How Did Aurangzeb And Tipu Sultan Appear On Six Indian News Channels At Same Time Same Day?
That and more of Aurangzeb, Tipu, new Parliament and disturbing workings of rule of law in country.
Air India passengers stranded in Siberia for 2 days were abandoned by the crew, had to sleep on the floor, and were only given bread and rice. Don’t you think this should be news?
288 people died in a train accident at Orissa’s Balasore. Generally, you would expect such a piece of important news to be everywhere for at least a few days after the tragedy. But no. As if controlled by a puppet master, almost all news channels suddenly started talking about Aurangzeb, who happens to have died in the year 1707, more than five centuries ago. You have to wonder how multiple news channels owned by different media owners and shows hosted by different anchors chose to talk about Aurangzeb all at once. How did this coordination happen? Manisha of Newslaundry has you covered with this story. Do watch this episode of Newsance.
Aurangzeb reminded me of this 2015 interview of historian and Scholar Audrey Truschke in The Hindu. This conversation later inspired Truschke to research and write a book on Aurangzeb owing to many misconceptions about the five-century-old Mughal emperor.
The present Bharatiya Janata Party government believes Mughals are not part of India’s history. Your book is about how Sanskrit, sought to be made mainstream by the government, flourished under the Mughals. How do we reconcile the two?
We don’t reconcile the two perspectives. Rather, we ask two key questions. One, who is on firmer historical ground in their claims? Two, what are the political reasons for the BJP wanting to erase the Mughals (or at least most of the Mughals) from India’s past? The bulk of my work concerns the honest excavation of history. The Mughals are a significant part of Indian history, and Sanskrit is a significant part of the story of the Mughal empire. Those facts may be inconvenient for the BJP and others, but as a historian I do not temper my investigation of the past in deference to present-day concerns. However, I realise that history matters in the present, perhaps especially in modern South Asia. One present-day implication of my work is to point up the flimsy basis of the BJP’s version of India’s past.
Who were the Mughal rulers under whom there was active exchange of Sanskrit and Persian ideas, in your account?
Sanskrit flourished in the royal Mughal court primarily under three emperors: Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan. However, we should not make the error of attributing Aurangzeb’s lack of interest in Sanskrit to his alleged bigotry. Aurangzeb is a severely misunderstood historical figure who has suffered perhaps more than any of the other Mughal rulers from present-day biases. There are two main reasons why Sanskrit ceased to be a major part of Mughal imperial life during Aurangzeb’s rule. One, during the 17th century, Sanskrit was slowly giving way to Hindi. This was a wider literary shift in the subcontinent, and even under Shah Jahan we begin to see imperial attention directed towards Hindi-language intellectuals at the expense of Sanskrit. Aurangzeb’s reign simply happen to coincide with the waning of Sanskrit and the rise of literary Hindi.
Second, as most Indians know, Aurangzeb beat out Dara Shikoh for the Mughal throne. Dara Shikoh had been engaged in a series of cross-cultural exchanges involving Sanskrit during the 1640s and 1650s. Thus, from Aurangzeb’s perspective, breaking Mughal ties with the Sanskrit cultural world was a way to distinguish his idioms of rule from those of the previous heir apparent. In short, Aurangzeb decided to move away from what little remained of the Mughal interest in Sanskrit as a political decision, rather than as a cultural or religious judgment.
As a side note, let me clarify that while Akbar inaugurated Mughal engagements with Sanskrit, he did so for slightly different reasons than many people think. Akbar’s reputation is that he was open-minded and tolerant, almost a protosecular figure. This can be a misleading characterisation. Akbar was interested in Sanskrit for its political valence in his empire, not as some personal religious quest. Akbar also had no qualms about harshly judging perspectives that he viewed as beyond the pale. A good example is that he questioned Jain thinkers about whether they were monotheists because to be otherwise would mean being evicted from the Mughal court (Jains assured him that they believed in God).
You argue that the ideology underpinning violence — such as what took place in the 2002 pogrom, in which more than 1,000 Muslims died, or the current intolerance towards them — erases Mughal history and writes religious conflicts into Indian history where there was none, thereby justifying modern religious intolerance. Is it correct to then deduce that there was no religious conflict in the court of the Mughals?
