Last week, two news reports were published concerning Emperor Aurangzeb. In one report published in the Sept. 13 issue of The Times of India, it is stated that:
“In sharp contrast to Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s image of a temple destroyer in history books, an Allahabad-based historian has claimed that he had offered lavish grants and land to the ancient Someshwar Mahadev temple on the banks of Sangam in Arail. Historian and principal of Serveshwari Degree College, Pradeep Kesherwani, made this claim based on certain historical facts. ‘During one of his military campaigns, Aurangzeb and his army had spent time near the temple. During the stay, he not only visited the temple but also offered grant and land for its maintenance. This fact is mentioned on the Dharma Dand (religious pillar) situated on the temple premises,’ Kesherwani told TOI. ‘The pillar has 15 sentences in Sanskrit inscribed on it mentioning, ‘The ruler of the country visited the temple in 1674 and gave heavy grants to the temple, both in form of land and money’, said Kesherwani, lamenting that regular use of vermilion on the pillar, situated near Lord Hanuman’s idol, had made the inscription illegible.
“He said the fact also finds mention in the writings of the former Allahabad mayor Vishamber Nath Pandey, who later became the governor of Odisha. ‘Speaking in Rajya Sabha on July 28, 1977, Pandey informed the House that during his tenure as Chairman of Allahabad Nagar Palika, a dispute over the temple came before him. One of the parties presented documents regarding grants by Aurangzeb, both in terms of land and money. The matter was later referred to a committee headed by Justice T.B. Sapru. The committee sought documents from all temples that received ‘jagir’ (land) or money as donation from Aurangzeb,’ Kesherwani said. He said that several temples, including Maha Kaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umanand temple of Guwahati, Jain temples of Saranjay and some temples of South India, produced such testimonials before the committee headed by Justice Sapru.”
Another news report was published in The Hindu of Sept. 14, 2015, which was an e-mail interview of Audrey Truschke, Mellon postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Religious Studies at Stanford University, California, USA, regarding her book Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court, to be published in February 2016; the interviewer was Anuradha Raman.
To a question: “The present BJP government believes Mughals are not part of India’s history. Your book is about how Sanskrit, sought to be made mainstream by the government, flourished under the Mughals. How do we reconcile the two,” Prof. Audrey Truschke replied:
“We don’t reconcile the two perspectives. Rather, we ask two key questions. One, who is on firmer historical ground in their claims? Two, what are the political reasons for the BJP wanting to erase the Mughals (or at least most of the Mughals) from India’s past? The bulk of my work concerns the honest excavation of history. The Mughals are a significant part of Indian history, and Sanskrit is a significant part of the story of the Mughal Empire. Those facts may be inconvenient for the BJP and others, but as a historian I do not temper my investigation of the past in deference to present-day concerns. However, I realise that history matters in the present, perhaps especially in modern South Asia. One present-day implication of my work is to point up the flimsy basis of the BJP’s version of India’s past.
To another question: “Who were the Mughal rulers under whom there was active exchange of Sanskrit and Persian ideas, in your account,” Professor Audrey Truschke, said:
“Sanskrit flourished in the royal Mughal court primarily under three emperors: Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan. However, we should not make the error of attributing Aurangzeb’s lack of interest in Sanskrit to his alleged bigotry. Aurangzeb is a severely misunderstood historical figure who has suffered perhaps more than any of the other Mughal rulers from present-day biases. There are two main reasons why Sanskrit ceased to be a major part of Mughal imperial life during Aurangzeb’s rule. One, during the 17th century, Sanskrit was slowly giving way to Hindi. This was a wider literary shift in the subcontinent, and even under Shah Jahan we begin to see imperial attention directed towards Hindi-language intellectuals at the expense of Sanskrit. Aurangzeb’s reign simply happen to coincide with the waning of Sanskrit and the rise of literary Hindi.”
The facts are old
The aforesaid two facts regarding Aurangzeb are not new. Many historians have exposed the allegations of oppression and demolition of temples leveled against Aurangzeb as false. The importance of the aforesaid reports at this juncture is that they have come at a time when the BJP Government has renamed the Aurangzeb Road of New Delhi and once again a debate has erupted about the life and rule of Aurangzeb. Prof. Audrey Truschke has rightly observed, “Aurangzeb is a severely misunderstood historical figure who has suffered perhaps more than any of the other Mughal rulers from present-day biases.” It is quite evident that the work of distorting Muslim and Islamic history is an ongoing process. The minds of the new generation are being poisoned through distorted history and its incorporation in the school and academic books.
There is a need for moral courage
Those who are indulging in such work consider it as a great service to the country, whereas it is a great disservice to the country and its inhabitants. Destroying and spoiling the ethical standards of the new generation is not a constructive work. Speaking in Jaipur on 14 September 2015, the Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat, had said that the Hindu standards should be reviewed anew, and those standards which are unscientific should be discarded. This is a good sign. It is also gathered from the statements of Mr. Bhagwat that he wants to make Hinduism more acceptable to the world, particularly the West. But to achieve this they have to rise themselves ethically to a lofty position. When the aims are so high, the moral courage should also be of similar standard. The first and foremost task in this direction is that they have to take back all those false stories that are being taught in the schools for the last 90 years, because of which Muslims are being reviled. Surely, it is not easy for the ruling party to do so who has come to power based on these false stories. But the Sangh should ponder that the most unscientific thought process that has entered their psych is this distortion of history; the Sangh should give this up.