From comment to backlash: Why Shivaji Maharaj-Tipu Sultan comparison sparked controversy – explained. india news

History is not always in textbooks. Sometimes, it comes back framed on the wall. A portrait of an 18th century Mysore ruler, in Malegaon tipu sultanThe photo, which was kept for a while inside the office of the newly-elected Deputy Mayor, gave rise to a political controversy that reached far beyond the Municipal Corporation building from where it had originated. The municipal administration removed the picture within 48 hours, the matter escalated to a war of words between the Chief Minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis and state Congress Protests led by Chief Harshvardhan Sapkal broke out in several cities and eight people were injured in stone pelting in Pune.At the center of the row was not just the presence of Tipu Sultan’s portrait, but Sapkal’s statement comparing him to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, who belonged to “the same league of valor”. The Chief Minister described the comparison as “unacceptable” and said the Congress politician should be “ashamed”. What happened next was a familiar pattern in Indian public life where history, memory, symbolism and the contemporary political situation intersect.

How did the controversy unfold?

after which the controversy started Shiv Sena Corporators in Malegaon objected to the display of Tipu Sultan’s portrait in the office of Deputy Mayor Shan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed. A delegation met Malegaon civic chief Ravindra Jadhav, demanding its removal and warning of agitation if the administration failed to take action. Malegaon Municipal Corporation removed the photo from the office on Saturday.Jadhav confirmed that the administration checked the state government’s official protocol list, which outlines leaders whose anniversaries are celebrated and whose pictures are allowed to be displayed in government offices, before taking action. “Tipu Sultan’s name is not included in the list. Hence, the photograph was removed from the deputy mayor’s office,” MMC officials said.However, Ahmed defended the historical relevance of this figure. “Tipu Sultan fought against the British and was known for his bravery at that time. There are roads named after him in Mumbai and Nagpur. This is an attempt to divert attention from our work. Some people are not able to digest that Malegaon has two Muslim women as mayor and deputy mayor,” he told reporters.Asked about the controversy, Sapkal, speaking in Buldhana on Saturday, said, “He (Tipu Sultan) waged war against the British and was a brave warrior. He was a son of the soil. He never harbored poisonous or divisive thoughts. We should look at Tipu Sultan as an icon of bravery at par with Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.”

CM Fadnavis called the comparison unacceptable. He said, “Congress should be ashamed of comparing the founder of Hindavi Swarajya with Tipu Sultan, who massacred thousands of Hindus.”This episode has reopened an old historical debate that has come up in political discussion from time to time as both the figures hold important but very different places in Indian history.

Shivaji = Tipu, or Shivaji > Tipu?

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, born in 1630, is widely regarded as the founder of the Maratha state and the architect of Hindavi Swarajya. His military campaigns against the Mughal Empire and regional sultanates laid the foundation for a political formation that eventually expanded into one of the most powerful empires in early modern India. Shivaji’s legacy in Maharashtra is not limited to historical appreciation alone. He represents the warrior ethos of resistance, self-rule, regional pride and deeply embedded in the socio-political consciousness of the state.

Tipu Sultan, born in 1751, ruled the Kingdom of Mysore during a period of intense conflict between Indian politics and the expanding British East India Company. Along with his father Haider Ali, he fought several battles against British forces and in many accounts is remembered as one of the earliest rulers to adopt modern military technologies such as iron-clad rockets. Tipu Sultan died fighting the British during the siege of Srirangapatna in 1799.For many historians, the importance of Tipu Sultan lies in his continued resistance to colonial expansion. For others, especially in parts of Karnataka and Kerala, he remains a controversial figure due to his links to forced conversions, temple vandalism and harsh campaigns against certain communities.

Debate over his rule has continued for decades and has often been shaped by political context as well as archival evidence. These varying interpretations have given Tipu Sultan a complex afterlife in contemporary politics.

Why did it erupt into controversy?

