“The rich may well construct domes of gold and silver on their graves! For the poor folks like me, the sky is enough” reads a couplet in the epitaph on Aurangzeb's tombstone in Maharashtra's Kuldabad.
Calls for the demolition of the seventeenth-century Mughal ruler's tomb by Hindu extremist groups Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad instigated communal violence in Maharashtra's Nagpur, roughly 490 kilometres from Kuldabad, causing massive destruction and alleged arbitrary police action against Muslims.
These groups had earlier given an ultimatum to the state government threatening that the tomb would meet a "Babri Masjid-like" fate and "karsevaks" would take charge. However, in actuality, no tomb exists at Kuldabad for the "karsevaks" to demolish. The controversial king's grave lies within the courtyard of the shrine of a Sufi saint, faintly raising eyebrows against claims of him being an "orthodox Muslim."
Aurangzeb, the longest reigning Mughal emperor who ruled over one of the largest empires in Indian history, has been a controversial figure and can be easily tagged as the "most hated" of Indian rulers. Much has been written about him: some facts and a whole lot of fiction including in the recently released Bollywood film Chhaava, which has once again brought a long-dead ruler to the centre of Indian politics.
According to several reviews, the film, based on the life of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, conveniently brushes aside several historical facts in its commitment to push the 'Hindu vs Muslim' rhetoric, including the fact that Sambhaji allied with Aurangzeb to fight against his father. According to historian John F Richards, Sambhaji was made a Mughal noble and conferred with the title of 'Raja' by Aurangzeb.
Such complex power dynamics, which according to historians shaped pre-modern India, find no mention in the Hindu right-wing's obsession with Hindu-Muslim binaries and blatant hatred towards Aurangzeb.
Swaying away from usual demonic representations of Aurangzeb, eminent historian and professor at Rutgers University, Audrey Truschke, in her book titled Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King, had explored the life, politics and legacy of the much-loathed Indian ruler.
The book opened new doors into understanding Aurangzeb, but was not received well In India with the Hindu right-wing unleashing a series of hate campaigns and targeted attacks against the author.
In the context of the recent events, TNIE spoke to Truschke to reflect on the relevance of debates surrounding Aurangzeb.
In one of your speeches six years ago, you said "India's most hated ruler is undeniably alive in popular imagination." Why do you think he is being brought alive time and again? Why has he been chosen among other Mughal rulers?
Aurangzeb was the most powerful of the Mughal kings, and he presided over the largest land-based empire in South Asian history. The historical Aurangzeb and the Hindutva-created Aurangzeb are two different beings.
For starters, Emperor Aurangzeb was a real person and the most powerful king in Indian history, whereas the Hindutva-created Aurangzeb is a cartoonish fiction. India's Hindu nationalists partly inherited their ahistorical ideas about Aurangzeb from British colonialists. They have also added to this imaginary king, over the years, in furtherance of their far-right agenda, especially their loathing of Indian Muslims.
They use him as a stand-in for all Indian Muslims, alleging that Aurangzeb's actions hundreds of years ago -- real or imagined -- somehow justify modern Hindutva's anti-Muslim bigotry and violence.
In other words, ignorance about the historical Aurangzeb and anti-Muslim hate undergird the Hindu nationalist iconoclastic calls to destroy his tomb.
The recent violence in the name of Aurangzeb was fuelled by a Bollywood film named Chhavva, which portrayed the Mughal emperor as a power-hungry tyrant. The movie, which was a massive success in the country, also places Maratha ruler Chatrapati Sambhaji as an icon of Hinduism. Have you seen the movie? What is your take on it?
I have been too busy in recent months doing my job as a historian to see a fictional film like Chhaava. I think many Indians would probably be surprised to learn about some of Sambha's actions, especially against women, which earned him strong criticism in his own time. Regarding Aurangzeb, he is best understood through a political lens as an Indian political leader.
You have claimed that Aurangzeb's entire reign was centred on his vision of justice. Yet he is known to many Indians as a power-hungry tyrant. What do you have to say?
I analyse the historical Aurangzeb Alamgir, whereas Hindutva ideologues are concerned with their own imagined tyrant. The modern mirage bears little resemblance to the historical king.
Rights groups and opposition parties have accused the BJP of targeting Muslim religious structures. This includes increasing claims over the ownership of various mosques. Such claims have been justified by narratives that appropriate historical facts about Mughal emperors, say for instance by emphasising that Aurangzeb desecrated temples. How do you see this?
Lots of Indian kings desecrated temples, including the Cholas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, and Palas. Hindutva ideologues do not target the Mughals because they harmed temples; they target the Mughals because they were Muslim.
How true are the claims regarding Aurangzeb destroying temples due to his hatred for Hindus? Were there other reasons for him to target temples?
Scholars agree that Aurangzeb targeted temples, like many Indian kings before him of various religious backgrounds (including Hindu rulers), for political reasons. Aurangzeb also protected many temples, granted some land, and so forth.
You have been targeted by the right wing for your work on Aurangzeb. A member of the Maharashtra Assembly was suspended recently for allegedly pointing out some historical facts about Aurangzeb. What does this say about the acceptance and tolerance towards history in current India?
There is little acceptance of historical facts in India under the Narendra Modi regime. Hindutva ideology becomes less appealing when one is well-educated about Indian history, and so Hindutva leaders have a pretty strong incentive to prevent Indians from gaining knowledge about their diverse, multicultural past.
How dangerous is the manipulation of history for India?
India is currently doing rather poorly when it comes to many metrics, including human rights, freedom of the press, academic freedom, and democratic health. These have all declined in the last decade, and manipulating history is part of that agenda.
You have noted that the vilification of Mughals including Aurangzeb was a tactic employed by the British colonial historians to justify colonization. A major critique of your work, coming from the Hindutva circles, is that yours is a very "colonial approach" towards Indian history. How do you see it?
Hindutva ideologues are the major intellectual inheritors of colonial-era thought. They can call me "colonial" all they like, but they mean it as a slur without content, whereas I am accurately describing their intellectual genealogy based on historical evidence. In other words, their accusations against me are rhetoric, and mine against them are substantive. I am quite comfortable resting on the strength of my arguments.
What does the vilification of Aurangzeb mean for Indian Muslims?
Indian Muslims currently live in an oppressive situation where their livelihoods and lives are often at risk. Targeting Aurangzeb, again, is another assault in a sea of hardships for Indian Muslim communities.