The ongoing tension and conflict in Maharashtra surrounding Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan show no signs of abating. Following Ahmednagar, Kolhapur, Navi Mumbai, Beed, and Nashik, the issue of displaying Aurangzeb’s picture has also emerged in Latur. The controversy surrounding the veneration of intolerant rulers and religious invaders is not new. Such perspectives and extremist tendencies are often observed among elements within fundamentalist sectors of society.
Resolving this issue is challenging without gaining a deep understanding of its root causes and the underlying mindset. Political parties, organisations that engage in identity-based politics, and those promoting religious bigotry, along with the Ulema-Maulvis and their followers who adhere to the philosophy of “Kufr-Kafir”, present rulers like Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan, and other religious invaders as heroes. However, the majority of people in the country view them as villains. Besides relying on historical sources and evidence to assess whether past rulers should be revered or vilified, the general public holds its own perspectives and beliefs. These perceptions are not formed overnight but are deeply entrenched in the social and cultural fabric of society, encompassing traditions, values, ideals, struggles, cooperation, happiness, sorrow, victory, defeat, pride, and disgrace.
Additionally, the ruler’s actions in promoting the welfare of their subjects play a significant role. The general populace of this country has historically valued generosity, tolerance, equanimity, and philanthropy over emperors, kings, and sultans who ruled for extended periods, conducted successful military campaigns, or established dominance over vast territories. The emphasis has been on kings who prioritise the welfare of their people and establish a just state. While religious fanatics, pseudo-secularist intellectuals, and so-called historians may make contrasting claims about Muslim invaders, Mughals, or rulers like Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan, the prevailing belief among the majority is that they were all cruel, barbaric, bigoted, tyrannical, and terrorists. Historical evidence and details substantiate this viewpoint.
Those who glorify the Mughals often overlook the fact that they, like Muhammad bin Qasim, Ghazni, Ghori, Khilji, Timur, Nadir, Abdali, were foreign invaders. They maintained a distinct identity separate from India and not only preserved it but also exaggerated it. Their allegiance was more towards the lands they hailed from, rather than India, despite spending a significant portion of the wealth looted from India on cities such as Samarkand, Khorasan, Damascus, Baghdad, Mecca, Medina, and various Islamic Caliphates. They associated themselves with the Timurid or Gurkani dynasty and took pride in their connection to Timur, who caused the deaths of millions of innocent Hindus in Delhi and wiped out approximately 5 percent of the world’s population. Their primary motive for coming to India was plunder, not the alleged development of the country as claimed by some intellectuals, historians, and filmmakers. After settling in India, they aimed to live a life of luxury and fill their coffers rather than supposedly building the nation. Babur disliked India and Indians to such an extent that he expressed his desire to be buried outside India upon death. Most Mughal emperors were excessively addicted to luxuries and indulgences.
Regarding moral character, adherence to life values, and ideal conduct, they pale in comparison to traditional Indian kings. They are remembered more for their arbitrary decisions, dictatorial decrees, and tales of excess than for good administration, good governance, and orderliness. With a few exceptions, such as Bahadur Shah Zafar, most Mughal emperors were deeply immersed in religious fanaticism and oppressed the majority. They demolished monasteries and temples, destroyed idols of gods, and burnt libraries on a large scale. Advocates of the so-called Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb (cultural assimilation) and proponents of secularism often glorify Akbar as the greatest ruler. Still, they fail to mention that he mercilessly killed 40,000 unarmed and innocent Hindus after capturing the fort of Chittor. Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and others are presented as ideal lovers in history, literature, and cinema, but the truth is that they were weak, indulgent, and sensual. In their quest for excessive indulgence, beauty, and pleasure, they disregarded relationships, and morality, and hesitated not to shed innocent blood. They forcibly brought thousands of women into their harems as captives, subjecting them to unimaginable tortures and discordant conditions.
According to Abul Fazl, Akbar’s harem alone had 5,000 women, most of whom were gifted to him through political treaties or victories in war. While the Mughal era is often praised for its advancements in art, architecture, and construction, it is neglected that there were no contemporary examples of such art or construction in the regions from where the Mughals originated. This is evidence that what we often attribute to the Mughals’ legacy is, in fact, the result of the traditional and original vision, craftsmanship, and skill of Indian craftsmen, architects, artisans, and artists.
As far as Aurangzeb’s bigotry is concerned, the decree he issued on April 9, 1669, is sufficient to show it, in which he ordered the destruction of all Hindu temples and educational centres. This destructive order was enforced in all 21 provinces of his sultanate, including significant locations like Kashi-Mathura.
Muhammad Safi Mustaidkhan, a court writer of Aurangzeb, mentions this decree in his book ‘Maasir-e-Alamgiri’. The Varanasi Gazetteer published in 1965, also references this order on page 57. Historians widely acknowledge that numerous revered temples suffered the consequences of this decree, including the Somnath Temple in Gujarat, Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Keshavdev Temple in Mathura, Chintamani Temple in Ahmedabad, Temple of Bijapur, Hatheshwar Temple in Vadnagar, three temples built on the banks of lakes in Udaipur, temples surrounding the Ujjain Temple, 63 temples in Chittor, Malarna Temple in Sawai Madhopur, and the Govind Dev Temple in Mathura constructed by Raja Mansingh in 1590. Across the country, hundreds of small and large temples were demolished, reflecting Aurangzeb’s religious inflexibility and fervour.
