|
PAGES FROM HISTORY
Exploding the mythsMalladi Rama Rao Ashoka and Aurangzeb belong to two different periods in Indian history. And history as taught across India presents the Mauryan as a ruler who deserves a kind word and the Mughal emperor as one who deserves no sympathy. Ashoka, we are told from the primary school level, had planted shade giving trees along the highways, and worked to spread the message of Lord Buddha across the country and beyond the Indian shores. On the other hand, Aurangzeb was censured as a Hindu loathing bigot, murderer, and religious zealot.
Sanjeev Sanyal, economist-urban
theorist-turned historian, has now
come up with a take that demolishes
the Ashoka legend. Audrey
Truschke, the Newark-based South
Asian historian, has penned an
interesting narrative on Aurangzeb
to offer an untold side of him as "a
man who strove to be a just, worthy
Indian king". She, however,
concedes that Aurangzeb was an
enigmatic king but avers that
company historians exploited the
very trait to show the British rule as
enlightened. The Hindu-Muslim polarisation is a modern idiom; it has had no place in Mughal India. History is not a playground for amateurs. Nor of ideologues either. It is a study based on fact. Not fiction. Not hagiography. If history must be rewritten, the task is best left to professional, unbiased historians – a breed difficult to find in India these days. Both Sanyal, and Truschke present an account, which is fascinating, bold, and captivating. The American has written "Aurangzeb, The Man And The Myth" after writing about literary, social, and political roles of Sanskrit in the Persian-speaking Islamic Mughal courts (1560-1650). Sanyal's "The Ocean of Churn" is very wide in scope and sweep. He looks at how the Indian Ocean shaped human history, and offers some food for thought to today's diplomats and strategists, who are focused on India's maritime security.Sanyal's earlier book, "The Land of the Seven Rivers", was no less a grand narrative of Bharatvarsha to the delight of Hindutva Bhakts. While Truschke digs deep into Mughal records and contemporary narratives to hold a new mirror to the Grand Mughal, Sanyal explores remote archaeological sites, ancient inscriptions, maritime trading networks, and half-forgotten oral histories to make the reader to put a thinking cap. ASHOKA – NOT SO GREATSanyal takes the reader on "an amazing journey through medieval geo-politics, and eyewitness accounts bringing alive a region ….that has defined civilisation from the very beginning". He blandly tells you that "history looks different when witnessed from the coastlines rather than from an inland point of view," and gives a perspective from the sea only to challenge well established claims about many characters that dot the pages of history from western India to North India and South India. One account that interested me was about Ashoka that was spread over some six-seven pages. Equally fascinating was the story on how the Sinhalese came to Sri Lanka. In fact, the book has many such nuggets that hold the reader's interest in what is otherwise a very dry subject. "Ashoka, the Not so Great", reads
the heading of the sub - chapter on
the Mauryan King. The real reason
for Ashoka becoming a Buddhist
was not the Kalinga war, he
asserts, and says: "The readers
will be surprised to discover that
the popular narrative about this
conversion is based on little
evidence." No Buddhist text links his
conversion to the war. "None of the
inscriptions in Odisha expresses any
remorse; any hint of regret is
deliberately left out. The silence is
deafening."
Assuring the reader that his
narrative is based "on exactly the
same texts and inscriptions used to
praise" the Mauryan emperor,
Sanyal remarks: "Perhaps like
many politicians, he made grand
high-minded proclamations but
acted entirely different". If so,
who invested him with
greatness? Hagiographic
Buddhist texts written in
countries that did not experience his reign!
