Chhatrapati Shivaji and the sacking of Surat

There has always been a section of people who have tried to portray Chhatrapati Shivaji in a negative light by referring to his loot of Surat. What is worse, a parallel is then drawn with the Mughals and other rulers who also looted and this forms the basis of a much ill-informed whataboutery. In particular, this pertains to the first loot of Surat in 1665. Such a faulty image has been built on the basis of Mughal court records and British interpretation of the events, which provide a rather one-sided picture. This article will show how Chhatrapati Shivaji, within the limits of the age and circumstances, displayed qualities that were decidedly different from other invading or marauding armies bent on looting. It also talks about how it was a calculated political assault aimed at minimum collateral damage, in contrast to the “kill everyone without pity and plunder the towns to ashes” diktats of Aurangzeb against whom it was aimed.

It is necessary to understand why Shivaji decided to undertake such a risky campaign. In the years preceding 1665, Mughal generals Shaiste Khan and Daud Khan had swooped down on the Pune-Supa region and reduced it to ashes. Entire villages had been burnt to the ground and countless people had been killed. What’s more, Shaiste Khan had occupied the Lal Mahal at Pune and plundered whatever he could. It had been Aurangzeb’s dream to subjugate the Deccan and he aimed to start it by unleashing Mughal armies on the unsuspecting people of Pune and Supa.

Shivaji, after cutting off the thumb of Shaiste Khan in a daring raid at night, decided to hurt the Mughals by aiming for their richest town – Surat. By feigning that he was headed elsewhere, he lulled the Mughals into being complacent and before long had appeared with his armies at Gamdevi, merely thirty miles from Surat! His intentions were clear, and he made them public too – his fight was against the Mughal emperor, not the people in and of Surat. The depredations of Mughal armies had caused him incalculable harm and it was only just that he exacted revenge on the Mughals. But indiscriminate looting was not his aim. So Shivaji, at the head of a large army, sent a message to Inayatullah Khan, the faujdar of Surat asking him to bring the three richest merchants of the city. They would compensate him for the losses suffered by the invasions of Aurangzeb. These three merchants were Haji Baig, Haji Qasim and Bahirji Bohra. Sardesai in his ‘Shivaji and His Lines’ mentions that this amount came to around forty to fifty lakhs. Inayatullah Khan refused, and finally ended up parting with a few crores! Not only did Inayatullah Khan refuse to settle the matter with Shivaji, he refused to defend the town and fled. He then sent a young messenger, ostensibly to discuss matters with Chhatrapati Shvaji, but quite astonishingly, the man tried to stab Shivaji and the worst was averted only due to the quick actions of Shivaji’s bodyguards. At this affront to their leader, several angry commanders in his army wanted to carry out a general massacre at least of the soldiers serving Inayatullah Khan, if not the town itself. But Shivaji, in spite of being at the receiving end of an assassination attempt, forbade such impulsive reactions. But with the talks with Inayatullah Khan having failed, Shivaji took the only route available – a sacking of Surat.

Two anecdotes from the ensuing three-four days of looting are interesting. The first is of a Catholic monk named Father Ambrose. This person’s residence was pointed out to Shivaji as one worthy enough to be looted. But Chhatrapati Shivaji recognised Father Ambrose as a man of piety and refused to loot his house. In the sacking of Surat, his house was untouched. The second anecdote, given in NS Takakhav’s biography of Shivaji and mentioned in the travels of a 17th century writer by the name of Bernier, is regarding a man named Parekh. His name, too, was among the richest merchants of Surat. It so happened that Parekh had died a few months before and was now being survived by his wife. Furthermore, the merchant had been a great philanthropist during his life. Shivaji promptly forbade the looting of his house or possessions and in fact placed guards to see to it that no such thing happened.

The second sacking of Surat happened in 1670. This time, Shivaji was locked in a direct conflict with Mughal armies all over the Sahyadris. He was also battling the Siddi of Janjira. It was during the battle against the Siddi that Mughal boats from Surat attacked the rear of his armies. In response, Shivaji attacked Surat. This time the loot was taken to Lohgad near Pune.

Thus we can see that the ‘looting’ of Surat had definite reasons and political motives. It was not a case of wanton killing and plunder. Shivaji did not once in the campaign give free reign to greed or cruelty, although the temptation was there.

The writer is the author of Brahmaputra — Story of Lachit Barphukan and Sahyadris to Hindukush — Maratha Conquest of Lahore and Attock