When Sunil Ambekar, the chief spokesperson of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, clarified to the Times of India on March 19 that “The glorification of Aurangzeb should stop. The tomb issue is not irrelevant; Aurangzeb is,” he might have sounded self-contradictory yet he has a point. What he left unsaid is that it is the ruling establishment which decides what is relevant and what is not.
The RSS leader’s viewpoint can be understood with the help of the following contemporary examples, which apparently might have nothing to do with the Mughal Emperor.
As it suits the incumbent rulers to be more critical of their immediate predecessors—particularly those who have been in power for too long–West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and her Bihar counterpart Nitish Kumar missed no opportunity to blast the 34 years of Left Front (1977-2011) and 15 years of Lalu Prasad-Rabri Devi (1990-2005) governments in their respective states. They would never be heard targeting the Congress governments of Siddhartha Shankar Ray (West Bengal–1972-77) or Satyendra Narayan Sinha and Dr Jagannath Mishra (Bihar) in 1989-90 even if their administrative records were more dismal.
So, for Mamata Banerjee and Nitish Kumar criticizing the Left Front and Rashtriya Janata Dal governments is politically more relevant than other earlier chief ministers. It is by raising the fear of prolonged rules of them that the Trinamool Congress and Janata Dal (United) consolidated their political position in their respective states.
British strategy
Almost the same was the case with the British, who became the master of a large part of India by the 1770s that is within 70 years after Aurangzeb, who ruled for 49 long years (1658-1707) over a huge territory across the sub-continent. Like Mamata Banerjee and Nitish Kumar the British found in Aurangzeb the best person to consolidate their position. As Emperors like Bahadur Shah-I, Mohammad Shah Rangila, Shah Alam, etc. hardly enjoyed the power and grandeur of Aurangzeb, the British deemed it fit to only highlight the wrongs committed during his reign and blackout his achievements. In this interlude, Marathas (1757) and Ahmed Shah Abdali (1761) also became the rulers of Delhi.
Thus, strictly speaking, Aurangzeb was the last real Mughal Emperor of India—the rest were powerless kings. So, the British thought it would be appropriate to paint Aurangzeb’s rule in the blackest of colours and in the process tried to gain acceptance among the common masses.
Apart from the British, the Marathas and later Sikhs too grew powerful and ruled large parts of India in late 18th and early 19th centuries. In fact, they fought bloody battles with the Mughals during the reign of Aurangzeb and even later. It is another thing that during the 1857 rebellion against the British Maratha chieftain, Nana Sahab joined hands with the last Mughal ruler of Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar.
Akbar’s expansionism
Without giving any certificate to the sixth Mughal Emperor, one can say that Aurangzeb had, like most rulers, some bad and some good qualities. Yet it can be said that not only Aurangzeb but also ‘secular’ Akbar who in the initial years inflicted more devastation on Muslim as well as Hindu rulers of India for his territorial ambition. From being a virtual homeless wanderer born in Umarkot in 1542 when his father, Humayun, was defeated and exiled by Sher Shah Suri, he died in 1605 after lording over a large empire all over India.
Akbar got rid of Hindu rulers like Hemu, Udai Singh, Rana Pratap Singh, etc. and many others, crushed and massacred many rebellious Rajputs and Afghans as well as his Mughal chieftains who revolted against him. He too fought against his brother to virtually become the master of Hindustan.
He also used soft power and established marital alliances with the Rajputs and used many of them against their clansmen.
It was later in life that he softened his stand, and became more accommodative and tolerant. He promoted inter-faith dialogue and established Din-e-Ilahi in 1582. But all this after he became secure.
So, the greatness of Akbar’s personality we talk about can be traced to his later years.
Akbar’s body exhumed
It needs to be reminded that it was out of revenge that rebellious Jats under the leadership of Rajaram Jat attacked Akbar’s tomb not very far away from Agra on March 28, 1688, exhumed his body and burnt
the bones. The gold and silver were looted. The first attempt to dig out his body was made in 1685 but was foiled by the Mughals.
Curiously, Aurangzeb’s body was never excavated though he is buried in Khuldabad in the Maratha heartland. Unlike the graves of other emperors, it is quite simple and no pomp and show have been attached to it.
Critical scrutiny
If Aurangzeb kept his father Shah Jehan under house arrest, it must not be forgotten that the latter too revolted against Jehangir. And Jehangir too rose in arms against Akbar. And one of the sons of Aurangzeb also raised his head against his father.
It should also be understood that Ashoka killed his brother (s) to finally become the ruler of the Magadh Empire. He fought a bloody battle with Kalinga. It was only later in life that he embraced Buddhism and abandoned violence.
Though it is for historians to debate whether Aurangzeb was a bigot or not what is not generally highlighted is that in 1663 he banned Sati, though it is also true that in 1679 he re-introduced Jizya on non-Muslim subjects—it had been removed by Akbar a century ago.
Aurangzeb underwent more critical scrutiny by colonial historians because after him the Mughal Empire started declining. At the same time, the British wanted to project themselves as a saviour of India. They falsely boasted that they were not conquerors, but on a civilizational mission to India—or anywhere else they went.
Decline under British
As India was an economic powerhouse in the early 18th century and had a 25% share of the global industrial output which came down to just two percent by 1900, the British worked overtime to dispel all the positive perceptions of that era. They do not want the world to know that they were responsible for the massive de-industrialization of India.
There is no denying the fact that it would never have been so smooth for the British to earn goodwill in India had they not cancelled out the rapid developments made during Aurangzeb’s period.
The truth is that the colonists ruined the Indian economy leading to the starvation and death of something between 16 crore and 16.8 crore Indians between 1757 and 1947. This unimaginable cruelty is very well documented by the renowned writer on famines in India, P Sainath in his recent book. The 31 artificial famines which caused such massive devastation and loss of lives exposed the skeleton in the cupboard and the British claim of civilizing the so-called barbaric Indians.
Thus, for colonial historians demonizing Aurangzeb may have made sense as it was politically relevant to consolidate their empire and hide all their crimes.
But why is it that 318 years after burying him deep in history the RSS and its affiliates have been reminded about the relevance of his tomb? Are they not fully secured in power in India? Why are they so panicky?
Perhaps they want to remain tied to the distant past as they have little to contribute to the present. For them condemning British barbarism is not relevant as it would not yield votes.
| 
