Bollywood’s Chhaava ignites controversy over the image of the Mughal emperor and emboldens Hindutva groups to target Muslims and their religious sites
Mohammad bin Ismail | Clarion India
NEW DELHI — With the release of the film Chhaava, the spirit of Aurangzeb has once again resurfaced in the country. Hardcore Hindutva groups have seized the opportunity to strike, continuously targeting Muslims based on the film’s prejudiced content. The propaganda and misinformation in the film have further heated the political atmosphere, with people justifying atrocities against Muslims by portraying Aurangzeb as a cruel and tyrant ruler.
At the same time, mosques are being targeted, with accusations that Aurangzeb destroyed temples. In many places, names associated with Aurangzeb have been defamed, leading to growing demands for the demolition of his tomb and the erasure of his name and legacy.
Rameshwar Prasad Bahuguna, a former professor in the History Department at the renowned Jamia Millia Islamia University in the national capital, stated, “These days, it is claimed that Aurangzeb destroyed temples. While this may be true, there is also substantial evidence that he provided land to many temples. For instance, he donated 178 hectares of land to a temple in Jangamwadi, Banaras.
Aurangzeb issued an edict stating that newly built temples would be demolished. The temple in Mathura was demolished under this decree. However, the same Aurangzeb also issued several decrees that granted land to temples and supported them.”
Dr Syed Ali Nadeem Rizvi, a professor in the History Department at Aligarh Muslim University and an expert on Mughal history, said: “Aurangzeb did indeed demolish temples, but this occurred in areas where rebellion against his rule was at its peak.
When the Rathors revolted, their temples were demolished. The Sisodias revolted, and the same action was taken against them. When the Jats rebelled, temples in Mathura and Banaras were demolished. However, in areas where there was no rebellion and peace prevailed, not only were the grants to temples maintained, but additional temples were also added to the list.”
Interestingly, the number of temples granted during Aurangzeb’s reign was not as large as those granted during Akbar’s reign.
Dr Rizvi explains that in the Middle Ages and earlier periods, there was a custom whereby when a king conquered another’s territory or defeated him in war, he would destroy the defeated king’s places of worship and build his own.
“This custom was common among both Hindus and Muslims. It existed in Turkey, Europe, India, and other regions as well. That is why Hindu historians from Aurangzeb’s time, such as Ishwar Das Nagar and Bhimsen Saxena, did not give much significance to the destruction of temples, nor did they complain about it.”
Dr Shamsul Islam, a former professor in the Department of Political Science at Delhi University and author of several books, stated that authentic historical records show how Buddhist and Jain places of worship were demolished.
“The renowned Hindu monk, intellectual, and writer Swami Vivekananda mentioned that the Jagannath temple was originally a Buddhist temple. We converted it, along with other such temples, back into Hindu temples. There are many more such conversions still to be done.”
“Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati, founder of Arya Samaj, praised Shankar Acharya for traveling across the country for ten years, refuting Jainism and promoting the Vedic (Hindu) religion. All the broken idols discovered during excavations were buried by the Jains out of fear of their destruction.”
The kings, whether Chandragupta Maurya, Akbar of the Mughals, or Aurangzeb, had no personal attachments or religious considerations. Their goal was the expansion and consolidation of their empire.
“Similarly, authentic sources and Buddhist historical texts indicate that in 184 BC, Pushyamitra Shunga, who conquered the Maurya Empire and established a Hindu regime known as the Shunga Empire, destroyed a large number of Buddhist temples and killed monks.”
“Richard M. Eaton also writes in his book Temple Desecration and the Muslim States in Medieval India that whoever conquered or occupied land would build their own temples there.”
Dr Abdul Majeed, Assistant Professor in the Department of History at the Central University of Karnataka, claimed that Aurangzeb destroyed temples in Banaras and Mathura at the suggestion of Hindu Rajputs.
“The reason for this was that the Rajputs of Banaras and Mathura, who were Hindus of the Kshatriya caste, sought revenge against the Brahmins. At that time, no one protested the destruction of these temples. There were many Hindus in his army — could they not have opposed it? But they did not.”
