Communal forces are presenting Hindu kings who fought against Muslim rulers as patriots and great nationalists and regard them as national icons
Prof Ram Puniyani
SINCE the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 by RSS-BJP and its offshoots, history has started dominating the social space. A particular version which looks at history through kings, and their religion, is being imposed on the social common sense. This too is being done selectively. Taking a step further now, communal forces are linking it up with nationalism. Interestingly the history of the era of kingdoms is being linked to nationalism, forgetting the fact that nation state is a modern phenomenon and the concept of India emerged as a parallel to the struggle against colonial powers.
Communal forces are presenting Hindu kings who fought against Muslim rulers as patriots and great nationalists and regard them as national icons. Earlier Nathuram Godse, who put three bullets in the chest of Mahatma Gandhi, in his “May It Please Your Honour”, the book based on his testimony in the court, commented that his victim was a pigmy in contrast to the nationalism of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or Maharana Pratap.
Now those belonging to his ideology are reiterating the same in a more intensified form. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath Yogi recently launched a sharp attack “on those glorifying historical invaders, calling it an act of treason that ‘new India’ will not tolerate.” The firebrand BJP leader’s remarks came amid rising demands for the removal of Mughal ruler Aurangzeb’s tomb in Maharashtra’s Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district.
On similar lines, Dattatray Hosabale, the Sarkaryavah (General Secretary) of the RSS went on to ask whether it was right to idolise someone who was against the ethos of India. He asked why those who advocate Ganga-Jamuni culture (fusion of Hindu and Islamic cultural elements) never thought of idolising Dara Shikoh, the elder brother of Aurangzeb who is said to be a pioneer of such an idea.”
All this is being said in the deafening cacophony of presenting Aurangzeb as an invader, a cruel villain. Let’s deconstruct the whole statement. Who were the invaders? Was Aurangzeb an invader? The simple fact is that Aurangzeb inherited the empire from his father, Shahjahan. The dynasty began with Babar, who was ruling in Kabul. Rana Sanga sent him a letter seeking his help in defeating Ibrahim Lodi, the ruler of Delhi. As it happened Babar ended up fighting with Rana Sanga and Ibrahim Lodi to rule over the Delhi empire.
Even before Babar, we had Greeks, Kushans, Huns, and Shakas who invaded from North West and became part of the populace here. Mughals were not the only rulers who came here; there were Khiljis, Ghulams, and Gazanavids who came after defeating the local kings. India in its present form was not there, a nation ruled from Delhi. Different kings were fighting with each other for power and pelf, while the interaction of different people Shakas, Huns, Kushans and Ahoms in the East created the mixed, syncretism prevalent here.
Who is the icon of the Indian Nation? Yogi Adityanath and Godse present Shivaji and Rana Pratap as the national icons. Shivaji had many Muslim generals and officers in his administration. He fought against Aurangzeb, whose army was led by Mirza Raja Jai Singh. Rana Pratap’s Haldighati bravery is worth eulogising, but does it represent the fight for Indian Nationalism? His army had 3,000 soldiers, 1,000 of whom were Pathans commanded by Hakim Khan Sure. Akbar, on the other side, had Mansingh as his Commander in Chief. The battle was not on the issue of nationalism, it was for stature and power. Even if Hindu Nationalists want to present those who fought against Muslims as national icons, the story is more complex, it was kings versus kings not Hindus versus Muslims and vice versa!
It is not that all Muslim kings were cruel and Hindu rulers were messengers of peace. Ashok is also infamous for his Kalinga war. Chola king’s war with Chalukya was again an example of many things as winning Shri Rajendra Chola’s army cut the head of the defeated Chalukya king’s General Samudra Raj and cut the nose of his daughter.
Aurangzeb is demonised for political purposes and a section of Muslims, intimidated and ghettoised due to the violence and issues like cow-beef, love jihad, land jihad and what have you, try to find in Aurangzeb a bit of self-prestige. The major process is that of demonisation of Aurangzeb for political purposes and to reflect it on today’s hapless Muslim community.
There are various ways of presenting history. The Hindu communalists over-project the kings as they want to hide the brutalities of caste-Varna hierarchies and the subjugation of women in the past. Ambedkar presents the history of India as a battle between Buddhism and Brahmanism. To him, the Brahmanical caste-Varna values against Buddhism came as a revolution. This made the spread of Buddhism as a major religion of India. After Ashok spreading it in South East Asia, it became a world religion as well. As per Ambedkar, this revolution was followed by a counter-revolution led by Pushyamitra Shung who physically eliminated Buddhists and Buddhism was made to disappear from India till Ambedkar brought it back.
The brutalities inflicted on Dalits and women were a major phenomenon in India. The social reforms during the colonial period ensured that the insecurities were diluted though they persist in some form even today. Is Raja Ram Mohan Roy not a great icon of India? What about Jyoti Rao Phule, and Babasaheb Ambedkar struggling against the caste system not the icons of India? And where will you place the tribe of Bhagat Singh and Shaheed Ashfaqulla Khan? And Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose?
The overplaying of the cruelties of Muslim kings serves two purposes for the project of the Hindu Nation. On one hand, it targets the religious minorities. And second, more importantly, it hides the brutalities of the Brahminical system (base of Hindu Nationalism) against the weaker sections of society. From the prime minister to the chief minister of Maharashtra all appreciated the film Chhaava. Now the chief minister is blaming the same for communal tension in Nagpur. Will such worthies promote films which show atrocities against Dalits and women in the past? As a matter of fact the then BJP leader Vijayaraje Scindia upheld the Sati (immolation of wife on the funeral pyre of her husband). At present Yogi, Fadnavis and Hosable are playing the communal card to the hilt!
____________________
Prof Ram Puniyani is an eminent author, activist and a former professor at IIT Mumbai. The views expressed here are personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