No. First, there was plenty of violence in Mughal India. Violence and conflict are enduring features of the human experience and I would never suggest otherwise. Even under Akbar, violence was commonplace. A far trickier question, however, is, how much Mughal-led violence was religious-based or motivated by religious conflicts? Generally, the Mughals acted violently towards political foes (whether they were Rajput, Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise was irrelevant). It is very difficult for many modern people to accept that violence in pre-modern India was rarely religiously motivated. In this sense, pre-colonial India looked very different than pre-modern Europe, for example. But we lack historical evidence that the Mughals attacked religious foes. On the contrary, some scholars have even suggested that modern “Western” ideas about religious toleration were, in part, inspired by what early European travellers witnessed in the Mughal Empire.
That said, there were limited instances when the Mughals persecuted specific individuals over religious differences. A good example is that Akbar sent a few of the Muslim ulama on hajj to Mecca, which meant that they were effectively exiled from the court. Some of these ulama were murdered on their way out of India.
The following is from the author’s interview in Caravan on the occasion of the publication of her new book.
MM: Of all the Mughal kings, what is it about Aurangzeb in particular that made it possible for him to be made into a villain? Former Hindu rulers destroyed temples as well, and other Mughals rulers are not as condemned in the popular imagination.
AT: All pre-modern kings—Muslim, Hindu, and otherwise—could be cast as villains if we emphasise certain parts of their lives and judge them by modern standards. That said, given contemporary ideas, some aspects of Aurangzeb’s life lend themselves to the model of a historical baddie, such as his success in territorial expansion, his long rule, and that the Mughal Empire fell apart shortly after his death. Aurangzeb’s piety is also an important factor that is cited as both evidence for and the origin of his alleged barbarism. In this regard, it matters that Aurangzeb was Muslim, a religious identity under heavy fire and suspicion in India today.
MM: Would you say that Aurangzeb’s actions, as a leader, were political and not religious? He became a ruler in 1658, but levied the jizya tax on non-Muslims only in 1679, only to suspend it later in 1704. He is also believed to have given grants to temples to gain the goodwill of the Hindu community. Was he trying to protect his kingdom?
AT: I have examined the standard, theological-based explanations for many aspects of Aurangzeb’s rule (for example, the jizya tax, limitations on building Hindu temples), and found them wanting. One major goal of a historian is to explain why things happened, and I think that political explanations often pack more punch than theological ones regarding Aurangzeb. However, I would not say that religion was absent from Aurangzeb’s life or his ruling strategies. In my book, I point to instances where I think Aurangzeb was, in part, motivated by religious considerations, although often these were not the religious considerations that most people have imagined.
MM: Could you explain these instances?
AT: I argue, for example, that Aurangzeb viewed moral policing—of both Muslims and Hindus—within the purview of a just Muslim king. Aurangzeb’s goal was not to convert all Hindus to Islam, a popular caricature of the emperor, but rather to apply a broader set of morals to everyone. I also argue that Aurangzeb may have had religious considerations in mind when destroying select Hindu temples. However, unlike the common idea that Aurangzeb destroyed temples in order to cripple Hinduism, I argue that Aurangzeb did so in order to, in his view, protect both Hindus and Muslims from what he judged to be the immoral teachers of particular temples.
Since we are discussing history, let’s also discuss a bit about Tipu Sultan whom BJP tried really hard to make an election issue in Karnataka. Thankfully, it turns out the people of Karnataka still haven’t forgotten the real Tipu and the lies could not make inroads into people’s consciousness and decisions. Even local BJP supporters pushed back the Tipu hate brigade. For example, they counter-questioned BJP’s line about Tipu destroying Hindu temples by asking how does BJP explain many prominent Hindu temples inside Tipu’s palace complex both in Mysore and Devanahalli, Bangalore where he was born. These temples were not just flourishing during’s Tipu’s reign but continue to flourish even today. One guy in this Newslaundry video even mentioned Tipu visiting a temple with his blind elephant regularly and even donating an idol. He asked, can such a man be anti-Hindu? How do you answer that? (Please watch both videos from BBC and Newslaundry on Tipu Sultan).
I submit that men like Akbar, Dara Shikoh and Tipu Sultan qualify as heroes not as villains.
The more I read about Tipu, the more I am impressed with his rich personality.
… (Tipu Sultan) was the only prince who died fighting the British.
Tipu did not content himself with fighting the British…he forbade forced labour for public works and torture of suspects. He introduced prohibition; he forbade felling of trees; he tried to set up a school every four miles. When he found that effluents from an ammunition factory were polluting the river Kaveri, he had the factory shifted. Here was a model ruler for environmentalists.
Almost alone among Indian princes, Tipu had a world view.
With the death of Tipu, Indian independence had been extinguished for a century and a half.
Nope, those are not quotes from the revised chapter on Tipu Sultan that the new Congress government in Karnataka will be slipping into textbooks savaged by the BJP government. Nor even the last gasp of Tipu’s court historians.
