A Lesson In History For BJP's VK Singh Who Wants To Rename Akbar Road To Maharana Pratap Road

NEW DELHI: The narrative in reference to Mughal rulers is that Akbar was the good one, and Aurangzeb the evil tyrant. Interestingly, this characterisation isn’t the doing of the Bharatiya Janata Party, but the standard understanding that has been deeply embedded in Indian society. Akbar was good because he married Hindu princesses. He struck an alliance with the Rajputs. He built an empire on collaboration between different cultures and kingdoms. Aurangzeb was evil because he reversed much of what Akbar built. He lost the trust of the Rajputs. He spent much of his time fighting the great Maratha leader - Shivaji. And he destroyed temples!

Anyone with any understanding of history will wince at everything in the paragraph above, but we will come to why later. For many years, perhaps the first decade of my life, I bought into the above narrative. It was what I was taught at school, read in books, saw on any history-related discussion on TV.

Fortunately, I was surrounded by adults who took the trouble of engaging with me. I don’t remember exactly how or when, but at a small dinner party when I was about ten or eleven years old, the subject of Aurangzeb came up. “That evil King,” I proudly declared -- excited at showing off my “historical” knowledge to the never-patronising and always-inclusive group of adults. I received my first lesson in history then and there. “Why was Aurangzeb evil?” I was asked. “Because he didn’t like Hindus,” I confidently answered. “What makes you think that?” was the response. Of course, I was far too young to understand the historical and political intricacies -- but I took away the point that people didn’t really have a good reason for saying that Aurangzeb was an “evil” king.

Despite the absurdity of the narrative (again, we will come to why a little later), it has continued in the mainstream. Good Akbar; bad, bad Aurangzeb. To reiterate, this is not the narrative of the BJP, as it's been the standard narrative even in liberal discourse -- content with painting one or two Mughal rulers as “good”.

It’s of no surprise then that poor Aurangzeb was the first target of the BJP government, that has taken the narrative of a “bad” Mughal ruler and extended it to the entire dynasty. Last year, Aurangzeb Road -- stopping at a stone’s throw from the residence of the Prime Minister at Race Course Road in New Delhi and an important connector between Old and New Delhi -- was renamed to APJ Abdul Kalam Road.

The BJP’s Minister of Culture, Mahesh Sharma, defended the decision at the time, saying, “Mein samajhta hoon ki Aurangzeb koi adarsh nahin the. Prernasrot hi prerak ho sakta hai. Aurangzeb Road ka bhi naam badal kar ek aise mahapurush ke naam par kiya hai jo Musalmaan hote hue bhi itna bada rashtravadi aur manavtavadi insaan tha, APJ Abdul Kalam, unke naam par kiya gaya hai (I don’t think Aurangzeb was an ideal person. Only a source of inspiration can be inspirational. Aurangzeb Road has been named after such a great man who, despite being a Muslim, was a nationalist and a humanist, A P J Abdul Kalam. The road has been named after him).”

I wish life was a Sci-Fi film so that I could transport Mahesh Sharma to that setting when I was all of ten (or eleven), and have the concerned adult ask him, “Why wasn’t Aurangzeb an ideal person?”

Any way, the road’s name was changed. Fast forward a few months to present day, and the BJP has another target. This time, “good” Mughal ruler Akbar. Minister of State for External Affairs General (Retd) VK Singh has written a letter to Urban Development Minister Venkaiah Naidu, asking for the renaming of Delhi’s Akbar Road -- to Maharana Pratap of Mewar. The logic is - perhaps - that Akbar’s aggression in Rajputana led to the rise of Maharana Pratap, and revenge in modern day India is in the form of changing the name of a road.

"I do find that one historical personality that has motivated generations - Maharana Pratap - has not been given his due. You would be aware that he was not only instrumental in stopping the might of the Mughal King Akbar but he was truly secular and a man of the masses,” says the letter.  

