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