[8]: 87 [11] Praised for his chivalrous treatment of women,[12] Shivaji employed people of all castes and religions, including Muslims[13] and Europeans, in his administration and armed forces.

On 25 July 1648, Shahaji was imprisoned by a fellow Maratha sardar called Baji Ghorpade, under the orders of the Bijapur government, in a bid to contain Shivaji.

[43] Following his father's release, Shivaji resumed raiding, and in 1656, under controversial circumstances, killed Chandrarao More, a fellow Maratha feudatory of Bijapur, and seized the valley of Javali, near the present-day hill station of Mahabaleshwar.

In addition to the Bhonsle and the More families, many others—including Sawant of Sawantwadi, Ghorpade of Mudhol, Nimbalkar of Phaltan, Shirke, Gharge of Nimsod, Mane, and Mohite—also served Adilshahi of Bijapur, many with Deshmukhi rights.

After a peace treaty with the Mughals, and the general acceptance of the young Ali Adil Shah II as the sultan, the Bijapur government became more stable, and turned its attention towards Shivaji.

Shivaji, suspecting Afzal Khan would arrest or attack him,[55][b] wore armour beneath his clothes, concealed a bagh nakh (metal "tiger claw") on his left arm, and had a dagger in his right hand.

[57] What transpired is not known with historical certainty, mainly Maratha legends tell the tale; however, it is agreed that the two wound up in a physical struggle that proved fatal for Khan.

[65] In the ensuing battle of Pavan Khind, the smaller Maratha force held back the larger enemy to buy time for Shivaji to escape.

Baji Prabhu Deshpande was wounded but continued to fight until he heard the sound of cannon fire from Vishalgad,[30] signalling Shivaji had safely reached the fort, on the evening of 13 July 1660.

However, Aurangzeb's countermeasures against Shivaji were interrupted by the rainy season and his battles with his brothers over the succession to the Mughal throne, following the illness of the emperor Shah Jahan.

He also requested Jai Singh to support him in getting his crimes pardoned by the emperor, stating "Now you are protector and a father to me, so I beg you to fulfil the ambition of your son.

But the grace and favour of the Emperor have conferred on him a new life and unimaginable honour ...In 1666, Aurangzeb summoned Shivaji to Agra (though some sources instead state Delhi), along with his nine-year-old son Sambhaji.

Numerous exchanges of envoys followed over the coming years, with some agreement as to the arms issues in 1674, but Shivaji was never to pay the Rajapur indemnity before his death, and the factory there dissolved at the end of 1682.

Prataprao's forces defeated and captured the opposing general in the battle, after cutting-off their water supply by encircling a strategic lake, which prompted Bahlol Khan to sue for peace.

[114] Shivaji had acquired extensive lands and wealth through his campaigns, but lacking a formal title, he was still technically a Mughal zamindar or the son of a Bijapuri jagirdar, with no legal basis to rule his de facto domain.

[139][140][141] Beginning in 1674, the Marathas undertook an aggressive campaign, raiding Khandesh (October), capturing Bijapuri Ponda (April 1675), Karwar (mid-year), and Kolhapur (July).

[143] Having recovered from an illness, and taking advantage of a civil war that had broken out between the Deccanis and the Afghans at Bijapur, Shivaji raided Athani in April 1676.

[145][146] His appeal was somewhat successful, and in 1677 Shivaji visited Hyderabad for a month and entered into a treaty with the Qutubshah of the Golkonda sultanate, who agreed to renounce his alliance with Bijapur and jointly oppose the Mughals.

The initially promising negotiations were unsuccessful, so whilst returning to Raigad, Shivaji defeated his half-brother's army on 26 November 1677 and seized most of his possessions on the Mysore plateau.

[184] Aware of the need for naval power to maintain control along the Konkan coast, Shivaji began to build his navy in 1657 or 1659, with the purchase of twenty galivats from the Portuguese shipyards of Bassein.

[186] With the Marathas being accustomed to a land-based military, Shivaji widened his search for qualified crews for his ships, taking on lower-caste Hindus of the coast who were long familiar with naval operations (the famed "Malabar pirates"), as well as Muslim mercenaries.

[191] Shivaji was admired for his heroic exploits and clever stratagems in the contemporary accounts of English, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and Italian writers.

He spared also the house of a deceased Delale or Gentile broker, of the Dutch, because assured that he had been very charitable while alive.Mughal depictions of Shivaji were largely negative, referring to him simply as "Shiva" without the honorific "-ji".

The current academic consensus is that while these Bakhars are important for understanding how Shivaji was viewed in his time, they must be correlated with other sources to decide historical truth.

[81] In the mid–19th century, Marathi social reformer Jyotirao Phule wrote his interpretation of the Shivaji legend, portraying him as a hero of the shudras and dalits.

[198] These celebrations prompted a British commentator in 1906 to note: "Cannot the annals of the Hindu race point to a single hero whom even the tongue of slander will not dare call a chief of dacoits...?

[207] Hindutva activists are noted for appropriating Shivaji by presenting him as "Hindu king" who "fought against Muslim rulers", contrary to historic accounts that show he belonged to a marginalised caste and held secular values.

'Army of Shivaji') political party was formed to promote the interests of Marathi-speaking people in the face of migration to Maharashtra from other parts of India, and the accompanying loss of power of locals.

[215] In 1993, the Illustrated Weekly published an article suggesting that Shivaji was not opposed to Muslims per se, and that his style of governance was influenced by that of the Mughal Empire.

Maharashtra brought legal action against the publisher under regulations prohibiting enmity between religious and cultural groups, but a High Court found that the Illustrated Weekly had operated within the bounds of freedom of expression.