Skip to content 
The New York Times article is under scrutiny for reducing Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy to contemporary politics.
If someone told an Indian that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is India’s “new hero,” the reaction would probably not begin with agreement — it would begin with confusion.
That is exactly why a recent New York Times article sparked such intense discussion online.
Titled around the idea that India’s right wing has embraced a 17th-century king as a modern symbol, the article explored how Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s public visibility has expanded in recent years and argued that his image is increasingly being linked with Hindu nationalism and contemporary politics.
But the controversy that followed was not simply about politics. It was about something deeper: who gets to define historical memory, and whether global media sometimes oversimplifies how India remembers its own icons.
What the New York Times article argues
The central argument of the New York Times article is not that Shivaji Maharaj suddenly became important. Rather, it suggests that in recent years his image has been elevated nationally and increasingly connected with modern political identity — especially under the current political environment.
The article points to visible examples:
– more public statues and memorials,
– stronger national references to Shivaji beyond Maharashtra,
– political speeches invoking his legacy,
– and the broader use of historical figures in shaping public identity.
The article appears to frame this growth as part of a larger political and cultural movement in India — particularly linked to Hindu nationalism and the rise of the BJP over the last decade.
The underlying implication is that historical figures are being reintroduced into national consciousness through contemporary politics.
That argument is not entirely unusual. Governments around the world often draw inspiration from historical personalities to create national narratives. But where the article became controversial was in how many readers interpreted its framing.
The political usage of Shivaji in contemporary India
There is little debate that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj occupies an increasingly visible place in national political language today.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly referenced Shivaji Maharaj in speeches and public events, often presenting him as a symbol of courage, governance, strategic thinking and civilizational confidence.
Large memorial projects and public commemorations have also gained visibility in recent years.
At the same time, Shivaji’s national reach today is wider than before. Historically associated most strongly with Maharashtra and Maratha identity, his symbolism now appears more prominently across different parts of India.
Supporters of this trend argue that this is not political manufacturing but broader recognition of a historical figure whose influence deserved greater national attention.
Many also point to the fact that Shivaji’s memory was never restricted only to one region.
His name has existed for decades in public life — across roads, institutions, airports, textbooks, public celebrations and popular culture.
Supporters of broader recognition also argue that institutions have drawn lessons from his military and administrative thinking.
For example, Shivaji’s emphasis on naval strength is often referenced in discussions around India’s maritime traditions, and his strategic use of terrain and fort systems is frequently discussed in military history and leadership contexts.
However, whether such references amount to historical appreciation or political symbolism depends largely on perspective.
The backlash: “Shivaji was never a new hero”
One of the strongest criticisms of the article came from social media users who argued that the headline itself created a misleading impression.
Among the widely circulated responses was a thread by commentator Indu Viswanathan.
Her central criticism was straightforward:
Shivaji Maharaj was never a forgotten figure waiting to be rediscovered.
She argued that presenting him as a “new hero” creates a false impression for international readers — as if modern politics created his relevance.
Her comparison was striking: describing Shivaji as a new hero, she argued, would be similar to calling George Washington a new hero for Americans.
She also criticized the article’s language choices.
One example she highlighted was describing Shivaji statues as “rising across India.”
Her argument was that such wording subtly changes perception.
Instead of describing public commemoration, she argued, language like “rise” can create associations of political movements, social threat, or ideological expansion.
Her larger point was not that political usage does not exist.
Her argument was that political usage and historical significance are not the same thing.
According to this view, political parties may amplify Shivaji’s visibility, but they did not create his importance.
My view: where the New York Times article feels incomplete
The strongest limitation of the article is not that it discusses politics.
Political usage of historical figures is a valid topic and governments across the world do it. But the article, in my view, underestimates how deeply embedded Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj already was in Indian public memory long before the current political environment.
Shivaji’s popularity is not recent.
His symbolic importance did not emerge in the last 10–12 years, nor can it be understood mainly through the rise of one political party.
For generations, Shivaji Maharaj has occupied a major place in Indian public consciousness through education, literature, public institutions, regional identity, cultural memory and political discourse.
His influence has also existed in Indian politics for decades across different periods and movements. References to Shivaji appeared during parts of the Independence movement as a symbol of resistance and self-rule, and later his legacy became strongly associated with regional political mobilisation in Maharashtra, including through parties such as Shiv Sena long before the current government came to power.
This is why reducing his present visibility mainly to recent political promotion feels incomplete.
The article appears to move too quickly from observing increased public celebration of Shivaji to suggesting that his prominence is primarily a result of BJP-era political messaging.
That connection, in my view, overlooks an important distinction:
Political amplification is not the same as political creation.
A government or political movement can elevate, nationalise, or emphasise a historical figure — but that does not necessarily mean it created that figure’s relevance.
This is where I think the article lacks deeper engagement with the historical and emotional impact Shivaji Maharaj has had on Indian society over centuries.
To many Indians, Shivaji is not viewed as a newly constructed political symbol but as a historical personality whose relevance already existed and continues to evolve.
Similarly, the article’s framing risks presenting Shivaji’s growing visibility mainly as evidence of Hindu nationalism or minority marginalisation.
That framing may resonate with a familiar international narrative, but it can also simplify a far more layered reality.
Understanding Shivaji primarily through the lens of contemporary political gain may miss why his image continues to resonate so strongly across generations and regions in the first place.
Conclusion
The New York Times article raises an important discussion about how historical figures continue to shape modern politics. But in doing so, it appears to miss a much deeper reality — Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is not a newly elevated political symbol, but a figure who has occupied a powerful place in India’s historical and political consciousness for generations.
His influence did not begin with the current government, nor can it be explained only through contemporary political narratives. While political parties may amplify his legacy, they did not create it.
The article’s framing may fit a narrative that is easier for Western audiences to understand — one centred on Hindu nationalism and political symbolism — but in doing so, it risks overlooking the historical depth, emotional connection, and long-standing public memory associated with Shivaji Maharaj in India.
Shivaji was never waiting to be rediscovered. And regardless of political cycles, his impact on Indian society and public imagination is likely to continue for generations to come.