In Maharashtra, Shivaji Maharaj holds an almost sacred place on ideological grounds, but especially in the political terminology of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena. The Maratha ruler is often remembered as a symbol of indigenous sovereignty, martial pride and cultural assertion. The context of Hindavi Swaraj strongly resonates with narratives focused on civilizational identity and self-determination.Therefore, any alleged attempt to compare Shivaji Maharaj with any other historical figure, especially one whose legacy is under dispute, carries political sensitivities.

BJP leaders have argued that the comparison diminishes the unique historical role of Shivaji Maharaj. BJP Pune city president Dheeraj Ghate said, “Sapkal’s remarks have deeply hurt the sentiments of all those who regard Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as a deity. This is a deliberate attempt to create a rift in the society.”For the Congress, Tipu Sultan has at times represented anti-colonial resistance and the inclusive aspect of historical nationalism. In the southern states, especially Karnataka, Congress governments have celebrated Tipu Jayanti, defining him as a freedom fighter who opposed British rule. Political opponents, particularly the BJP and affiliated organizations, have long argued that such commemorations reflect an effort to reach out to minorities by emphasizing Tipu’s anti-British legacy, which they see as part of a broader effort to counter the rise of Hindutva-centric historical narratives.This divergence in emphasis reflects deep ideological differences over how the past is incorporated into current politics. While the BJP’s political message often highlights civilizational continuity and indigenous cultural pride associated with Hindutva idea, the Congress has tended to promote pluralistic interpretations of history, which critics often say is driven by accommodationism or appeasement in its political intent.Therefore the political meaning of invoking any figure is important. Shivaji Maharaj serves as a unifying icon in Maharashtra, but also as a powerful symbol within the broader discussion on identity, sovereignty and cultural revival associated with Hindutva politics. In contrast, Tipu Sultan often becomes the focal point of debates, where his memory is interpreted by critics through the lens of Muslim appeasement versus majoritarian claims to historical identity.

From portrait to protest

The controversy in Malegaon spread rapidly beyond the initial administrative decision. BJP and right-wing organization supporters protested in Nagpur, Nashik, Ahilyanagar, Sangli, Solapur, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Nanded, Latur and other places. In Pune, members of the Patit Pawan organization first gathered in front of the Congress Bhawan on Sunday morning and condemned Sapkal’s comments.At around 12.30 pm, BJP workers including Mayor Manjusha Nagpure reached the spot and started raising slogans and showing posters. By then about 100 Congress workers reached there and started raising counter slogans.Additional Commissioner of Police Manoj Patil said, “When sloganeering was going on from both sides, someone threw a stone. Due to this, members from both sides started pelting stones.” “Two women constables, two journalists and two workers each of BJP and Congress were injured.” “The nature of the injuries were not serious,” he said.

As political leaders moved forward, the debate increased. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi defended Tipu Sultan, saying, “In 1799, Tipu Sultan died fighting the British,” adding, “He would not have written love letters to the British while sitting in jail.”Meanwhile, Telangana BJP president N Ramachander Rao said AIMIM was “distorting history” by glorifying Tipu Sultan.Amid growing criticism, Sapkal later clarified his remarks. “BJP misinterpreted my statement for political gains. I had said that there can be no one like Shivaji Maharaj and Tipu Sultan had taken inspiration from him.” He later expressed regret, saying, “I did not say anything wrong about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. The question of comparison does not arise; “I didn’t make even one.”He described Shivaji Maharaj as “my idol, my inspiration and my pride” and appealed for peace. “If the sentiments of any Shiva devotee have been hurt due to my misuse of words, I express my sincere regret. It was never my intention to hurt anyone’s sentiments. Let’s end this matter here.”Nevertheless, this episode shows how historical figures continue to function as political signifiers in contemporary India. Images in public offices are rarely neutral. They indicate not only admiration but also affiliation, narrative, and sometimes ideological position.As the demonstrations spread and leaders exchanged accusations over historical interpretation, the dispute shows no immediate sign of subsiding. What started as a picture serves as a reminder that in Indian politics, the past remains an active participant in the present. The pictures on the wall often speak as loudly as the speeches beneath them.