History does not always stay in textbooks. Sometimes, it returns framed on a wall. In Malegaon, a portrait of the 18th-century Mysore ruler Tipu Sultan, briefly placed inside the office of a newly-elected deputy mayor, triggered a political controversy that has travelled far beyond the municipal corporation building where it began. Within 48 hours, the image 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 centre of the row was not merely the presence of Tipu Sultan’s portrait but Sapkal’s statement comparing him with Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as belonging “to the same league of valour”. The chief minister described the comparison as “unacceptable” and said the Congress politician should be “ashamed”. What followed was a familiar pattern in Indian public life where history, memory, symbolism and contemporary political positioning intersect.
How controversy unfolded
The controversy began after Shiv Sena corporators in Malegaon objected to the display of Tipu Sultan’s portrait in deputy mayor Shaan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed’s office. A delegation met Malegaon civic chief Ravindra Jadhav, demanding that it be removed and warning of an agitation if the administration failed to act. The Malegaon Municipal Corporation on Saturday removed the portrait from the office.Jadhav confirmed that the administration examined the state government’s official protocol list, which outlines leaders whose anniversaries are observed and whose portraits are permitted for display in government offices, before taking the action. “Tipu Sultan’s name is not included in the list. Therefore, the portrait was removed from the deputy mayor’s office,” MMC officials said.Ahmed, however, defended the figure’s historical relevance. “Tipu Sultan fought against the British and was acknowledged 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 unable to digest that two Muslim women are mayor and deputy mayor in Malegaon,” she told reporters.When asked about the controversy, Sapkal, speaking in Buldhana on Saturday, said, “He (Tipu Sultan) waged a war against the British and was a brave warrior. He was a son of the soil. He never entertained poisonous or divisive thoughts. We should view Tipu Sultan as an equal to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as a symbol of bravery,” he said.
Sakpal’s remark sparks a storm
CM Fadnavis called the comparison unacceptable. Congress “should be ashamed of equating the founder of Hindavi Swarajya with Tipu Sultan, who butchered 1,000s of Hindus,” he said.The episode reopened an older historical debate that has periodically entered political discourse as both figures occupy significant but very different spaces in Indian history.
CM Fadnavis hits back
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 confined to historical admiration alone. He represents resistance, self-rule, regional pride, and a warrior ethos deeply embedded in the state’s socio-political consciousness.
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
Tipu Sultan, born in 1751, ruled the Kingdom of Mysore during a period of intense conflict between Indian polities and the expanding British East India Company. Alongside his father, Hyder Ali, he waged multiple wars against British forces and is remembered in several accounts as one of the earliest rulers to adopt modern military technologies such as iron-cased rockets. In 1799, Tipu Sultan died fighting the British during the siege of Srirangapatna.For many historians, Tipu Sultan’s significance lies in his sustained 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 desecrations and harsh campaigns against certain communities.
Tipu Sultan
The debate over his rule has persisted for decades and has often been shaped by political context as much as archival evidence. These differing interpretations have given Tipu Sultan a complex afterlife in contemporary politics.
Why did it explode into controversy
In Maharashtra, Shivaji Maharaj occupies an almost sacred position across ideological lines, but particularly within the political vocabulary of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena. The Maratha ruler is frequently invoked as a symbol of indigenous sovereignty, martial pride and cultural assertion. References to Hindavi Swarajya resonate strongly with narratives centred on civilisational identity and self-determination.Any perceived attempt to equate Shivaji Maharaj with another historical figure, especially one whose legacy is contested, therefore carries political sensitivity.
BJP activists protest against Maharashtra Congress chief Harshwardhan Sapkal’s remarks equating Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with Tipu Sultan outside Congress Bhavan, in Pune.
BJP leaders have argued that comparisons diminish the unique historical role of Shivaji Maharaj. BJP Pune city president Dheeraj Ghate said, “Sapkal’s remarks deeply hurt the sentiments of all those who idolise Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as a deity. It is a deliberate attempt to create a rift in society.”For the Congress, Tipu Sultan has at times represented anti-colonial resistance and an inclusive strand of historical nationalism. In southern states, especially Karnataka, Congress governments have celebrated Tipu Jayanti, framing him as a freedom fighter who resisted British rule. Political opponents, particularly from the BJP and allied organisations, have long argued that such commemorations reflect an attempt at minority outreach, with the emphasis on Tipu’s anti-British legacy seen by them as part of a broader effort to counter the rise of Hindutva-centred historical narratives.This divergence in emphasis reflects deeper ideological differences in how the past is mobilised in present day politics. While the BJP’s political messaging often foregrounds civilisational continuity and indigenous cultural pride aligned with Hindutva thought, the Congress has tended to promote pluralist interpretations of history that critics frequently characterise as accommodative or appeasement-driven in their political intent.The political undertone of invoking either figure is therefore significant. Shivaji Maharaj serves as a unifying icon in Maharashtra, but also as a potent symbol within a wider discourse on identity, sovereignty and cultural resurgence associated with Hindutva politics. Tipu Sultan, by contrast, often becomes a focal point in debates where his remembrance is interpreted by critics through the prism of Muslim appeasement versus majoritarian assertions of historical identity.
From portrait to protests
The controversy in Malegaon quickly spread beyond the initial administrative decision. BJP and right organisation supporters protested in Nagpur, Nashik, Ahilyanagar, Sangli, Solapur, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Nanded, Latur and elsewhere. In Pune, Patit Pawan Sanghatana members were the first to assemble in front of the Congress Bhawan on Sunday morning, condemning Sapkal’s remarks.Around 12.30 pm, BJP workers, including mayor Manjusha Nagpure, reached the site and started sloganeering and showing posters. By then, about 100 Congress workers reached the site and started raising counter slogans.“As the sloganeering was on from both sides, someone hurled a stone. This set off stone pelting by members from either side,” additional commissioner of police Manoj Patil said. “Two women constables, two reporters and two workers each from BJP and Congress were injured. “The nature of injuries was not serious,” he said.
Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis pays tribute to the greatest king, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj at Shivtirtha, Ichalkaranji, in Kolhapur.
As political leaders weighed in, the debate widened. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi defended Tipu Sultan, saying, “In 1799, Tipu Sultan died fighting the British,” and added, “He did not sit in jail and write love letters to the British.”Meanwhile, Telangana BJP president N Ramchander Rao said by glorifying Tipu Sultan, the AIMIM “is distorting history”.Amid mounting criticism, Sapkal later clarified his remarks. “My statement was misinterpreted by the BJP for political benefits. I said that there cannot be anyone like Shivaji Maharaj, and Tipu Sultan took inspiration from him.” He subsequently expressed regret, saying, “I did not say anything wrong about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. The question of comparison does not arise; I did not make one.”He described Shivaji Maharaj as “my ideal, my inspiration and my pride,” and appealed for calm. “If any Shiv devotees’ sentiments were hurt because of misuse of my words, I sincerely express regret. It was never my intention to hurt anyone’s feelings. Let us put this matter to rest here.”Yet, the episode illustrates how historical figures continue to function as political signifiers in contemporary India. Portraits in public offices are rarely neutral. They signal not only admiration but also affiliation, narrative and sometimes ideological positioning.As demonstrations spread and leaders traded charges over historical interpretation, the controversy showed no immediate sign of abating. What began as the placement of a portrait has become a reminder that in Indian politics, the past remains an active participant in the present. The images on the wall often speak as loudly as the speeches delivered beneath them.
