Dragging Mediaeval Kings Into Politics May Bode Ill For BJP-RSS

Indian society is already plagued with religious and caste fragmentation; its return to the medieval age will lead to further disintegration. The RSS needs to come out of its fixation with the idea of Hindu Rashtra if it loves the country

We have ominous trends in our political discourse. They only reinforce the apprehension of escaping from the challenges the emerging world order has thrown before us. The uproar over Aurangzeb is an example. It has expanded with the entry of Rana Sanga. The BJP leaders are crediting the Bollywood film ‘Chhava’ for generating emotions against Aurangzeb. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis says that the film has aroused the feelings of the public, and hence, people are demanding the removal of the tomb. Probably, he is promoting a propaganda film. Unlike other propaganda films released in the recent past, Chhava has been a commercial success. The strategy to concentrate on battles and violence has proved to be successful. The director has been cautious in presenting a biased and selective narration of the fight between Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj and Aurangzeb. The film cleverly omits hate dialogues and uses action-oriented scenes to achieve its purpose of demonizing the Mughal emperor. There is no denial that the last of the Great Mughals showed extreme forms of bigotry in his actions and made himself an object of despise for later generations. However, the attempt to impose him on Muslims as their symbol of pride is ridiculous. It must be borne in mind that Aurangzeb was singled out by the colonial historians to depict Mughals as bigots. They could do it because he was vulnerable to such depictions. Except for some Muslim Leaguers, Muslims never adored him. This could be seen in Muslims’ rarely adopting his name. His tomb in Khultabad near Aurangabad (now Sambhaji Nagar) has never been a revered place for Muslims.

Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman expanded the controversy with his statement in the Rajya Sabha. He has just turned a regional debate into a national controversy. In Maharashtra, the Hindutva organizations were up in arms to avenge Aurangzeb’s brutality against Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, and they were demanding the removal of his tomb. Now, Rana Sanga is being debated at the national level. Despite Dr Suman’s being authentic in his depiction of Mewar king Rana Sanga, his family was attacked in his hometown in Agra. He had just objected that Muslims should not be called Babar’s descendants, as Hindus could not be called heirs of Rana Sanga, who invited Babar to attack Ibrahim Lodi, the emperor of the Delhi Sultanate. His interpretation could not be termed as illogical. Of course, it is irrelevant. Should an irrelevant remark invite such a violent backlash? The remark has another significance: that it has been made in Parliament. Remarks in Parliament are immune to even judicial scrutiny, and they could only be censored by the House itself. Kshatriya Karni Sena, the organisation at the forefront of attacking Dr Suman, has no authority.

Dr Suman’s entry into the controversy is politically important, keeping in view the caste equations in Uttar Pradesh. He is a Dalit leader, and an attack on him is being taken as an attack on the community. It is an old fight between a dominant caste and the socially backward section. A revival of it may help the SP attract Dalits towards it. However, there is a problem as well. Thakurs have also been voting for the SP, especially when the party candidate is a Thakur. The party is naturally trying to balance the discourse.

However, the SP leader could not be held responsible for the controversy. If the BJP has been showing any consistency, it is in hatred towards Muslims. In Maharashtra, the same minister is in the forefront of a tirade against Aurangzeb, who was active in targeting the family of a minor boy purported to have raised an anti-India slogan after the latter’s win in the Champions Trophy final.

The futility of raising these issues needs no emphasis. After all, with all these Hindu kings, the power in Delhi had been in the hands of Turks, Afghans and Mughals. It also could not be denied that Rajput kings supported and allied with the Mughals and led their armies against the Hindu kings. The classic case is the Battle of Haldighati, where Raja Man Singh represented Emperor Akbar and fought against his relative Maharana Pratap. The King of Mewar had Hakim Khan Sur as his army chief. We must understand that ethnicity, caste and religion played an important part in mobilizing armies; it had hardly anything to do with equations of power. Maharana Pratap had very few Rajput kings by his side, whereas Afghan chieftains supported him. He was adored by the Bhil community and other local people for his benevolence and fight against Delhi rule. The same is true for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Many Maratha chieftains were siding with the Mughals and Muslims, serving him as generals. Daulat Khan was his chief of the army.

The controversy on Rana Sanga has reminded us of the fallacy of adoring medieval warriors. The RSS thinks that it will consolidate Hindus against Muslims. This is not the case. It will only strengthen ethnic and caste consolidation and harm national solidarity. Indian society is already plagued with religious and caste fragmentation; its return to the medieval age will lead to further disintegration. The RSS needs to come out of its fixation with the idea of Hindu Rashtra if it loves the country. It must abandon its hatred towards the ideology of the freedom struggle and embrace it in its totality. Its selective approach of admiring Gandhi, Netaji, or Patel will not help. It has to accept Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, and many others. The change can only earn prestige for the organization because history does not favour it. It can’t escape the stigma of being absent from the freedom struggle. It is irresponsible to say that the history of colonialism starts with the advent of Muslim rule. The medieval state was a collaboration between feudal lords of different religions and castes; it is only childish to pick up some of them and make heroes. We have many heroes in our recent past.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)