Son of renowned Indian poet Munawwar Rana, defends Mughal Emperor in the face of criticism
Mohammad bin Ismail | Clarion India
NEW DELHI- The ongoing political controversy sparked by the film Chhaava regarding Mughal emperor Aurangzeb shows no signs of abating. Recently, Tabrez Rana, son of the late poet Munawwar Rana, weighed in on the issue, offering his perspective on the ruler’s legacy. His comments have added fuel to the already fiery debate, with passionate opinions on both sides of the issue.
In a conversation with Clarion India, Tabrez rejected the notion of Aurangzeb as a terrorist, stating that had the emperor truly been one, there would be no traces of Hindus left after his 48-year reign. “If Aurangzeb was such a terrorist, then after 48 years of rule, how many Hindus would have survived? If he had massacred our Hindu brothers, how many would have been left?” Tabrez asked, challenging those who have labelled the Mughal emperor as a villain of history.
Tabrez continued, pointing out that the temples built during Aurangzeb’s era would not have survived if his reign had been marked by violence and persecution. “How many temples would have been left standing if he had truly been a terrorist?” he questioned. His comments were a direct response to the widely circulated criticism of the Mughal emperor, particularly following recent remarks by political leaders such as Samajwadi Party’s Abu Azmi.
He further elaborated, “There was no internet, no social media back then. He could have done whatever he wanted. But if he was such a ruthless ruler, everything would have been erased by now.” Tabrez’s comments echoed the sentiment that modern political rhetoric often distorts historical facts.
Tabrez, known for his own poetic skills, took to social media to share his father’s poetry, which praised the simplicity and virtues of Aurangzeb. He posted verses that highlighted the emperor’s life and personal integrity, while subtly defending his actions in a modern context.
In his post, Tabrez shared the following poetry by Munawwar Rana:
“Wazarat chand ghanton ki mahal minar se ooncha,
Main Aurangzeb hoon apne liye khichdi banata hoon”
(Translation: Ministry, a few hours above the palace towers,
I am Aurangzeb, making khichdi for myself)
This verse reflects a simple, unassuming image of Aurangzeb, contrasting with the grandiosity typically associated with monarchs. Tabrez also shared another verse that touched on the theme of nation-building and leadership:
“Bas itni iltija hai tum ise Gujarat mat karna,
Tumhein is mulk ka malik main jeete-jee banata hoon”
(Translation: Just one request, don’t make it Gujarat,
I make you the ruler of this country while alive)
The message was clear—Tabrez sought to remind his followers and critics alike that the emperor’s life was defined by simplicity and service, rather than the violence he is often accused of.
Tabrez’s comments come amid a wider political controversy triggered by statements from Samajwadi Party leader Abu Azmi. In a recent speech, Azmi praised Aurangzeb, claiming that the Mughal emperor was not a cruel king and even built many temples. He also argued that the conflict between Aurangzeb and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj was not a Hindu-Muslim issue, but one based on state administration.
Azmi’s remarks caused a stir, leading to his suspension for the entire budget session by the Samajwadi Party. The suspension came as a result of public backlash, including from political rivals who accused Azmi of glorifying a ruler often seen as a symbol of Muslim oppression.
In defence of Azmi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav expressed his support, calling the suspension a politically motivated act. “If suspension is based on being influenced by ideology, what difference would there be between freedom of expression and subjugation?” Yadav asked, further adding, “Whether our legislators or MPs, their fearlessness is unparalleled. If some people think that ‘suspension’ will curb them, it is the childishness of their negative thinking.”
The debate surrounding Aurangzeb’s legacy is not new, and his reign continues to be a contentious issue in contemporary Indian politics. While some view him as a symbol of Muslim rule in India, others criticise his policies and actions, particularly his treatment of Hindus.
For some, the debate represents a broader issue: how history is often shaped and re-shaped to serve contemporary political agendas. “You hate the Mughals but not Mughalism,” Tabrez Rana remarked in response to those who criticise the emperor but fail to recognise the broader cultural contributions of the Mughal era.
His words suggest a deeper reflection on how the past is used in political rhetoric today. “Such disputes happen when we have nothing new to show. If we had done something new, something good, we wouldn’t keep going back to the past,” he said, hinting at the need for modern leaders to focus on progress rather than divisive historical debates.
The controversy over Aurangzeb and the political reactions it has sparked highlight the ongoing struggles in India over its historical narrative and the role of religion in shaping modern political discourse. While some, like Tabrez Rana, defend the Mughal emperor’s legacy, others continue to argue that his reign was marked by intolerance and violence. In a nation as diverse and complex as India, the debate over Aurangzeb is far from over.
The political landscape continues to evolve, it is clear that history will remain a battleground for ideological supremacy. And as Tabrez Rana aptly puts it, the real question may not be about what Aurangzeb did, but rather how we choose to understand and interpret the past in shaping our future.
