From observation to retraction: Why the comparison between Shivaji Maharaj and Tipu Sultan sparked controversy – explained

History does not always remain in textbooks. Sometimes, it comes back framed on the wall. In Malegaon, a portrait of the 18th-century Mysore ruler, Tipu Sultan, briefly placed inside the office of the city’s newly elected deputy mayor, has sparked a political controversy that has moved far beyond the city hall where it began.

Within 48 hours, the photo was removed by the civic administration. The matter escalated into a war of words between Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and state Congress chief Harshwardhan Sapkal. Protests broke out in multiple cities, and eight people were injured in stone-pelting in Pune.At the heart of the dispute was not merely the presence of Tipu Sultan’s portrait but Sapkal’s statement comparing him to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as belonging to “the same league of valor”.

The Prime Minister termed the comparison “unacceptable” and said the Congress politician should feel “ashamed”. What followed was a familiar pattern in Indian public life, where history, memory, symbolism, and contemporary political positioning intersect.

How the controversy unfolded

The controversy started after that

Shiv Sena

Businessmen in Malegaon have objected to the display of Tipu Sultan’s picture in the office of Deputy Mayor Shan India Nihal Ahmed.

A delegation met Malegaon civic chief Ravindra Jadhav, demanded his removal and warned of unrest if the administration fails to act. The Malegaon Municipal Corporation on Saturday removed the image from the office.Jadhav confirmed that the administration had checked the state government’s official protocol list, which identifies leaders whose anniversaries are being celebrated and whose photographs are allowed to be displayed in government offices, before taking action.

“Tipu Sultan’s name is not included in the list. Therefore, the photo has been removed from the deputy mayor’s office,” MMC officials said.But Ahmed defended the historical importance of the character. “Tipu Sultan fought against the British and was known for his bravery at that time. There are roads bearing his name in Mumbai and Nagpur. This is an attempt to divert attention from our work. Some people cannot understand that two Muslim women are the mayor and deputy mayor of Malegaon,” she told reporters.When asked about the controversy, Sapkal said in Buldhana on Saturday: “He (Tipu Sultan) waged war against the British and was a brave warrior. He was a son of the soil. He never thought toxic or divisive thoughts. We should look at Tipu Sultan on par with Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as a symbol of courage.”

CM Fadnavis described the comparison as unacceptable. He said the Congress “should be ashamed of equating the founder of Hindavi Swarajya with Tipu Sultan, who slaughtered thousands of Hindus.”This episode reopened an ancient historical debate that has periodically entered political discourse as both figures occupy important but very different spaces in Indian history.

Shivaji = Tipu, or Shivaji > Tipu?

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, born in 1630, is widely considered the founder of the Maratha state and the architect of Hindu 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 admiration alone. It represents resistance, self-government, regional pride and a warrior spirit deeply rooted in the country’s social and political consciousness.

Tipu Sultan, born in 1751, ruled the Kingdom of Mysore during a period of intense conflict between the Indian polities and the expanding British East India Company. Along with his father Hyder Ali, he waged multiple wars against British forces, and is remembered in many accounts as one of the first rulers to adopt modern military techniques such as iron-box missiles. In 1799, Tipu Sultan died fighting the British during the Siege of Srirangapatna.For many historians, Tipu Sultan’s importance lies in his continued resistance to colonial expansion. For others, particularly in regions such as parts of Karnataka and Kerala, he remains a contested figure due to accounts of forced conversions, temple desecration and harsh campaigns against certain communities.

Controversy over his rule has persisted for decades, often shaped as much by political context as by archival evidence.

These different interpretations gave Tipu Sultan a complex afterlife in contemporary politics.

Why did you explode in controversy?

In Maharashtra, Shivaji Maharaj occupies a near-sacred status across ideological lines, but especially within the political vocabulary of the BJP (

Bharatiya Janata Party

) and Shiv Sena. The Maratha ruler is often cited as a symbol of indigenous sovereignty, military pride and cultural affirmation.