"He was rediscovered in
the 19th century by colonial era
orientalists like James Prinsep. His
elevation to being 'Ashoka the Great'
is even more recent and is the result
of political developments leading up
to India's independence". No
surprise this assertion has made
Sanyal receive uncomplimentary
remarks and fulsome praise in equal
measure. AURANGZEB – NOT A BAD GUYReading Truschke's Aurangzeb
reminded me what my social studies
teacher told us 9th class students
long years ago just before he started
on the sixth Mughal emperor. "I will
tell the good about him first and
then the bad about him. And the bad
about him will remain etched in your
minds for ever", he said half
seriously. The author does not do so
and has adopted the conventional
style. A recurring theme is the caveat that Aurangzeb was a product of his time and therefore he should not be judged on the bench marks of modern democratic, egalitarian, and human rights standards. Charles-II of England, Louis XIV of France, and Sultan Suleiman of the Ottoman Empire are among Aurangzeb's contemporaries. None of them were 'good rulers' under present day norms. Even Ashoka had blood on his hands as he usurped the throne. Truschke argues with some justification that earlier thinkers had used the legacy of Akbar and Dara Shukoh to judge Aurangzeb. Even the likes of Veer Savarkar adopted the same approach. Such comparisons lead to assuming that everything in the Indo-Muslim past was about religion. In reality, Aurangzeb was not the type of Muslim that either his modern detractors or supporters suppose him to have been. He cannot be reduced to his faith. From this hypothesis, Truschke proceeds to offer a racy account that 'recovers' Aurangzeb, and tells he was not as a bad guy as our school text books say. Truschke debunks the generally held view that Aurangzeb was ruthless in persecuting Hindus, demolishing Hindu temples, and discriminating against minority Shia Muslims. His court had many Hindu officials; head of treasury (diwani) was a Hindu, Raja Raghunatha, who started his career in Shah Jahan's court; he was, in fact, amongst the first to pledge loyalty to Aurangzeb. In the latter half of his reign, Aurangzeb appointed Hindus within the imperial bureaucracy at an accelerated rate. Between 1679 and 1707, Hindu representation among Mughal officials rose by half. The author fields the question
whether Aurangzeb had ordered
large scale demolition of Hindu
temples. "Nobody knows the exact
number of temples demolished or
pillaged on Aurangzeb's orders, and
we never will. Richard Eaton, the
leading authority on the subject puts
the number at just over a dozen,
with fewer tied to the emperor's
direct command. (Page 107).
In Feb 1659, Aurangzeb heard
that several people out of spite and
rancour, have harassed the Hindu
residents of Benares, and nearby
places including a group of
Brahmins who were in charge of
ancient temples there. So went the
order to local officials: "You must see
that nobody unlawfully disturbs the
Brahmins or other Hindus of that
region so that they might remain in
their traditional place and pray for
the continuance of the Empire."
Yet, ten years later in 1669,
Aurangzeb had ordered Benares's
Vishwanath temple demolished; Mathura's Keshav Deva Temple was
brought down in 1670. "In both
instances, he sought to punish
political missteps by temple
associates and ensure future
submission to the Mughal state
(Page 108). Significantly, most of the temples that Aurangzeb had targeted were in northern India. With a handful of exceptions, he did not destroy temples in the Deccan, where the Mughal kingdom expanded during the last three decades of his life. There is evidence to show that his regime made liberal grants to temples and Brahmins. According to Truschke, Aurangzeb's approach to religion was hardly puritanical. On the contrary, he consulted with prominent Hindu religious figures of the day like Bairagi Hindu Shiv Mangaldas Maharaj, and showered them with gifts. He rejected demands to discriminate against Shias in government, saying "What connection have earthly affairs with religion? And what right have administrative works to meddle with bigotry?… If this rule
were established, it would be my
duty to extirpate all the Hindu
Rajahs and their followers. Wise
men disapprove of the removal
from office of able officers." He
clashed with the Ulema especially in
their role as Qazi throughout his
reign. Aurangzeb was not against music, says the author drawing upon Persian and Hindu sources and contemporary court records. His first lover was a singer Hirabai
Zainabadi. He passed his later years
largely in the company of another
musician, Udaipuri. the king. In a letter on the verge of death, Aurangzeb wrote: "I came as a stranger, and I leave as a stranger." Sadly, he remains a
stranger to the students of Indian
history even today with public
discourse divided between
Aurangzeb the Bigot and Aurangzeb
the Pious. He had built world's
largest mosque(of his time) in
Lahore but chose to be buried in an
unmarked grave in the courtyard of
Chishti Sufi shrine of Zaynuddin
Shirazi at Khuldabad, close to
Aurangabad in Maharashtra. |