Subramanian Swamy, of course, backed the proposal. “He [Pratap] preferred to live in poverty in jungles but did not compromise on his principles and patriotism. But there are roads named after Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. Somewhere down the line, the real heroes need to be recognized.”

Now I have nothing against Maharana Pratap Singh, but I cannot understand what the BJP has against Akbar, or what modern India collectively has against Aurangzeb…

On what parameter has Mr. Swamy decided Akbar and Aurangzeb were not heroes? What patriotism is he referring to when speaking of Maharana Pratap Singh?

To argue that Aurangzeb reversed Akbar’s alliance with the Rajputs because he did not like Hindus, or because he wasn’t secular, is like saying Prime Minister Narendra Modi isn’t building stronger ties with China because he doesn’t like the Chinese. Similarly, saying that Akbar was a “secular” or benevolent King because he married Rajput princesses is like saying that Prime Minister Modi wants good relations with the United States because he loves Christians.

It’s absurd. Here’s a quick lesson in historical context. Akbar was Emperor in the mid 1500s, and was tasked with building an Empire. As such, alliances were a political tool. They were used as a tool in addition to outright military conquests and subjugation, enabling Akbar to do what he needed to do -- build an Empire.

When Aurangzeb took the throne, the Mughal Empire was at threat from several quarters -- one of those being Shivaji. An alliance with the Rajputs was not Aurangzeb’s primary concern; defeating Shivaji and defending his Empire was. This wasn’t a Hindu King versus a Muslim King. It was a political entity versus a political entity, dictated by political interests that are in turn driven by power.

As for the absolutely insane idea that the Mughals were “foreigners” -- which in turn dictates much of the hatred targeted at them, along with the BJP’s efforts to wipe them from India’s history books -- the concept of “Indian” and “foreign” didn’t exist in the medieval era the way it does today.

India -- as we know it today -- is a modern construct. At different parts of time, different areas of influence have comprised of different parts of its territory. At times, that territory has included almost all of modern day India along with parts of modern day Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar. But even when it has done so, smaller, local areas of influence have existed.

Most importantly, for each Kingdom or sphere of influence, the Mughals were no more “foreigners” than any other Kingdom or sphere of influence. For instance, during Akbar’s time, Akbar was as much a “foreigner” to the Rajputs as say the rulers of the Kingdom of Gondwana were -- and Gondwana is in present day Madhya Pradesh!

It defies all logic to suggest that the Mughals were “foreigners” to India -- when "India" itself did not exist at the time!

As for temples -- context is important, (surprising surprise) -- temples in ancient and medieval times doubled up as seats of political power. If someone were to destroy a temple or mosque today -- it’s very different from rulers destroying temples or mosques in ancient or medieval times. That said, even then, temples were rarely destroyed, and even evil, evil Aurangzeb, built more temples than he destroyed (which makes sense because his reasons for destroying them were political, and once said political objective was achieved, then building temples had a political motivation too).

Perhaps most importantly, destroying temples was part and parcel of the politics of the time, and was not restricted to the Mughals, or Muslims, or people of non-Hindu faith. The great Maratha army, to use just one of several examples, destroyed a temple in 1791 in Sringeri just because it was patronised by Tipu Sultan (who, just by the way, restored the temple later).

This entire article, is of course, painting everything with a rather simplistic brush. This is purposely so because a lot of the very well reasoned opposition to the mindless re-naming has clearly gone over the intended-recipients heads.

Simplicity and bare logic, however, will not be enough. Even after ridding us of Aurangzeb, the Prime Minister’s house remains surrounded by roads named after Tughlaq, Akbar and Safdarjang. Akbar may soon go, and then Tughlaq and finally Safdarjung, but what will the government do with Red Fort, Old Fort, Tughlaqabad, Qutb Minar, and the other hundreds of monuments scattered all over this city that will invariably remind us of a past that we cannot (and should not) reject?

I guess one solution would be to paint them all a deep, deep saffron.