“There is no evidence of temples being demolished during the reign of any Mughal emperor other than Aurangzeb.”
Dr Abdul Majeed says that places of worship were destroyed not only during the Mughal period but in every era.
“There were many Buddhist and Jain places of worship in South India, but they were destroyed or converted into Hindu temples. Today, Buddhists, not Jains, talk about this.”
Dr Abdul Majeed says that statements in support of the destruction and burning of places of worship are also found in the books of Hindu emperors.
“Someshwara III, the emperor of the Hindu Chalukya dynasty in South India, wrote a book called Manasollasa. In it, he writes that the king who conquers a region should burn down the buildings like palaces and places of worship associated with the emperor of that region.”
Prof Bahuguna says that the large number of Hindus appointed to high positions during Aurangzeb’s reign is unparalleled in the reign of other Mughal emperors.
“During his reign, the Subedar of the entire Deccan was a Hindu Rajput, Mirza Raja Jai Singh. He is the same person who defeated Shivaji in 1665.”
Dr Rizvi says that during Aurangzeb’s reign, the people who held high positions were either Hindus or Rajputs.
“Aurangzeb’s finance minister was a Hindu named Raja Raghunath Singh. The administration and supervision of important provinces like Gujarat and Deccan were entrusted to Jaswant Singh and Mirza Raja Jai Singh, respectively.
“When Aurangzeb fought against the royal sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda, he made statements against the Shias, even though his mother (Mumtaz Mahal) was a Shia woman. When there were wars against Hindus and Rajputs, he made statements against them.”
Dr Abdul Majeed claims that the proportion of Hindu officials in Aurangzeb’s government was more than 33 percent. However, he also said that previous rulers or emperors also appointed people based on their ability.
“He did not see any religious connection in this matter. Raja Man Singh had the ability, so Akbar kept him in his court.”
Discussing an incident, Prof Bahuguna said that after Aurangzeb’s army killed Sambhaji, the son of Chhatrapati Shivaji, the founder of the Maratha Empire, they brought his young son, Shahu, to the Mughal court and raised him like a Hindu prince.
“Emperor Aurangzeb issued an order that this child should be raised like a Hindu prince. In accordance with this order, Shahu was educated as a Hindu prince in the Mughal court and provided with every facility. Later, this same Shahu became the emperor of his ancestors’ Maratha Empire.”
Prof Bahuguna further explains that during Aurangzeb’s era, when the survival of power was at stake, he did whatever he felt was right at the time.
“While Aurangzeb mistreated the sons of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh, it is also noteworthy how he treated his own brothers and the rulers of Bijapur and Golconda. Ram Rai, a Sikh leader, was even given a jagir in Dehradun by Aurangzeb.”
“The pages of history testify that from the Delhi Sultanate to the Mughal rulers, Aurangzeb was the only king whose empire stretched from Burma to Badakhshan, and from Kashmir to the southernmost borders of the Deccan, all under one centralised authority. Had he been a strict ruler, would such a vast empire have been established?”
Pervaiz Ashrafi writes in his book Aurangzeb Alamgir: “Aurangzeb’s reign lasted for about fifty years. There is no doubt that from a religious perspective, he was a staunch Muslim, but he was also a shrewd ruler.”
“Aurangzeb was a farsighted king. He understood very well that the majority of the country adhered strictly to their own religions and could not be converted to Islam by the sword. Had he harmed the majority, he would not have been able to build such a vast empire.”
Pervaiz Ashrafi also notes that Aurangzeb was so dedicated to learning and teaching Hindi that he had a dictionary created to help Persian speakers easily learn the Hindi language.
“He compiled a special book to introduce the rules and principles of Hindi poetry and ghazals, and the manuscripts of this work are available at the Khuda Bakhsh Library in Patna.”
Prof Bahuguna asserts that the medieval era cannot be compared to the present day, as the problems and solutions of that time were entirely different from those of today.
“The thinking of that era was different, and today’s is different. We live in a democratic system today. Why don’t these people say that the British enslaved us for two hundred years, so now we should enslave them for two years?”
