NEW DELHI: The release of Bollywood’s Chhaava has sparked intense debates over its portrayal of history, particularly regarding Chhatrapati Sambhaji and Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Historians, critics, and intellectuals have accused the film of distorting historical facts, vilifying Muslim rulers, and deepening communal divisions in Indian society.
Critics argue that Chhaava follows the pattern of films like The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story, which have been accused of pushing a polarizing narrative. While the film enjoys strong backing from right-wing groups, it has come under fire for presenting a one-sided depiction of history, particularly in its portrayal of Aurangzeb as a ruthless tyrant while glorifying Sambhaji.
Despite the reverence Chhaava bestows upon Sambhaji, even right-wing historical figures such as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and M.S. Golwalkar had criticized him, labeling him incompetent and morally flawed. Savarkar described him as a “drunkard” and “womanizer,” views echoed by Golwalkar. However, the film projects him as a noble warrior and victim of Aurangzeb’s cruelty.
The movie’s climax—a 40-minute sequence depicting Sambhaji’s gruesome torture—has been called excessive and inflammatory. The graphic violence has reportedly led to emotional distress among viewers, with children crying in theaters and audiences reacting with anger. This has led to real-world consequences, including riots in Nagpur and threats from Hindutva groups to demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who initially praised the film, has since acknowledged its role in inciting communal tensions.
Historians have also challenged the film’s version of Sambhaji’s capture. While it was traditionally believed that landlord Ganoji Shirke betrayed Sambhaji to the Mughals, historian Indrajit Sawant claims that a Brahmin clerk was responsible. Citing French governor François Martin’s diary, he argues that Sambhaji’s whereabouts were leaked by a senior Maratha clerk linked to Annaji Datto, a high-ranking official in Shivaji’s administration.
Sawant, who has faced threats for challenging Chhaava’s historical accuracy, also criticized the film’s depiction of Soyarabai Bhosale as a conspirator. He insists that historical records suggest that Brahmin clerks, not Soyarabai, played a crucial role in Sambhaji’s downfall. Additionally, the Shirke family, descendants of Maratha commanders, have accused the filmmakers of defaming their ancestors and threatened a ₹100 crore lawsuit.
Renowned historian Ashok Kumar Pandey has denounced Chhaava for fueling communal hatred. He notes that despite conflicts between the Marathas and Mughals, Sambhaji’s son Shahuji Maharaj never sought revenge against Aurangzeb. Instead, he respected Aurangzeb’s tomb and even commissioned the construction of a mosque in Satara.
Pandey also challenges the claim that Aurangzeb attempted to forcibly convert Sambhaji, citing right-wing historian Jadunath Sarkar, who never mentioned such an event. Instead, he asserts that Aurangzeb was merely interrogating Sambhaji about his hidden treasure. Other scholars, including R.C. Majumdar and H.C. Raychaudhuri, confirm that Sambhaji was executed but do not support the narrative of religious persecution.
JNU historian Dr. Ruchika Sharma has also refuted the film’s depiction of Aurangzeb, emphasizing that he funded Hindu temples and monasteries, including the Balaji Temple in Chitrakoot and the Gopinath Temple in Gopa Mau. She argues that temple destruction was not exclusive to Muslim rulers, citing King Harsha of Kashmir, who institutionalized idol-breaking in his administration.
Veteran writer and professor Ram Puniyani further critiques the film’s portrayal of medieval history as a simplistic Hindu-Muslim conflict. He highlights that even Shivaji’s forces committed atrocities during their raids, such as the plundering of Surat. Portuguese records cited by Sarkar describe the Maratha attack on Goa under Sambhaji as one of the most brutal in Indian history.
Islamic scholar Abdul Hamid Nomani has condemned Hindutva groups’ threats against Aurangzeb’s tomb, pointing out that Shahuji Maharaj, Sambhaji’s own son, paid respects at the site. He argues that the film manipulates historical events to serve contemporary political narratives, disregarding Indian traditions of respecting the dead.
Critics from the film industry, including actor Kamaal R. Khan (KRK), have accused Chhaava of deliberately inciting communal hatred. KRK stated that Vicky Kaushal’s portrayal in the film has contributed to social unrest. Journalist Madhavan Narayanan has even suggested that films like Chhaava should carry warnings, similar to cigarette advertisements, cautioning viewers about their impact on social harmony.
Apeksha Priyadarshini has pointed out Bollywood’s consistent pattern of depicting Muslim men as barbaric antagonists, reinforcing stereotypes that deepen communal divides. S.R. Praveen, a journalist for The Hindu, has similarly categorized Chhaava as a “product of hatred,” akin to The Kerala Story.
While Chhaava enjoys commercial success, nearing the ₹600 crore mark, its impact on Indian society remains highly contentious. Historians and critics warn that such films, rather than educating audiences about history, serve as tools for political propaganda, fostering communal discord. As the debate continues, many are calling for greater accountability in historical storytelling, urging filmmakers to balance creative liberty with factual integrity.