Those words were written – and published – by K R Malkani, a founder-member of the BJP and its vice-president for some years. You’ll find those quotes on pages 204-207 of his book India First.
Kewalram Ratanmal Malkani was no closet dissident in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). He was one of its more important ideologues. And its top journalist. Malkani worked for a while in The Hindustan Times (while also writing in the Organiser weekly) in the 1940s. He would later join the Hindutva stable full-time. He was the longest-serving editor of the RSS mouthpiece, Organiser -- 35 years – and was, for much of that time, also the editor of Panchjanya, its Hindi counterpart, and of the magazine Motherland. No one else in the RSS has ever climbed those heights since. In the 1980s and much of the 1990s, the media recognised him as the main spokesperson in English for the BJP.
He read a lot on Tipu Sultan and was impressed by what he learned about that implacable foe of British imperialism. Malkani’s closing to his piece on Tipu is touching:
If he so desired, Tipu could certainly have bowed to the British and survived as a prince – as another His Exalted Highness. And today, his great-great-grandsons would not be pushing cycle rickshaws in the streets of Calcutta.
But Tipu preferred death to
dishonour.
What do we learn from this? Well, nothing new. The ruling dispensation or RSS-BJP wants Indians divided so each of us suspects the other and forgets real issues that plague our life. They want us to keep fighting amongst ourselves.
New Parliament
India now has a new parliament building. Enough has been said about the inauguration event and sengol so I won’t dwell on it but there’s one thing I found no one talking about. It’s architecture. I have for long believed that after Independence, we sort of stopped building aesthetically pleasing buildings. Just take a round around Mumbai and look at the old buildings that are still functional as post offices, banks, colleges, museums and even a toilet and police station. They are spectacular. These buildings are grand, their walls and pillars are adorned with intricate patterns and sculptures, all in all, when you see them, you absolutely get charmed. The only post-independence building that I have come to like and admire is Karnataka Vidhan Soudha.
Kengal Hanumanthaiya, then Chief Minister wanted Vidhana Soudha to symbolise the legislative sovereignty of the people like the capital in Washington or The House of Commons in London. The then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru laid the foundation on 13th July 1951. It was completed in the year 1956 with an expenditure of Rs 1.84 crores. Largely it is what architects call neo-Dravidian style. At least, that’s what the imposing structure looks like when you first lay eyes upon it but as you go on noticing, you find it has incorporated many features that are architecturally British, Dravidian, and Indo-Islamic. This was all built predominantly with "Bangalore granite", excavated from the areas around Mallasandra and Hessaraghatta. Today this marvel stands as the most imposing building not only in Bangalore but in India.
Compare this to New Parliament from Modi.
This is not a real image but a design, i.e., a computer drawing. Real looks more appalling. But look at it. Which part of this design is Indian? Okay, maybe the architect or Mr Modi is no fan of Indian design, but what part of this building speaks to you the way Karnataka Vidhan Soudha does?
Oh by the way, below is a picture of the old Somalian parliament.
The whole project, which includes the building of a new parliament and a house for the prime minister, is estimated to cost Rs 20,000 crore. For perspective, that is as much as Kerala plans to spend to ease the economic hardship caused by the coronavirus outbreak. India’s total allocation for the health sector, at Rs 67,111 crore, is just a little over three times as much.
In the Central Vista project, though, the “primary issue” relates to the use of public space rather than green clearances, argued Moorthy.
“India’s early planners, in 1962, reserved for the public some plots that the British had earmarked for government offices, thus strengthening the vision of this being the people’s space. Two-thirds of Rajpath and the hexagon around India Gate was acquired and the erstwhile princes’ palaces there transformed into sociocultural centers for the public. This is where the National Gallery of Modern Art and the Patiala House Courts stand today,” he said. “The idea was to give back the centre of Delhi to the citizens. When an Indian thinks of his country, the picture that probably comes to his mind is that of India Gate, Rashtrapati Bhawan, North Block, South Block. It’s sad that a democratic government of India is doing worse than what even the colonialists did. A colonialist such as Edwin Lutyens still left space for the public. Today, they are putting up government buildings on the whole space.”
Read more here.
Extra fact: Almost all the unskilled workers deployed in the construction of Karnataka Vidhan Soudha were convicts, who were given their freedom on its completion.
