hindavi", which is more general than "Hindu". So, calling it "Hindu people" is definitely wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Two of the sources cited say "Hindu people" and one says "Indian people". Whichever is the most common version in independent, reliable, secondary scholarly sources should be the one we use. I've restored the original version until we find that out, per WP:BRD. (NB the present-day meaning of "Indian" didn't exist in Shivaji's time, either.) Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No. The first source said "This might mean, Indian independence from foreign rule, rather than Hindu raj in the modern sense".[2] That means 2/3 sources say "Indian", not "Hindu". Editorkamran (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The article already clarifies that "self-rule of Hindu people", the literal rendering of hindavī-svarājya, means people living in the Indian subcontinent, rather than religious Hindus ("meaning independence from foreign rule").

Here are the Google Books results for both formations:

"Self-rule of Hindu people"

"Self-rule of Indian people"

I count seven results (including a biography of Shivaji) for the former, and one for the latter. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't shift the goalpost now. You claimed 1/3 added sources say "Hindu", when 2/3 say "Indian". Editorkamran (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, two say "Hindu" and two say both. Those three sources aren't the only ones out there, or even the most appropriate ones, if more writers use the "Hindu" version rather than the "Indian" one. What is your proposal? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)