Avoid weaponising history

The National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is moving from total omission of the Mughal rule over India to tarring the era with a black brush. These revisions that appear more in line with ideological narrative of the dispensation ruling the Centre, are all likely to promote divisiveness and further accentuate the distance between major com munities.

While Aurangzeb has always been the butt of attack and demonization, the current exercise attempts to portray the entire period as a dark chapter of Indian history. Mughal rule from the founder, Babur (1526) till the final ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, who was deposed by the British in 1857, had all the usual positives and negatives that characterise any rule or rulers.

Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodhi to conquer Delhi. While violence against the conquered people—which included both Hindus and Mus lims—cannot be denied, his wasiyyat (will) to his son and successor Humayun to avoid slaughter of cows, defiling of temples and ensure equal respect for all communities reflects his respect and concern for the plural character of India.

Akbar’s era is viewed rather more charitably with “alternating currents of brutality with tolerance” while the fact is that ‘Sulh e Kul’ (peace between all) was the broader motif of his religious policy which permeated his administration. Aurangzeb is rightly condemned for destruction of some temples.

But there is ample evidence of him granting jagirs and monetary donations to several temples which include So meshwarnath Mahadev Temple in Allahabad; Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi; Balaji temple in Chitrakoot; Umanand Temple in Guwahati and Shatroonji Temple in Gujarat.(Ref. Dr. Omprakash Prasad, Patna University).

Efforts to denigrate Tipu Sultan too get debunked if one could go through the grants he made to 156 Hindu temples. It is common knowledge that Tipu never used to leave his palace unless he per formed a darshan of the deities at Shri Ranga nathswamy Temple near his palace in the morn ing. (Ref. Pande quoting Srikantiah, editor of the Mysore gazetteer.)

In matters of inclusiveness, the Mughals went by expertise rather than the faith of individuals. Maharajahs of Jaipur served as defence ministers for all Mughal rulers (Mansingh during Akbar’s tenure, Jaswant Singh during Aurangzeb’s rule, to name a few). Raja Todermal, a Marwari, looked after the finance portfolio under Akbar.

By the same token it is patently wrong to term Shivaji a Muslim-hater. Mulla Hyder was his per sonal secretary while Daulat Khan and Darya Khan Sahrang were his loyal naval commanders. There is no gainsaying that administration of past rulers was characterised by love and peace all through.

Yet their persecution was dictated by strategy rather than inherent bias against some faith. It was Aurangzeb who ordered de molition of the Jama Masjid of Golconda then ruled by the last (17th) ruler Abulhasan Tanashah. It was because there lay a treasure underneath the mosque.

Again, it was Aurangzeb who conquered and decimated the five Deccani Muslim kingdoms during the latter half of his nearly 50-year rule. He devoted half his ruling tenure to Deccan inasmuch as he died in Khuldabad (near Aurangabad in 1707).

Similarly, the Dogra rajas had a permanent department to loot temples, not because they hated Hinduism, but owing to the fact that temples hoarded ample wealth.