What We Should Worry About
This Lok Sabha has nearly come to an end, there is no deputy speaker. 155 MPs suspended at various points since 2014 including Rahul Gandhi. PM has answered 0 questions in parliament. In fact, our prime minister hardly attends parliament except when he has to speak. 76% of bills passed without any legislative scrutiny. 11 ordinances are issued annually (on average)
CMs of Bihar, Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and West Bengal (all non-BJP) boycotted PM’s NITI Aayog meeting. Is that a sign of functioning democracy? Remember, maintaining the health of democracy and the smooth functioning of parliament is a duty of the government of the day. In past, when BJP used to not allow parliament to function, Congress leaders used to reach out to BJP and other parties so that the house could function normally. They would have dialogue with opposition leaders, there would be give and take. Some bills would be dropped, some new bills introduced, some bills amended and then introduced. And that is how democracies function. They progress slowly, sometimes tediously slowly but they take along as many as they could since the government and parliament are representatives of all people. Whatever they do must be done taking into everyone’s grievances and concerns. There are no know-it-alls in democracies. Each one knows something and the house as a whole knows more than any one member. That is why the function of the house is to debate everything and arrive at the best possible laws and plans according to that day and age. And in this endeavour, the Modi government has majestically failed.
Now Try Making Sense Of This
Rahul Gandhi in a rally in January targetted Modi and said - “Janta ki adalat se ek 56-inch ki chaati wala chowkidaar bhag gaya aur ek mahila se kehta hain ‘Sitharamanji, aap meri raksha kijiye...’ [The watchman with 56-inch chest fled from the court of the people and told a woman, ‘Sitharamanji, you save me]’”.
Do you find anything offensive in this? Misogynistic? But maybe there is a problem in this statement that you and I cannot notice. Meaning, we have lower standards of what should be public conduct and speech. Why am I saying it? Well, Congress president Rahul Gandhi was later served with a notice by the National Commission of Women for what it called a ‘misogynist and offensive’ comment against a woman. “As a leader people look up to, he should not give such misogynist statements where he thinks that a woman is a weak person...What does he mean? I want clarification because it gives a very wrong impression when a leader says such things,” the commission’s chairperson Rekha Sharma said.
Let’s give Rekha Sharma the benefit of the doubt and assume for a moment that she and NCW are not acting under pressure or playing politics clutching at straws to inconvenient and target an opposition leader but are genuinely concerned about women’s safety and rights. If you make this assumption then NCW comes out as this idealistic and moral force that looks out for women and acts when their rights are at risk. And they are willing to act against even the most popular and heavyweight. All good. Let me get to your attention another example.
On April 22, the Assam Police booked Youth Congress chief Srinivas BV on charges of assaulting and molesting former state Youth Congress president Angkita Dutta. The case was filed at the Dispur police station under sections of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to molestation, assault and words or gestures intended to outrage the modesty of a woman. Srinivas was also booked under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. The FIR was registered against the Youth Congress leader after Dutta on April 18 accused him of mentally harassing her and discriminating against her for six months. She also alleged that she was told to keep quiet and that no inquiry was initiated into her allegations.
SC gave Srinivasa anticipatory bail citing discrepancies in Dutta’s complaints. But anyway, let’s again assume he is wrong and that the law, here through Assam police which comes under the BJP government that governs Assam, acted against a prominent political leader to safeguard women’s right to life. Very good.
These two instances give you the impression that the BJP is sternly against any violation of women’s rights, they are very serious about protecting the interests of women. Correct? But then you think of Delhi where India’s top wrestlers have been protesting against a prominent leader of the BJP alleging him of molesting many athletes including a minor. They have been protesting for half a year now. They even spoke to Modi who assured them he will act. He hasn’t. And unlike the Nirbhaya protests where protesters were asking for the death of rapists, these athletes are merely asking for registration of FIR and arrest. Delhi police which comes under Home Minister Amit Shah refused to file a FIR until Supreme Court stepped in. The alleged Brijbhushan on camera in an interview claimed to have killed someone. There are other serious charges against him. And yet, BJP and its leadership have been protecting this criminal. NCW has said nothing in this matter. They didn’t even care to go and meet the protesting wrestlers. Nor has Women welfare minister Smriti Irani.
Now what does that tell you?
Here are some cartoons around sengol and women protesters who were arrested on the same day and manhandled by Delhi police.
Remember that the sengol was representative of monarchy or kingship and so Nehru rightfully sent this gift to be kept in a Museum signalling that such symbols meant nothing for modern India. We are now regressing into a past which should have no place in today’s business. Oh by the way, President was not invited for the new parliament’s inauguration nor for its foundation laying ceremony. But you know what the president was invited for? Foundation laying ceremony of Ram Mandir.
That’s it for this one. Thanks for reading. Do write in your suggestions and remarks.