Manbir Singh Kohli of Sydney Radio Station Kehte Sunte 89.3 FM interviewed US-based South Asian historian Audrey Truschke recently. In her book ‘AURANGZEB: THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF INDIA’S MOST CONTROVERSIAL KING’ she reassesses Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir, widely reviled as a religious fanatic. The book an overview of his reign has ignited intense debates. Manbir asks Andrey simple questions about Aurangzeb and history writing often emerging in the minds of common people. Melbourne based Neeraj Nanda, Editor of South Asia Times (SAT) has transcribed the audio interview. Attempt has been made to get the gist of this rather informative and revealing interview.
Excerpts from the interview:
Q; What do you think about Aurangzeb?
A: He was a pre-modern Indian. Some non-historians prefer not to understand him historically but by judging him. A curtail figure in South Asian history he changed the state of Hindustan forever.
Q: Being from the US, how did you develop an interest in studying Sanskrit, Persian, a bit of Braj, and South Asian history?
A: It started in college and I discovered the vast depth of Sanskrit literature and poetry, I was absolutely blown away. It is not understood in the West, like Shakespeare. I made a career out of it and now a qualified professor of South Asian history. I came to Aurangzeb a bit later. I was interviewed by ‘The Hindu’ and my views about Akbar were controversial and edgy. As no one had presented Aurangzeb for a wider audience, I decided to try my hand at it. The book was a result of it.
Q: I read the book – Aurangzeb – The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King. The demonization of Aurangzeb started with the British and they projected him as a villain. What was the British motivation behind it?
A: The British started setting up shop in India and they had a hard job. Colonialism was a horrific enterprise. It was exploitation and horrible. The British were never in India in large numbers so they needed the cooperation of a large number of Indians. How do you sell something horrible? So, they said we are better than the guys before us and demonized the Mughals and Aurangzeb. There was anti- Mughal sentiment, Aurangzeb was pious and more a practicing Muslim. We the British are your saviors, they said. It was colonial propaganda.
These biases continue to this day and serve political purposes. Not for the Bengalis, but Hindu-nationalists.
Q: These views are considered biased and Dinanath Batra says Romila Thapar is not a true historian. As a layperson how do we distinguish between a biased or a non-biased historian? Or, which historian to follow?
A: Who is this person? What are his qualifications? Just because a historian has biases does not invalidate his writing. Training in history, discipline, and getting a Ph.D. is important.
Q: In India, there are historians who are shaping the way people read history. They are not historians but have an interest in history. Hindutva historians do not like you and you get a lot of flak on Twitter. How do we shape our view? He killed his brothers, imprisoned his father, went about killing the Sikh Gurus and his conversion plans. The narratives we grew on. He imposed the ‘Jazia’ on non-Muslims and destroyed temples.
A: I offer one way of seeing the past. But some do not want to listen. For those who want to listen: there is no evidence he wanted to convert everyone to Islam; Yes, there is small scale evidence of conversion; He broke a dozen or so temples is true; He imprisoned his father, yes. Shahjahan also killed many and I explain it.
Q: He destroyed a handful of temples. What was the reason. You say Hindu kings started this tradition of destroying temples of enemy kings.
A: Temples were places of political authority in pre-modern India. It is difficult to conceptualise this because these are today places of faith. In those days if you hit such a place actually you were hitting a place of authority. That explains why Aurangzeb destroyed this and not that. Look at Banaras today, why he did not destroy all the temples there.
Q: He wanted to convert the whole of India. Many did that for jobs?
A: Aurangzeb had no problem employing Hindus. He employed more Hindus compared to Shahjahan, Jahangir and Akbar. It was not because he loved Hindus, but because he incorporated more Hindu-majority lands in his empire. It wasn’t about religion but power. He did not object conversion to Islam. He basically wanted them to recognise Mughal authority. He was collecting taxes from them.
Q: Aurangzeb increased Hindu nobility to 50 % and Raja Raghunath was his finance head. He thought more of merit, than religion. This is different from what perceive of Aurangzeb.
A: Aurangzeb was exceptional for his time. In Sivaji’s army a major commander was a Muslim. Religion is a problem in the 21st century, it was not so in the 17th century.
Q: You write about Sanskrit poets recognising and praising Aurangzeb. Did they respect him or were bribed to do that?
A: It was something in-between. Many Sanskrit scholars were because of court patronage and my first book is about that.
Q: Why would Aurangzeb have translation of Ramayana and Mahabharata into Persian?
A: There were four translations of Mahabharata. Ramayana is a different story. It was done into Persian in 1580 and it became wild. A pre-modern best seller. The poets kept redoing it and we end up with about two dozen Persian Ramayana’s in 200 years. One in the early 18th century is dedicated to Aurangzeb (his final year of reign).
Q: Attempts are being made in India to remove Mogul history from the textbooks. Do you think future generations will be devoid of access to this period of history?
A: Historians are better for the past, not the future. I do not have a prediction or a crystal ball here. Yes, it is possible to ignite a population about their own history. Now, the Hindu nationalists will never be able to erase Mogul’s history. It will elevate its importance outside India. It’s unfortunate to see history politicized for terrible things. And because of this history is the looser.
Q: I heard, you say, whenever you fear history, you seek to distort it. The British did that with Indian history. The present dispensation is trying to change it. They say the Aryan invasion theory is not true. Why?
A: The problem with Hindu nationalists is that they depend on the past and completely mythologized. They are a house of cards. That is why they go after historians like me so hard. Early migration theory has to do with ethnic nationalism. The evidence is insurmountable. We are open to new discoveries. Hindu nationalists are not bringing new evidence but screaming louder and louder.
Regarding Mogul’s history, as I see it, it is digging up anti-Muslim sentiment, dog-whistle, we hate Aurangzeb, and hate present-day Muslims, and deadly violence. If you hate Muslims for hundreds of years, it normalizes that grammar. And false stories of oppression for so long. It becomes justifiable and violence in the present day.
The outcomes were different in British colonialism but the grammar is the same.
Q: Being proud of a 5,000 years’ glorious history, rather than of what actually we have. Is this unique to India?
A: Indians who want to be proud of their history don’t have to say it is glorious. It goes back to the Indus Valley history, the centre of the ancient world. It’s incredible stuff. Sanskrit literature produced in pre modernity was spread across much of Asia. You don’t have to make this stuff up. You do not have to bastardise your history.
One can imagine history but history is not that. What you have in India is history for so long, so diverse, and so glorious.
Why I have become so interested in it. Look for the facts, you don’t have to go to the Hindu nationalists. You will find incredible stuff. And, you should be proud of it.
