दगलबाज शिवाजी : Page 4 of 14

of human expressions upon the face of this saturnine egotist, that expression of disinterested interest that one sees in the face of an artist or artisan `lost’, as we say, in his work. Out of his portraits he looks at us with a thin scorn upon his lips, the scorn of the criminal who believes that he can certainly cheat such fools as we are, and with a certain uneasiness in his eyes. That uneasiness haunts all his portraits. Are we really convinced he is quite right? Are his laurels straight? He had a vast contempt for man in general and men in particular, a contempt that took him at last to St. Helena, that same contempt fills our jails with forgers, poisoners and the like victims of self-conceit. There is no proof that this unbrotherly, unhumorous egotist was ever sincerely loved by any human being. The Empress Josephine was unfaithful to him as he to her. His young Austrian wife would not accompany him to Elba. A certain polish countess followed him thither but not, it would seem, for love, but an account of the son she had borne him. She wanted settlements. She stayed only two days with him. He had never even a dog to love him. He estranged most of his colleagues and fellow generals. He had no familiar friend. No one who knew him felt safe with him. In his intimacy, his unflinching self-concentration must have been a terrible bore. His personal habits were unpleasant; the moodiness of bad health came to him early. True it is that his solders, who, save for a rare melodramatic encounters, saw nothing of his idolized their ``Little Corporal’’. But it was not him they idolized, but a carefully fostered legend of an incredibly clever, recklessly brave little man, a little pet of a man, who was devoted to France and them – p. 499.

लोकशाहीची प्राणप्रतिष्ठा करण्यासाठी युरपस्थ राजेशाहीला नेस्तनाबूद करणा-या सवाई शिकंदर नेपोलियन चक्रवर्तीला विसाव्या शतकातले हे इंग्रज इतिहासपंडित जर बाबू चष्मावाल्याच्या वर्गात ढकलतात, तर १८व्या आणि १९व्या शतकातल्या यांच्या व्यवसाय पूर्वजांनी शिवाजीला उनाडटप्पू दरोडेखोराच्या सदरांत घातले, तर त्यात काय नवल? तरी बरे की इतरांवर घाणेरडे आरोप करणा-या या आंग्ल चिकित्सकांच्या ब्रिटन राष्ट्रच्या साम्राज्यवर्धनाच्या खटपटी अगदीच काही धुतल्या तांदळाच्या नव्हत. शिवाजीवरील खुनाच्या आरोपाचे खण्डन करणांरे विलायती व गावठी वकील पाहिले तर त्यांची नंदीबैलातच गणना करावी लागेल. यांचा डिफेन्स आणि विधाने पाहिली तर रडू येण्यापेक्षा हसूच फार येते. काय म्हणे शिवाजीने आत्मसंरक्षणासाठी वाघनखाचा उपयोग केला. आणखी काय? तर प्रथम वार कोणी केला, यावरच वादविवादाची धुमश्चक्री. आणि अफझूलखानाने ज्या अर्थी, ज्या पक्षी, ज्या अन्वये, शिवाजीला प्रथम बगलेत दाबून त्याच्या मस्तकावर प्रथम तलवार चालवुन आगळीक केली, त्या अर्थी त्या, पक्षी, त्या अन्वये, शिवाजीने आत्मरक्षणार्थ वाघनख चालविल्यामुळे, खुनाचा आरोप त्यावर सिद्ध होत नाही. बावलाने रिवॉल्वर प्रथम झाडले, का शफी दिल्याने झाडले, असल्याच क्षुद्र वादावर या विलायती व गावठी वकिलांची भिस्त. जणू काय, अफजूलखानाच्या खुनाबद्दल फाजलखानाने फिर्याद दिली आहे. अदीलशाहीच्या शिफारसीने इंग्रेजी सेशन कोर्टात शिवाजीवर खटला चालू आहे आणि हे विलायती गावठी बॅरीस्टर शिवाजीच्या तर्फे ब्रिटिश इंडियन पिनल कोडांतील कलमांवर आपल्या वकीलाईची कसरत करीत आहेत! शिवाजी हा कोण, त्याचे ध्येय काय, कर्तव्यक्षेत्र कोणते, त्याच्या