“It’s important that we read and understand history but avoid seeking revenge for past wrongs. For example, Buddhists could also demand to know why Hindus destroyed their places of worship in the past. The Dravidian community could argue that all of India once belonged to them and that the rest of the population came from outside. Dalits might say, ‘You oppressed us with untouchability for centuries, so now it’s our turn.'”
Dr Rizvi comments that the Sultanate and Mughal eras were such that there was no democracy and no concept of nationhood.
“Initially, Ashoka too killed Buddhists. With the advent of the Gupta era, the names and traces of the helpless Buddhists in India were erased. They spread to Central Asia but disappeared from India. If Hindus make a claim to a place today, tomorrow Buddhists might claim half of India.”
Dr Shamsul Islam argues that if government-backed organisations and those associated with them wish to revisit history, it’s not only the Mughal era that should be discussed but also the periods of other rulers.
“One might also ask: if the Mughal era was an Islamic rule, then how is it that Hindus make up 80 percent of the population in this country today? Yet no one raises these questions. There are ancient Jain temples and the Gauri Shankar Temple right in front of the Red Fort in Delhi. Why weren’t they demolished?”
Prof Bahuguna states that he does not believe at all that the Mughal rulers were prejudiced against Hindus or followers of other religions.
“The policies of the emperors and sultans were highly complex. Because of this complexity, sometimes they appeared tolerant, and at other times, they seemed intolerant. Their primary concern was the survival of the throne.”
“Emperor Akbar appeared quite intolerant at the beginning of his reign. When Akbar conquered the fort of Chittor, he issued a victory decree declaring it as the victory of Islam over infidelity. At that time, Akbar was barely 25 years old. However, Akbar went through various stages of evolution. The policies of Ibadat Khana and Sulh-e-Kul emerged, and after 1570, Akbar appeared extremely tolerant, questioning the orthodoxy of every religion.”
“This very Akbar provided land for many temples in the Mathura-Vrindavan region. Several temples were built under the supervision of his right-hand man and military leader, Raja Man Singh.”
Prof Bahuguna believes that the Mughals had no interest in turning India into a Dar-ul-Islam.
“If they were interested in anything, it was in ensuring the survival of their empire. To maintain it, they sought the cooperation of people from all religions. But when someone rebelled, they did not hesitate to suppress them.”
“During the Mughal era, people of all religions, including Hindus, were allowed to develop. The region of Braj was in turmoil right under the Mughals’ nose, but they did not intervene. Therefore, I do not agree with what is being claimed today.”
According to Dr Rizvi, Hindus played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Mughal empire, and the Mughals often had the support of Hindus from the very beginning.
“Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire, came to India at the invitation of two people: Alauddin and Rana Sangram Singh.”
“The closeness between the Mughals and Hindus can be seen from the fact that when Sher Shah Suri defeated Humayun, the Rajput families of Sindh supported Humayun.”
“Even when Humayun fled India, he entrusted his newborn child to the Raja of Amarkot, who raised the child for several months.”
Dr Rizvi further says that today it is often claimed that the Mughals came from outside, but no one understands that during their rule, the concept of ‘foreign’ or ‘foreigner’ did not exist.
“The concept of a foreigner only exists when the concept of a nation already exists. Therefore, there was neither an outsider nor an insider. When Rana Sangram Singh was writing a letter to Babur asking him to conquer India, he was not calling for a foreigner but for a power.” “Among those who opposed Sangram Singh and Babur were Hasan Khan Mewati and Mahmud Lodhi, the son of Ibrahim Lodhi. Both are referred to as infidels in the Baburnama.”
The debate surrounding Aurangzeb’s legacy is a complex and multifaceted issue, deeply intertwined with historical interpretations and contemporary political agendas. While his reign is often painted with broad strokes of religious intolerance, historical evidence suggests a more nuanced reality, where political pragmatism often outweighed religious considerations.
Historians emphasise that it is crucial to approach history with a balanced perspective, separating fact from fiction, and recognising that the past cannot be judged through the lens of modern values. Only by understanding the complexities of history can we hope to build a more inclusive and informed future.