Furthermore, he imposed bans on Hindu festivals and religious practices, further exacerbating his disdain for the Hindu community. In 1679 AD, Aurangzeb intensified his discriminatory actions by imposing the Jizya tax on Hindus, effectively relegating them to second-class citizens or subjects. This tax was deeply humiliating, and it was forcibly collected from non-Muslims. By employing fear of his sword and rule, Aurangzeb conducted mass conversions of Hindus, demonstrating his willingness to resort to violence and force. He did not hesitate to kill innocent and unarmed Hindus for refusing to accept Islam. In his religious fervour, he displayed extreme cruelty and mercilessness by executing Sikh religious leader Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and his three followers, namely Bhai Mati Das, Sati Das, and Dayal Das. He even resorted to burying the sons of Guru Gobind Singh ji alive within walls, subjecting Sambhaji to inhuman tortures, and orchestrating the murders of his father and three brothers—Dara, Shuja, and Murad. Clearly, a ruler with such tendencies cannot be considered an ideal or hero of the masses. When contemplating the exception of Emperor Ashoka, it is important to recognise that his widespread acceptance in the world was primarily due to his unwavering commitment to eternal human principles such as truth, non-violence, love, and compassion, following his personal transformation and atonement—not driven by a desire for empire expansion or warmongering. The demand of humanity necessitates that there should be no place for a cruel, barbaric, and tyrannical ruler like Aurangzeb in any civilized, healthy, liberal, tolerant, and democratic society.
Similarly, those who praise Tipu Sultan conveniently disregard historical evidence and records that are replete with details of his cruelty, bigotry, and intolerance. In a letter dated January 19, 1790, addressed to Burduj Jamaun Khan, Tipu himself wrote, “Do you know that recently I have won a great victory over Malabar and converted more than four lakh Hindus to Islam.” In another letter to Syed Abdul Dulai and his officer Zaman Khan, he proudly states, “All the Hindus of Calicut have been converted to Muslims by the grace of Prophet Mohammad and Allah. Only some people from the border areas of Cochin State are yet to be converted. I will soon achieve success in this also.” Tipu inscribed on his sword, “My lord, help me to eliminate the infidels (non-Muslims) from the world.” According to ‘The Mysore Gazetteer,’ Tipu destroyed approximately 1000 temples. In Tipu’s words, “Even if I get the whole world, I will not stop destroying Hindu temples” (Freedom Struggle in Kerala). Between 1760 and 1790, he destroyed over 600 temples in Kodagu alone. Multiple sources indicate that Tipu Sultan demolished around 8000 temples. ‘Malabar Manual’ by William Logan, a 19th-century British official, published in 1964, along with Kate Brittlebank’s ‘Life of Tipu Sultan’ and the accounts of Mir Hussain Kirmani, one of his courtiers and biographers, establish Tipu’s reputation as an intolerant, bigoted, cruel, and tyrannical ruler. In his treatment of non-Muslim subjects, forced conversions of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and the demolition of thousands of temples, he resembled the infamous Aurangzeb of the South. According to historian Dr. Chidanand Murti, the Brahmins of Melkot in Mandya district still refrain from celebrating Diwali due to the large-scale massacre perpetrated by Tipu Sultan on the eve of Diwali. This massacre is documented in the diary of George Harris, the commander of Madras in the British Army at that time. Additionally, there are allegations that Tipu had sent invitations to numerous foreign rulers, including Afghan ruler Zaman Shah, to launch attacks on India.
In light of the aforementioned historical facts, it is understandable that a reaction would arise within communities when Aurangzeb or Tipu Sultan are repeatedly upheld as ideals or heroes in independent India. In order to foster a harmonious society, it is crucial to let go of unrealistic dreams like ‘Gazwa-e-Hind’ and fundamentalist mentalities. Taking pride in Islamic rulers or invaders whose historical legacy is marred by acts of injustice and atrocities against the majority population will only breed mutual distrust and conflict. Instead, the Muslim community can choose to celebrate figures like Rahim, Raskhan, Dara Shikoh, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Ashfaq Ullah Khan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Veer Abdul Hameed, and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam as shared heroes and role models. By highlighting these individuals, a sense of brotherhood can flourish in society, reducing the likelihood of conflicts and promoting a culture of tolerance & co-existence. The inclination to view and glorify fanatical rulers or invaders ultimately divides society. It not only perpetuates divisive narratives but also reopens wounds from the past, making them deeper and more permanent. It would have been beneficial if India’s liberal and enlightened Muslim society and leadership had actively discouraged the pride associated with such characters, consigning them to the annals of history. It is a universal truth that the ancestors of the majority of Muslims in India today themselves underwent conversion due to the injustices and atrocities committed by these religious invaders and intolerant rulers. It is important for all to recognise that changing one’s religion does not alter one’s ancestry, homeland, or culture.
