Ram Puniyani
Since the demolition of Babri mosque by RSS Combine(1992), history has started dominating the social space. A particular version of history which looks at history through the Kings, their religion, is being imposed on the social common sense. This too is being done in a selective way. Taking a step further now the communal forces are linking it up with the nationalism. Interestingly the history of 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.
The communal forces are presenting the Hindu kings who fought against Muslim rulers as being presented as patriots and great nationalists, 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, while commenting on Mahatma Gandhi, said that 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. UP 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 RSS went on to question, “if ionizing someone who was against the ethos of India was right. He asked why those who advocate Ganga-Jamuni culture (fusion of Hindu and Islamic cultural elements) never thought of idolizing 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 din of presenting Aurangzeb as an invader, cruel villain. Let’s deconstruct the whole statement. Who were invaders, was Aurangzeb an invader? The simple fact is Aurangzeb had inherited the empire from his father, Shahjahan. The dynasty began with Babar, who was ruling in Kabul Rana Sanga sent him a letter to come to defeat Ibrahim Lodi, the ruler of Delhi. As it happened Babar landed up fighting with Rana Sanga and Ibrahim Lodi to rule over 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 Khilji, Ghulam, and Gazanavid who have come after defeating the local kings. India in the present form was not there, a nation ruled from Delhi. The Kings were fighting with each other for power and pelf, while the interaction of different people Shakas, Huns, Kushans and Ahoms on the East created the mixed, syncretism prevalent here.
Who is the icon of Indian Nation? Yogi 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 Jaising. Rana Pratap’s Haldighati bravery is worth eulogizing, but does it represent fight for Indian Nationalism? His army had 3000 soldiers, 1000 of which were Pathans commanded by Hakim Khan Sure. Akbar on the other side had Mansingh as his Commander in Chief? The baatle was not on the issue of Nationalism, it was for Mansab. 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 Hindu versus Muslims!
It is not that all Muslims Kings were cruel and Hindu kings as messengers of peace. Ashok is also infamous for his Kalings war. Chola Kings war with Chalukya was again and example for many things as winning Shri Rajendra Chola’s army cut the head of defeated Chalukya kings General Samudra Raj and cut the nose of his daughter.
Aurangzeb is demonized for political purpose and a section of Muslims intimidated and ghettoized 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 in him. The major process is that of demonization of Aurangzeb for political purpose and to reflect it on today’s hapless Muslim community.
Talking of history there are various ways of presenting it. 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. As per him against the Brahmanical caste- Varna values Buddhism came as a revolution. This made the spread of Buddhism as the 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 Counter-revolution led by Pushyamitra Shung who physically wiped out Buddhists and Buddhism was made to disappear from Indian till Ambedkar brought it back.
The brutalities inflicted on dalits and women were the major phenomenon in India. The social reforms during 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, Babasaheb Ambedkar struggling against caste Varna system not the icons of India? And where will you place the tribe of Bhagat Singh and Ashfakullah? And the place of Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, Nehru and Subhashchandra Bose etched in the memory of India in the letters of Gold?
The overplaying of the cruelties of Muslim kings serves two purposes for the project of 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 Chaava. Now the Chief Minister is blaming the same for communal tension in Nagpur. Will such worthies promote films which show the 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- Hosable are playing the communal card to the hilt!
