As a nation, India often finds itself in a tug-off-war between the grandeur of its aspirations and the ghosts of its past. One would imagine that a country was designed as a global power – provoking nuclear capabilities, a leading space program, a “tech stack” that is the world’s jealousy and an ambitious dialect for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council – a Mughal Emperor has gone beyond the debate, which breathed more than 300 years. Nevertheless, here we are again.
The recent unrest in Nagpur on the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb is another reminder that in India, the debate on history is not limited to a distant past alone. The upheaval -row underlines the permanent power of history as a political tool. Hindu nationalist protesters burnt an effigy of Aurangzeb after being associated with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the controversial Mughal emperor, whose name separates different emotions in the diverse spectrum of India. The protesters demanded the destruction of their unmatched tomb, a step that unanimously angered many Muslims and secular Hindus.
Advertisement – Scroll to continue
Cases still matter
Aurangzeb, who ruled the Mughal Empire from 1658 to 1707, continued to incite such enthusiastic reactions after his death? For its inhibitors, especially within the Hindu nationalist circles, Aurangzeb is a symbol of atrocities – destroying temples, re -starting Islamic taxes, executing Sikh spiritual leaders and implementing policies that suppressed Hindu traditions. For some Indian Muslims, however, they are remembered for their psychosis and military glory, expanding the Mughal Empire into their zone, including areas from Kabul to Dhaka.
For secular historians, the case against displaying Aurangzeb is in context. He was, finally, was a product of his time, when religious intolerance and political violence were established. Their records include grant to some Hindu temples along with the destruction of others – a contradiction is often ignored in the discourse. Nevertheless, the argument that India needs to “move forward” from Aurangzeb, with its identity faces malignant resistance in a country.
Whereas in the orthodox, famous phrase, ‘Standing Athwart History, Chilla Stop’, our Hindutva nationalists are shouting ‘Reverse!’ His reinforcement of history is not in a reverence for the past, but in his desire to shape the present by re -starting the past.
History as politics
History has often been fought in the territory in India, but its revival in the context of the twenty -first century politics is such a sign that the past continues to hold a hold on the Hindutva movement. While the Mughals are displayed as the sons of Indian Muslims (which are tarnished as ‘Babur’s Aulad’, as the sons of invader Babur instead of Indian clay, the Mughals are being displayed, Hindutva Jolots want to rebuild the most prominent of Hindu temples. And some people in Nagpur want to destroy a simple grave because what its content reflects: a symbol of insult of their ancestors centuries ago.
Today’s ideological battle is coming out – whether it is on Aurangzeb or a broad legacy of the Islamic rule – mutual action is revealed between history and nationalism. Aurangabad’s naming Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar is not renamed as isolated incidents in Aurangzeb Road’s replacement in New Delhi with a more delicious option. They fit neatly in a comprehensive campaign to reflect centuries of Islamic influence in Indian culture, names and places. In harmony, the ideal of inter-confidence co-existence has been jested; The marginalized of Muslims from the national story.
Not just an Indian problem
Of course, historical revisionism is not uniquely Indian. From the United States, where radical leftist movements demanded disintegration of white domination symbols and monuments for European debate on the remains of colonial-era, and the people of black and brown Britain, who look at statues of colonial oppressors, are universal universal to enhance history as a weapon in contemporary politics. Nevertheless, certainly for India to reconcile with the past, instead of undo it instead of undo – to restraint on hysteria.
The problem lies in the incredible politicization of history. If one group tears Aurangzeb’s legacy, the other rises to defend it. If one changes the name of a city to honor a Hindu king (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) or a Hindu civilized tradition (prayer), then another question on the relevance of doing so is whether there is no comfort in getting acquainted with the names of the place installed on our coil for centuries. Pendulum swings continuously, there is no resolution in the sight.
The path of India should have a mature relationship with its past – one who neither disappears nor glorifies, but is relevant. This journey requires sympathy, introspection and desire to overcome ideological boundaries. History, finally, should be enlightened, not mesmerized.
The option is a bad dream. One day, Muslims of India will oppose. Once again, the violence will resume, for new hostages to history, ensuring that newly will be taught new wrong to set future generations correctly. Happy to use radical and extremist history as cannon fodder; But in their passion to undo the past, it is our future that they are putting in crisis.
,Shashi Tharoor has been a member of Parliament from Kerala in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala since 2009. He is a published writer and a former diplomat.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author