Row Over Aurangzeb: Same Old And Easy Tool For Polarization

A close look will reveal that what Hindutva forces are doing with Aurangzeb or any other emperor has nothing to do with history. They have picked up threads from the colonial construct of Indian history to target Muslims

This time, Aurangzeb will rescue the BJP-led government in Maharashtra from the troubles as it is facing from within and outside. The opportunity has indeed been provided by Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi, known for his provocative statements and his proximity to the Fadnavis government. A video clip is also going viral that shows how comfortably he is enjoying time with the leaders of the government. The wider issue involved here is not the immediate implications of the row over Aurangzeb, but the institutionalization of a false narrative. It also indicates a general loss of creativity at all levels and reinforces the suspicion about the ability of the Hindutva as an alternative form of intellectual inquiry. Despite its claim for being the inheritor of centuries-old Sanatan religion, it cannot go beyond divisive issues. Is it difficult to deal with Aurangzeb or any other Mughal emperor? The way the present dispensation is fighting with the memory of the Mughals in Delhi or other places is horrible. It reminds us of Nazi Germany, where Jews were demonized in all possible ways and ultimately persecuted mercilessly. On our part, it would be to turn a blind eye to the marginalization of the Muslims in the country and the onslaughts on their being if we fail to respond to these narratives. Should we not see the row over Aurangzeb with the arrests and bulldozing of shops in Sindhudurg district in Maharashtra following a complaint by a Vishwa Hindu Parishad activist? Should we not see it in the context of the erasing of the memory of the Mughal era and the hounding of so-called Bangladeshis?

A close look will reveal that what Hindutva forces are doing with Aurangzeb or any other emperor has nothing to do with history. They have picked up threads from the colonial construct of Indian history to target Muslims.

It is not correct to see Aurangzeb’s orders to injure some temples as a well-planned campaign against the Hindu religion. This is the result of the portrayal of him by the British historians. This was part of their policy of divide and rule. Gandhi writes in Hind Swaraj, “

“That phrase (inborn enmity) has been invented by our mutual enemy. When the Hindus and Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke in that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can there be any inborn enmity? Pray, remember this too, that we did not cease to fight only after the British occupation. The Hindus flourished under Moslem sovereigns and Moslems under the Hindus. Each party recognized that mutual fighting was suicidal and that neither party would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English advent, quarrels recommenced.” The book was published in 1910, well before the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS were born.

Does the playing up of atrocities by Aurangzeb carry any other meaning than provoking the majority against Muslims? The narrative is not without gaps. Historians of right-wing leanings have documented how the Mughal emperor was responsible for the destruction of some temples, but had given grants to several others. He had listed thousands of temples under his rule, but hardly destroyed a few dozen.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen points out the contradiction in the communal portrayal of personalities from the past.

“I turn now to a more political issue. Varying attitudes to religious tolerance have often been socially important in the history of the world, and much variation can be found in this respect among different persons, all of whom are Muslim by religion. For example, Emperor Aurangzeb, who ascended to the Mughal throne in India in the late seventeenth century, is generally regarded as being rather intolerant; he even imposed special taxes on his non-Muslim subjects. And yet a very different attitude can be seen in the life and behavior of his elder brother Dara Shikoh, the eldest son (and legitimate heir) of Emperor Shah Jahan, and of Mumtaz Mahal, in whose memory the Taj Mahal would be built. Aurangzeb killed Dara to grab the throne. Dara was not only a student of Sanskrit and serious scholar in the study of Hinduism; it is his Persian translation, from Sanskrit, of the Hindu Upanishads which was for a century or more one of the main foundations of European interest in Hindu religious philosophy,” he says.

He also points out that Aurangzeb’s inability to be liberal and Akbar’s affordability to it had nothing to do with Islam. Both were Muslims despite their contradictory conduct.

“The point that needs particular attention is that while Akbar was free to pursue his liberal politics without ceasing to be a Muslim, that liberality was in no way ordained—nor, of course, prohibited—by Islam. Another Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb, could deny minority rights and persecute non-Muslims without, for that reason, failing to be a Muslim, in exactly the same way that Akbar did not terminate being a Muslim because of his tolerantly pluralist politics,” he writes.

There are two popular, but contradictory images of Aurangzeb in the subcontinent. Both have to do with our colonial past and the communal politics during the freedom struggle. One image presents him as a Muslim tyrant and the other as virtuous. The former image is used by Hindutva forces to incite anti-Muslim passion and brand Muslims as traitors, and the latter is used by Muslim fundamentalists to suggest that Islam is opposed to Hinduism. That is why Mohammad Iqbal, the proponent of Pakistan, eulogises him as a pure Muslim like Abraham. It only suggests that a pure Muslim cannot be fully Indian.

Here we find the convergence of two contradictory thoughts. Both images serve the same purpose of reinforcing the idea of the incompatibility of Hinduism and Islam, leading to communal polarisation. So, the video showing Azmi and government leaders comfortably chatting with each other should not surprise us.

(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)