The dangers of excavating the past

HISTORY is a minefield which can lead to great, unwelcome and unnecessary problems when India’s overwhelming priority should be national consolidation, development and promotion of its strategic interests. The difficulties created by a deliberate focus on history, as is taking place now, become greater when persons, groups and parties view it through ideologically driven current political and electoral considerations. This inevitably leads to some historical figures and their clans being either stigmatised or applauded by different persons or groups.

The question is whether the ruling dispensation’s by now clear emphasis of India having undergone ‘a thousand years of slavery’ has let loose a genie. And, if so, what would be its consequences? Indeed, would it, as the ruling dispensation desires, lead to the coming together of the Hindus? Or, are there dangers that it will have the opposite impact — not only make old historical scars itch but also open social fissures among the Hindus who have remained closed over the centuries?

One recent painful example of the social and political consequences of ‘a thousand years of slavery’ projection was witnessed in Parliament in the exchange over Rana Sanga. Ramji Lal Suman, Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha member from UP, made unpalatable comments on Rana Sanga, who is venerated by the Rajput community as a hero. He is considered a hero by others too. Not only was there a furore in Parliament on the issue but Suman’s comments also led to his house in Agra being attacked allegedly by a Rajput community group.

Suman’s own party has been drawn into the controversy, but it is treading a fine line. It does not wish to annoy either Suman’s base or the Samajwadi Party’s Rajput followers. As for Suman, media reports indicate that he has not withdrawn his comments. This controversy has not consolidated the Hindus but has had, in a small way, the opposite impact.

Recently, in his podcast talk with Lex Fridman, Modi, recalling the contribution of Mahatma Gandhi to India, observed: “Another key factor to consider is India’s fight for independence. India was ruled by the Mughals, the British and several other foreign powers. Despite being bound by the shackles of colonial rule for centuries, the flame of independence burned brightly in every corner and nook of India, never fading, always fuelling the desire for freedom."

Significantly, but not surprisingly, Modi has included the Mughals as a foreign colonial power in his formulation. This is obviously in line with the idea of ‘a thousand years of slavery’. This idea is leading to demands — and these demands may only grow in time — by some sections that symbols of Mughal rule should not be allowed to stand.

Positive remarks on some controversial historical figures such as Aurangzeb also inflame passions in these hypersensitive times. The controversy surrounding Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s grave which erupted last month led to demands by sections of the VHP and Bajrang Dal that the grave be removed from its location in Khuldabad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district. The media quoted a memorandum given by the VHP to Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis, stating inter alia: “Having his memorial in India is an endorsement of his injustices; the grave should be properly removed…."

A little over two weeks after the VHP’s views, RSS’ former sarkaryavah (general secretary) Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi said that the controversy over Aurangzeb’s grave was “unnecessary." He clarified that as Auranzeb had died in Khuldabad, he was buried there and anyone can visit his grave.

It is interesting that the RSS toned down the VHP’s demand; thus, indicating that the manner in which actions will unfold on handling the ‘thousand years of slavery’ period’s remnants is not clear within the ruling dispensation.

As during the period of British colonialism, during Mughal times or those of the Sultanate, too, there were some Indians who opposed the rule through different means and others who collaborated with it. During the Muslim period, a number of Indians got converted to Islam, while during the British rule, some became Christians.

After Independence, the Congress party and others that emerged from the National Movement did not stigmatise those who had collaborated with the British rulers. Indeed, Sardar Patel ensured that the Indian Civil Service and other elements of the bureaucracy continued to serve independent India, as did the British Indian army, which became the army of the Republic. The judiciary, too, continued and, finally, India adopted the British political system, too.

Naturally, the heroes of the Republic were not those who aided the British or kept themselves completely aloof from the National Movement but those who led the fight for freedom. Also, these institutions imbibed the spirit of the Republic.

Now, the impulses which wisely guided the Republic in its early years have given way to the stigmatisation of those who were impacted by western modes of thought which emerged from the European Enlightenment as ‘Macaulay’s children’. It is overlooked that ‘Macaulay’s children’ never turned their back on India’s ancient traditions but wanted a hierarchical society to become egalitarian and follow the path shown by the Republic’s Constitution. The term ‘Macaulay’s children’ is used by those who also have stressed the notion of a thousand years of slavery.

So, now will those who were influenced by the Indo-Persianate culture (which has disappeared from India) be stigmatised? And what of those Hindu clans that had collaborated with the Mughals? Will a distinction be drawn between those who entered into ‘matrimonial alliances’ with the Mughals and those who refused to do so as they considered them humiliating? Certainly, such alliances were not on an equal basis during the Mughal period. Many clans that entered into matrimonial alliances with the Mughals held senior positions in the Mughal forces and administration. How should these Hindu grandees be looked upon? Naturally, Maharana Pratap and later Shivaji refused to submit to Mughal writ and they are rightly looked upon as heroes today.

The ‘thousand years of slavery’ makes emotions raw and leads to excavations that cannot be the priority of the Republic as it confronts the challenges of these dramatically changing technological and global dynamics.

Comments