References to Hindavi Swarajya resonate strongly with narratives centered around civilizational identity and self-determination.Any perceived attempt to equate Shivaji Maharaj with another historical figure, especially one whose legacy is in dispute, therefore carries political sensitivity.

BJP leaders argued that the comparisons downplay Shivaji Maharaj’s unique historical role. BJP Pune city president Dhiraj Ghat said, “Sabkal’s remarks have deeply hurt the sentiments of all those who worship Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as a god.

“It is a deliberate attempt to create a rift in society.”For the Congress Party, Tipu Sultan at times represented anti-colonial resistance and an overarching axis of historical nationalism. In the southern states, especially Karnataka, Congress governments celebrated Tipu Jayanti, describing him as a freedom fighter who resisted British rule. Political opponents, especially from the Bharatiya Janata Party and allied organizations, have long argued that such celebrations reflect an attempt to reach out to minorities, with an emphasis on Tipu’s anti-British legacy that they see as part of a broader effort to counter the rise of Hindutva-focused historical narratives.This difference in focus reflects deeper ideological differences in how the past is mobilized in the politics of the present day. While the BJP’s political messages often highlight civilizational continuity and indigenous cultural pride consistent with Hindutva thought, the Congress Party has tended to promote pluralistic interpretations of history that critics often describe as conciliatory or appeasement-driven in their political intentions.Therefore, the political content of calling either number is important. Shivaji Maharaj is a unifying symbol in Maharashtra, but he is also a powerful symbol within a broader discourse about identity, sovereignty, and cultural resurgence associated with Hindutva politics. In contrast, Tipu Sultan often becomes a focal point in debates as critics interpret his memory through the prism of Muslim appeasement versus majoritarian assertions of historical identity.

From image to protests

The controversy in Malegaon quickly spread beyond the initial administrative decision. BJP supporters and right-wing organizations protested in Nagpur, Nashik, Ahilyanagar, Sangli, Solapur, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Nanded, Latur and other places. In Pune, members of the Patit Bhawan Sanghatana were the first to gather outside the Congress Bhawan on Sunday morning, condemning Sapkal’s remarks.At around 12.30 pm, BJP workers, including city mayor Manjusha Nagpur, reached the site and started shouting slogans and displaying posters.

By then, about 100 Congress workers had reached the site and started raising counter-slogans.“While there were chants from both sides, someone threw a stone. This led to stone pelting by individuals from both sides,” Police Commissioner Manoj Patel said. “Two policewomen, two journalists and two BJP and Congress workers were injured. The nature of the injuries was not serious,” he added.

With the intervention of political leaders, the debate expanded. AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi defended Tipu Sultan, saying, “In 1799, Tipu Sultan died fighting the British,” and added, “He did not sit in prison and write love letters to the British.”Meanwhile, glorifying Tipu Sultan, BJP Telangana president N Ramchander Rao said that AIMIM is “distorting history”.Amid mounting criticism, Sapkal later clarified his comments. “The BJP misinterpreted my statement for political gains. I said there cannot be anyone like Shivaji Maharaj, and Tipu Sultan took inspiration from him,” he said. He later expressed his regret, saying, “I did not say anything wrong about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.

The question of comparison does not arise; I didn’t make one.”Shivaji described Maharaj as “my ideal, my inspiration and my pride” and called for calm. “If the feelings of any Shiv fan were hurt by the misuse of my words, I express my sincere regret. It was never my intention to hurt anyone’s feelings. Let’s put this matter aside here.”However, this incident illustrates how historical figures continue to serve as political indicators in contemporary India.

Portraits in public offices are rarely neutral. It denotes not only admiration, but also affiliation, narrative, and sometimes ideological position.As demonstrations spread and leaders traded accusations over historical interpretation, the controversy showed no immediate sign of abating. What started as a photo pose became a reminder that the past in Indian politics remains an active participant in the present. The pictures on the wall often speak as loudly as the speeches delivered beneath them.