Critics argue the move targets Muslim legacy and threatens cultural diversity
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — A recent initiative by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to rename historical monuments in Delhi having Muslim origins has drawn sharp criticism from historians, activists, and community leaders, who accuse the Hindutva organisation of attempting to erase the city’s rich Islamic heritage. The VHP’s proposal, which includes iconic sites like Humayun’s Tomb and Safdarjung Tomb, has been labelled as divisive and detrimental to India’s pluralistic identity.
Last week, two VHP members visited Humayun’s Tomb and Safdarjung Tomb, stating their intention to prepare a report that could lead to renaming these monuments. The group claims the move aims to ensure that Hindu kings’ contributions are also recognised. However, critics argue that the initiative is less about inclusivity and more about targeting the Muslim legacy.
“This is not about balancing history; it’s about rewriting it to suit a particular narrative,” said Dr Syed Ahmed, a historian specialising in medieval India. “Monuments like Humayun’s Tomb are not just symbols of Islamic architecture; they are part of our shared heritage. Renaming them would be an affront to India’s diversity.”
The VHP’s state minister, Surendra Gupta, defended the proposal, stating, “We want history to be preserved within the context of its period, not in the name of a single person. The history of Hindu kings should also be given its rightful place.” However, many see the move as part of a broader pattern of marginalising Muslim contributions to Indian history.
“This is a deliberate attempt to erase the Muslim identity from India’s historical landscape,” said Zainab Khan, a social activist. “It’s not just about names; it’s about denying the role that Muslim rulers and their cultures played in shaping this country. This kind of revisionism is dangerous and divisive.”
The proposal has also raised concerns among conservationists. Humayun’s Tomb, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is celebrated globally for its architectural brilliance and historical significance. “These monuments are not just Indian treasures; they belong to the world,” said Anjali Mehta, a conservation architect. “Any attempt to alter their identity could jeopardise their preservation and international standing.”
Public reaction has been mixed, with some supporting the VHP’s call for broader historical representation, while others see it as an attack on India’s secular fabric. “Why can’t we celebrate all aspects of our history without trying to erase one?” asked Arif Sheikh, a Delhi resident. “Hindus, Muslims, and many others have shaped this city. We should honour that diversity, not destroy it.”
The VHP’s initiative comes amid growing concerns over the politicisation of history in India. Critics argue that such moves deepen communal divides and undermine the country’s commitment to pluralism. “India’s strength lies in its diversity,” said Dr Ahmed. “When we start erasing parts of our history, we weaken the very foundation of our nation.”
As the debate intensifies, the government faces a critical decision. Will it uphold India’s pluralistic heritage, or will it allow history to be rewritten to fit a narrow, exclusionary narrative? For now, the VHP’s proposal has ignited a fierce conversation about identity, memory, and the kind of history India wants to preserve for future generations.
“This is not just about the past; it’s about the future,” said Zainab Khan. “If we start erasing our shared history, what kind of message are we sending to the next generation? We must stand together to protect the diversity that makes India unique.”
