Opinion Aurangzeb is no role model

Glorifying or condemning Aurangzeb has civilisational dimensions. A nation’s societal norms are shaped by the heroes it worships and the values it upholds. Can figures like Aurangzeb, Adolf Hitler, or Nathuram Godse (the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi) be role models for any civilised society? One of the principal causes of Hindu-Muslim tension in the Subcontinent is how Islamic invaders dealt with the vanquished Hindus and the glorification or justification of their acts on specious grounds. Azmi and others who share this view assert that Aurangzeb was not a cruel ruler, his conflicts were political rather than religious and he even “sponsored the construction of several Hindu temples”. This claim belies collective memory and recorded history.

Autobiographies of Islamic rulers and contemporary accounts give gory details of how Aurangzeb and his like used the sword to force conversions to Islam and demolish temples. Aurangzeb’s 49-year reign is replete with such claims. The Islamic court historian Muhammad Saqi Mustaid Khan, in Maasir-e-Alamgiri (1731), reportedly documented that Aurangzeb issued a decree ordering the demolition of the Kashi Vishwanath temple and the construction of a mosque in its place. He is also said to have commanded the forced conversions of Hindus and destroyed the Kesava Rai temple in Mathura. Is it not a fact that Aurangzeb executed the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, and several others for refusing to embrace Islam? He also had Sambhaji Maharaj put to death. Aurangzeb imprisoned his father and brutally eliminated his three brothers. Can such a ruthless figure be a role model?

Was the conflict between Islamic invaders and Hindu-Sikh rulers merely a power struggle? No, it was a civilisational war. But didn’t Hindus serve in Muslim courts and vice versa? It is an absurd argument. Indians essentially serviced the British Empire, but that didn’t make it Indian. At the same time, many Englishmen supported India’s quest for independence. Does this mean the Indian freedom movement was a mere power struggle, not a fight for freedom?

But didn’t the Mughals build Hindu temples? It may be true in a few cases, but does this absolve them of their numerous crimes? Even the British renovated many mosques and temples as a part of their administrative policies. The British introduced railways and telegraphs and constructed grand buildings. Despite these contributions, they remain ruthless looters of Indian wealth and guilty of colonising Indian minds.

How did millions of Hindus and thousands of temples survive if Islamic invaders were so intolerant? Hindus did, but most of the temples in northern and western India didn’t. Residual India is still Hindu-dominated because of two reasons. One, the local population never wholly gave in to the aliens. It relentlessly fought under the leadership of successive legendary figures such as Maharana Pratap, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Rana Sanga, Chhatrasal, and the Sikh Gurus. Two, the number of foreign invaders was abysmally small compared to the vast local populace.

The invaders did, however, succeed to an extent in achieving their objective of obliterating the symbols of local inclusive plural culture and decimating the followers of indigenous faiths.

The near-total disappearance of Hindu-Buddhist-Sikh communities from Afghanistan and Pakistan and a drastic fall in their population in Bangladesh is a stark testament to the persecution of these communities over centuries. With the near demise of these communities in these regions, cherished values like pluralism, secularism, and coexistence, too, have died.

Is it possible to build an amicable relationship between the Jews and those who laud Nazis and hail Hitler as a great leader? When the occasional glorification of Godse by some madcaps rightly evokes outrage, how can any civilised society accept the celebration of brutal invaders like Aurangzeb? No rational person would blame present-day subcontinental Muslims for the actions of Islamic invaders. But should contemporary Muslims identify with these invaders and seek to justify their misdeeds of yore?

The columnist is a former chairman of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC)