Prashant Koratkar and Rahul Solapurkar have insulted Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj terribly. The incompetence of the government and their utter negligence are being hidden behind the tomb of Aurangzeb. In reality, the government itself seems to be inciting riots. The ruling party is intentionally planning riots and arson in the state. When we see how Minister Rane speaks, we can’t help but wonder what’s going on in the minds of those in power. No one here respects Aurangzeb, and no one supports him. Muslims in this state, even during Shivaji Maharaj’s time, stayed loyal to the Chhatrapati, and today they still have faith in this land. Their loyalty has never been for sale. If it were, Muslims would never have been part of Shivaji Maharaj’s army. The Muslims here were loyal to the Chhatrapati then, and they are still loyal today. It was Anaji Pant and his descendants who betrayed Shivaji Maharaj and Swarajya. Not a single person in this state will support Aurangzeb. No one has recently constructed Aurangzeb’s tomb. So, why is the issue of his tomb being raised to disturb the atmosphere of the state? What is the real conspiracy behind this?

The Bahujan community needs to seriously consider this. We need to investigate whether the ruling party is more disturbed by Aurangzeb’s tomb or by the unparalleled valour of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Those with a Peshwa mindset have never accepted Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness. They have always denied his greatness. Either they have tried to attribute his achievements to a divine source, or they have tried to link his greatness to a guru he never had. They have constantly tried to push the narrative that Shivaji Maharaj was great only because of people from their caste, like Dadoji Konddev and Ramdas, or because their intelligent and capable people supported him. Purandare has written some horrific things while elevating Baji Prabhu Deshpande. They fabricated stories that Shivaji Maharaj received his sword from Goddess Bhavani to systematically deny the strength of his own arm. Later, they tried to portray Shivaji Maharaj as an incarnation and denied his towering human personality. To do this, they devised temples and hymns. They have tried to systematically deny his greatness or present it as something that happened due to someone else. These manipulative tactics have been going on for years. During Shivaji Maharaj’s lifetime, they tried to poison him. Later, they spread the historical lie that he died due to a knee disease. No one in history has ever died from a disease called “knee disease.” This disease didn’t exist before or after Shivaji Maharaj. Just like before and after Sant Tukaram, no one was taken to Vaikuntha by a plane. Similarly, no one except Shivaji Maharaj died of this “knee disease.” Yet, these vile liars inserted this fabricated lie into history and convinced the people of it. After Shivaji Maharaj’s death, they even made multiple attempts to assassinate Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Eventually, they succeeded. Using Aurangzeb as a tool, these conspirators orchestrated the murder of Sambhaji Maharaj and later shifted the blame onto his own relatives. These crooks had the power of the pen and used it to deceive history. With their poisonous writings, they destroyed generations of the Bahujan community.

After the fall of the Shivshahi, Shivaji Maharaj’s samadhi was neglected. It was Mahatma Phule who found and cleaned it. After finding Shivaji Maharaj’s samadhi, Mahatma Phule was severely criticised by casteist Brahmins in Pune. They insulted him by calling him “the king of the Kunbant” (a derogatory term).

Later, when there was an effort to build a statue of Shivaji Maharaj in Pune, casteist elements in Pune’s Sadashiv Peth raised a major protest. They tried to stop the statue from being built. The Peshwa mindset’s hatred of Shivaji Maharaj is well-known. It is not something new. This hatred has been growing in their minds for the past 400 years. This hatred is still being propagated by the likes of Koratkar.

During Shivaji Maharaj’s lifetime, they denied his greatness. They even rejected his coronation, mocking him by saying, “Who is the king? How are you our king? You are just a Shudra!” Since then, they have consistently tried to diminish Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness by attributing it to other things or persons, using various falsehoods and miracles.

In the past 400 years, these conspirators have not succeeded. The kings have triumphed over them. Now, the cunning ravens are pretending to embrace Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy and are conspiring to destroy it. They are trying to create riots in his name and use them to gain political power. They are trying to brand Muslim hatred to further their narrow goals. They have ignored his remarkable achievements and historical policies for the people, and instead, they focus only on trivialities, trying to minimize his greatness. They have put in more effort to destroy Shivaji Maharaj than Aurangzeb ever did.

After Shivaji Maharaj’s death, Aurangzeb prayed for him in the court, but these Peshwa scoundrels have never abandoned their malicious plans. This brahmical mindset and their allies, have consistently belittled Shivaji Maharaj. Madhavrao Golwalkar’s remarks and what Savarkar spoke about, both expose the hate-filled minds of these people. From Golwalkar, Savarkar, James Lane, Sripad Chindam, the traitor who built a statue with a wound on its forehead, to Rahul Solapurkar and Koratkar – this long list of traitors has one common goal: to destroy Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy.

These casteist Peshwa traitors still haven’t given up their goal. Now, they want to remove Aurangzeb’s tomb, but their real plan is to erase the legacy of Shivaji Maharaj, his immense achievements, and his valour. The tomb of Aurangzeb and the grave of Afzal Khan are reminders of Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness. They are symbols of his bravery. If it were not for these, Shivaji Maharaj would never have built Afzal Khan’s tomb. Jijabai must have told Shivaji Maharaj to do so. This is something even the casteist Brahmins should consider. Who was their father? What did he do? What did his words and actions tell us? These are the questions the people must ask themselves. If they remove Aurangzeb’s tomb or Afzal Khan’s grave, what will they present as evidence of Shivaji Maharaj’s valour?

Those who claim to be descendants of Shivaji Maharaj have become so intoxicated with power that they’ve lost all sense of reason. The Bahujan community has become enslaved by these Peshwa traitors. Even if these traitors put excrement in their hands, they still take it as a gift. What has happened to their intelligence? It’s as if their sense of reasoning is either paralyzed or completely gone. How long will they keep accepting this deceitful nonsense?

Until recently, Nitesh Rane was criticizing the Sangh and Fadnavis, and now he’s the one teaching us about Shivaji Maharaj’s history and Hindutva? This is a puzzling question: What has the Bahujan community learned from Shivaji Maharaj’s history under the influence of such traitors? This remains an unsolved mystery.

(The author, based in Sangli, has written the original in Marathi: he is editor of Vajradhari, a YouTube Channel)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

‘Aurangzeb ki auladen ‘, a term for Indian Muslims or high caste Hindus?

Kolhapur Maharashtra: Valorising Aurangzeb will now result in abuse & arrests

The post “It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

#WATCH | Maharashtra: Explosions heard on vehicles that have been torched in Mahal area of ​​Nagpur; tensions have broken out here following a dispute between two groups. pic.twitter.com/rssI72v8od

— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2025

#WATCH | Maharashtra: Tension breaks out in Mahal area of ​​Nagpur after a dispute between two groups. Vehicles vandalised and torched, stone pelting reported. Police personnel present in the area. Details awaited. pic.twitter.com/PPufCmM55N

— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2025

According to multiple media reports, the violence stemmed from a demonstration organised by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal near the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Nagpur’s Mahal area. The protesters gathered to demand the relocation of Aurangzeb’s tomb, which is situated in Khultabad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district (formerly Aurangabad). During the protest, slogans were raised, and demonstrators allegedly burned a photograph of Aurangzeb along with a “symbolic grave wrapped in a green cloth filled with grass.” Police sources indicate that the act of burning the green cloth reportedly sparked rumours, as many believed it contained sacred verses, leading to heightened tensions.

Following this, a group of around 80 to 100 people, allegedly from the religious minority community, reacted violently, pelting stones at the police and setting multiple vehicles ablaze. An alleged clash then took place between the Muslims and the protesting Hindus. The unrest led to serious injuries, including those sustained by security personnel attempting to control the mob. Among the injured are 10 anti-riot commandos, two senior police officers, and two fire department personnel. A constable remains in critical condition. The violence also resulted in large-scale destruction, with rioters torching two bulldozers and approximately 40 vehicles, including police vans.

To restore order, law enforcement resorted to using force, employing lathi-charge and tear gas to disperse the mob. In response to the deteriorating situation, Nagpur Police Commissioner Ravinder Kumar Singal imposed a curfew in several areas of the city under Section 163 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The curfew applies to the jurisdictions of Kotwali, Ganeshpeth, Tehsil, Lakadganj, Pachpaoli, Shantinagar, Sakkardara, Nandanvan, Imamwada, Yashodharanagar, and Kapilnagar police stations. The restrictions will remain in effect until further notice.

Authorities have confirmed that the situation is now under control. However, the scale of the violence, the number of injured, and the damage caused highlight the deep-seated tensions surrounding the issue. A PTI report states that at least four civilians have been injured, while more than a dozen police personnel sustained injuries during the clashes. Security forces remain deployed in the affected areas to prevent further escalation.

Nagpur (Maharashtra) violence | Curfew has been imposed in the Police station limits of Kotwali, Ganeshpeth, Lakadganj, Pachpaoali, Shantinagar, Sakkardara, Nandanvan, Imamwada, Yashodhara Nagar and Kapil Nagar in Nagpur city. This curfew will remain in force until further… pic.twitter.com/N3CqzKcMv1

— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2025

Misinformation and rumours ignite unrest in Nagpur

The violence in Nagpur on the night of March 17 was largely fuelled by misinformation and rumours that spread rapidly on social media. The unrest followed a demonstration organised by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) near the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Mahal at around 8:30 pm. Protesters had gathered to demand the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb from Maharashtra and burned his effigy as part of their demonstration.

Hours later, tensions flared when rumours began circulating that activists from Hindu groups, including VHP and Bajrang Dal, had burned a piece of cloth inscribed with the holy kalma (Islamic prayer) and had also set fire to a copy of the Quran. According to police reports, videos of the Bajrang Dal demonstration quickly spread across social media, leading to outrage within the Muslim community. What police authorities did when and while such rumours flew fast is however, unclear. A formal complaint was subsequently lodged at the Ganeshpeth police station, alleging that a holy book had been desecrated. However, Bajrang Dal office-bearers refuted these claims, stating that they had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb and had not targeted any religious text.

As news of the alleged Quran burning spread, anger intensified. The situation escalated when reports surfaced that VHP-Bajrang Dal protesters had also burned a religious chadar near Shivaji Putla Square at Mahal Gate, a location just 2 km from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) headquarters. Clearly this was an act meant to provoke and it is not at all evident that action was initiated by the police against these miscreants. In response, a large group gathered in protest, demanding immediate action against those responsible. The protest soon turned violent, resulting in stone-pelting, arson, and violent clashes with the police.

Officials confirmed that social media played a significant role in spreading misinformation, fuelling tensions between communities. As the unrest escalated, security forces deployed riot-control measures, including water cannons and tear gas, in an attempt to disperse the crowd. Several officers were injured in the process, including Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) Archit Chandak and Niketan Kadam. Firefighters attempting to douse burning vehicles were also caught in the violence.

Eyewitnesses reported that the clashes started around 7:30 pm in the Chitnis Park area of Mahal, where groups hurled stones at the police, leaving six civilians and three officers injured. The violence then spread to other parts of the city, including Kotwali and Ganeshpeth, intensifying as the evening progressed. A resident, Sunil Peshne, told ANI that a mob of 500 to 1,000 people engaged in stone-pelting and torched multiple vehicles. He claimed that around 25-30 vehicles were damaged or destroyed during the chaos.

The timing of the unrest was particularly sensitive, as Monday marked the birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the Maratha warrior-king. It also coincided with the holy month of Ramzan, further heightening religious sensitivities. The call for the demolition of Aurangzeb’s tomb at Khuldabad in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar had gained traction on this day, adding to the charged atmosphere.

Authorities are currently reviewing CCTV footage and video clips to identify those involved in the violence. An FIR has been registered, and police teams are actively working to track down the culprits. Officials reported that the Chitnis Park to Shukrawari Talao road belt was among the worst-affected areas, where multiple four-wheelers were torched by rioters.

Residents of the Old Hislop College area near Chitnis Park spoke to PTI and claimed that a mob entered their locality around 7:30 pm, hurling stones at homes and vandalising parked cars. At least four cars were damaged, with one vehicle completely burnt. The rioters also destroyed water coolers and shattered windows before fleeing. Some residents attempted to control the fires themselves by arranging water to douse the burning vehicles.

A resident of the Hansapuri area, Sharad Gupta, recounted how his four two-wheelers, which were parked outside his home, were set ablaze by the mob between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. He suffered injuries in the attack and said the rioters also vandalised a neighbouring shop. He further alleged that the police arrived only an hour after the incident, by which time significant damage had already been done.

Fearing for their safety, some residents locked their homes and fled to safer locations in the middle of the night. A PTI correspondent witnessed a couple leaving their house at 1:20 am, seeking refuge elsewhere. Meanwhile, Chandrakant Kawde, a local resident involved in preparations for the Ram Navami Shobha Yatra, reported that the mob burned all his decoration materials and pelted stones at homes in the vicinity.

Angry residents have called for immediate police action against those responsible for the violence. While the situation is currently under control, tensions remain high as authorities continue their investigation.

#WATCH | Maharashtra | A local shopkeeper from Nagpur’s violence-hit Hansapuri area says, “At 10.30 pm, I closed my shop. Suddenly, I saw people torching vehicles. When I tried to douse the fire, I was hit with a stone. My two vehicles and a few other vehicles parked nearby were… pic.twitter.com/tisqTd87d2

— ANI (@ANI) March 18, 2025

Nagpur (Maharashtra) violence | Nagpur Police say – Nagpur Police has issued prohibitory orders in the city after the stone pelting and arson incident in Mahal area. More than 20 have been detained till now. Police are looking into the CCTV footage and other video clips available…

— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2025

Police crackdown and heightened security measures

In response to the escalating violence in Nagpur, Police Commissioner Ravinder Singal deployed over 1,000 officers and imposed prohibitory orders in key areas, including Mahal, Chitnis Park Chowk, and Bhaldarpura, to restrict movement in high-risk zones. According to a Times of India report, key roads were sealed, while additional reinforcements and intelligence teams were brought in to prevent further clashes. Despite the heavy police presence, sporadic incidents of stone-throwing continued late into the night, keeping security forces on high alert.

To maintain order, authorities utilised surveillance vehicles equipped with CCTV cameras to monitor the situation in real time. Public address systems were also used to issue warnings and instruct citizens to remain indoors. Local peace committees were activated, with law enforcement urging community leaders to play a role in de-escalating tensions and preventing further violence.

Meanwhile, security around Aurangzeb’s tomb in Khuldabad has been significantly tightened following threats against the monument. Visitors are now required to register their details and provide identification before entering the site. Additional forces, including the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF), local police, and Home Guard personnel, have been deployed in the vicinity to prevent any attempts at vandalism or desecration. Authorities remain on high alert as they continue to monitor the situation and work towards restoring normalcy.

Statement by the law enforcement authorities

Amid the volatile situation, Nagpur Police Commissioner Dr Ravinder Singal provided an update, asserting that law enforcement had responded swiftly to restore normalcy. He clarified that tensions escalated following the burning of a photograph, which led to protests and growing unrest.

“A photo was burned, leading to a group gathering and raising concerns. We intervened immediately, and some individuals visited my office to discuss the matter. I assured them that an FIR had already been filed based on the names they provided, and appropriate legal action will follow.”

Dr Singal also provided details regarding the extent of the violence, noting that the incident unfolded between 8:00 and 8:30 pm. While stone pelting and arson took place, he stated that the damage was not as widespread as initially reported.

“The destruction is relatively limited—so far, two vehicles have been set on fire. We are continuing to assess the full extent of the damage. Combing operations are underway to identify and arrest those responsible.”

#WATCH | Nagpur (Maharashtra) violence: Nagpur Police Commissioner Dr Ravinder Singal says, “The situation is peaceful right now. A photo was burned following which people gathered, they made a request and we even took action in this respect. They had even come to my office to… pic.twitter.com/T4CljMg4At

— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2025

To prevent further disturbances, Section 163 of the BNS, which prohibits gatherings of four or more people, has been imposed in the affected area. The Police Commissioner urged people to avoid unnecessary outings and refrain from taking the law into their own hands.

“We strongly advise citizens not to step out unless necessary and to refrain from spreading or acting upon false information. Other parts of Nagpur remain peaceful, with only the affected area under heightened security.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Archit Chandak attributed the unrest to miscommunication and misinformation, confirming that the situation was now under control. He reassured the public that security measures had been strengthened to prevent any further escalation.

“We have deployed a strong security presence, and the situation is currently under control. I appeal to everyone to avoid engaging in violence, including stone-pelting.”

During the clashes, several police personnel allegedly sustained injuries, including DCP Chandak himself, who was struck in the leg. Despite this, he reaffirmed the commitment of law enforcement to maintaining order.

“The Fire Brigade was immediately called in to extinguish the fires, and prompt action was taken to disperse the crowds.”

A senior Nagpur Fire Brigade official confirmed that multiple vehicles had been torched, particularly in the Mahal area.

“Two JCBs and several other vehicles have been damaged due to arson. Unfortunately, one of our firefighters sustained injuries while trying to control the fire.”

While the immediate violence has been contained, authorities remain on high alert to prevent any recurrence. However, it has been reported that the VHP further signalled that their agitation could intensify and expand beyond Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, potentially spreading across Marathwada and other districts if their demands were not met. Their statements suggest a widening of communal tensions, raising concerns about further unrest and polarisation in the region.

Speeches prior to the clashes

The communal clashes were preceded by escalating demands for the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb, a call that gained momentum among right-wing Hindu nationalist groups, particularly the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The organisation submitted a memorandum to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, asserting that the tomb symbolised oppression and referencing Aurangzeb’s execution of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj and his destruction of Hindu temples. Protests in support of this demand had already taken place in Nagpur and suburban Mumbai, intensifying communal tensions in the state.

BJP MLA and Cabinet Minister Nitesh Rane’s call for Hindutva action: On the eve of the clashes, Maharashtra Minister Nitesh Rane invoked the demolition of the Babri Masjid, calling upon Hindutva groups to take matters into their own hands while assuring that the government would fulfil its role. Speaking at Shivneri Fort in Pune district on the occasion of Shivaji Maharaj’s birth anniversary, Rane made his position clear:

“The government will do its part while Hindutva outfits must do theirs. When Babri Masjid was being demolished, we did not sit and talk to each other. Our karsevaks did what was appropriate.”

His statements came as the VHP staged protests at government offices across Maharashtra, demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb and warning that if the government failed to act, they would march to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district and demolish the grave themselves.

Rane further sought to reshape historical narratives, denouncing any portrayal of Shivaji Maharaj as a secular king.

“We must continuously emphasise that Shivaji Maharaj was the founder of Hindvi Swarajya. This identity must be reiterated repeatedly so that the attempts of certain groups to portray him as a secular king can be thwarted by true devotees of Shivaji Maharaj,” he declared.

He insisted that Shivaji Maharaj’s army never included Muslim soldiers, claiming that the British themselves had recognised him as a “Hindu General.” Rane referred to historical documents that allegedly portrayed the Maratha ruler’s conflict with the Adil Shah dynasty as a religious battle, stating that “the spread of Islam was hindered during Shivaji Maharaj’s reign.”

He also referenced the film Chhaava, which depicts the torture and execution of Sambhaji Maharaj by Aurangzeb, using it to reinforce his narrative that the conflict was driven by religion.

“Aurangzeb demanded that Sambhaji Maharaj convert to Islam. Those who argue that their battle was not against Islam, how do they explain this? If it wasn’t a fight for religion, then what kind of war was it?” he asked.

Rane concluded with a veiled call to action, stating, “This is a significant day. As a minister, I have limitations on how much I can openly say, but you all know my views. Today, I am a minister, tomorrow I may not be, but until my last breath, I will remain a Hindu.”

Statements by CM Devendra Fadnavis and other BJP leaders: Earlier on the day of the clashes, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, while inaugurating a temple dedicated to Shivaji Maharaj in Bhiwandi, reiterated that the government would protect Aurangzeb’s grave but would not allow its “glorification.”

“It is unfortunate that we have to protect Aurangzeb’s grave since it was declared a protected site by the ASI 50 years ago. Aurangzeb killed thousands of our people, but we have to protect his grave,” he said in response to calls for its removal.

In Pune, right-wing groups gathered outside the district collector’s office, raising slogans and submitting a memorandum addressed to Fadnavis, insisting that the tomb should be removed as it was a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

The issue gained further traction when Fadnavis, on March 15, 2025, explicitly stated that he and his party believed that Aurangzeb’s grave should be removed from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, formerly Aurangabad. However, he acknowledged that since it was a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), any action must be taken in accordance with the law.

Fadnavis’ remarks were in response to BJP MP Udayanraje Bhosale’s demand to demolish Aurangzeb’s grave in Khuldabad. Bhosale, a descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, had openly called for its destruction. “What is the need for the tomb? Bring in a JCB machine and raze it down. Aurangzeb was a thief and a looter,” he declared. His statement followed a heated debate sparked by Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi, who had earlier defended Aurangzeb as a “good administrator,” dismissing claims that he forcefully converted Hindus. Azmi’s comments led to his suspension from the state assembly for the remainder of the budget session.

BJP MLA T. Raja Singh’s open call to violence: The communal atmosphere further deteriorated when Telangana BJP MLA T. Raja Singh, speaking at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal in Pune, tore a picture of Aurangzeb and called for violence against his admirers.

“The way I tore this poster, you should tear up those Aurangzeb lovers. We won’t stop; we will create history,” he declared.

He directly incited violence, stating, “Just like we broke Babri, now we will erase Aurangzeb’s tomb. We are ready to do this; we are ready to get our heads chopped and chop the heads of those terrorists.” He continued, “We are not scared to kill our enemies.”

Singh asserted that all Indians wanted Aurangzeb’s grave demolished and framed his demand within the broader goal of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. Though facing several criminal charges including in Maharashtra, this elected representative has not been once arrested in Maharashtra.

“I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra and fight a war for that. I want to create ‘Hindu Veers’ (militias) and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb. I don’t care if the BJP expels me for this. A bulldozer needs to be used on that tomb.”

#WATCH | Speaking at an event in Maharashtra’s Pune yesterday, Telangana BJP MLA T Raja Singh said, “…The Hindus in Maharashtra want that Aurangzeb’s grave should be erased from the state…Kab tutegi Aurangzeb ki kabr?..I have only resolve now – to make India a ‘Hindu Rashtra’… pic.twitter.com/hpgUeV65pC

— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2025

Deputy CM Eknath Shinde’s Remarks on ‘Traitors’: Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, speaking at an event commemorating ‘Shiv Jayanti’ in Thane district, described those who continued to praise Aurangzeb as “traitors.”

“Aurangzeb came to seize Maharashtra, but he faced the divine power of Shivaji Maharaj. Those who still sing his praises are nothing but traitors,” he declared.

Shinde contrasted Aurangzeb’s “oppression” with Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy, portraying him as a “divine force” who symbolised bravery, sacrifice, and Hindutva. He stated, “Shiv Chhatrapati is the pride of a united India and the roar of Hindutva. Shivaji Maharaj was a visionary leader, a man of the era, a promoter of justice, and a king of the commoners.”

The climate of hostility and mistrust: These speeches, delivered in the weeks and days leading up to the clashes, fostered an environment of mistrust, communal polarisation, and incitement to violence. By framing the issue of Aurangzeb’s tomb as a direct affront to Hindu pride and linking it to historical grievances, political leaders and right-wing groups stoked tensions, encouraging hostility and, in some cases, explicitly calling for extra-legal action. The convergence of these narratives created a volatile atmosphere where communal violence became not just a possibility but an almost inevitable outcome.

Understanding the Nagpur communal clash through the “Pyramid of Hate”

The communal clash in Nagpur unfolded through a series of events—beginning with a movie distorting history followed by hate speeches promoting the historical distortion and giving it a communal angle, a planned protest, rumour-mongering, and culminating in violent clashes. This progression aligns with the “Pyramid of Hate”, which explains how intolerance grows in society, starting from implicit biases and eventually leading to violent consequences.

The Pyramid of Hate teaches us that violence is never sudden—it is a process often occurring after a systemic build-up. The Nagpur incident demonstrates how communal intolerance spreads step by step, from biased portrayals in media to unchecked hate speech, discriminatory institutional responses, and eventual clashes. To prevent such violence, it is crucial to intervene early in the pyramid—countering hate speech, debunking misinformation, and ensuring impartial law enforcement. Hate must be confronted at its roots—before it manifests in bloodshed.

1. Biased Attitudes: The role of media and stereotyping

At the foundation of the Pyramid of Hate lie biased attitudes, which include stereotyping, micro aggressions, and unchecked prejudices. In this case, the movie “Chhaava” triggered the controversy of the fight between Aurangzeb and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj to be about the fight between two people of different faith, wherein Aurangzeb tortured the Maratha ruler because he refused to convert to Islam, the said movie, with its violent representation, allegedly contained misrepresentations or one-sided portrayals of the Mughal ruler, which was then used to reinforce existing biases against Muslims. Films have historically, and more often recently, played a role in shaping public perception, and when a narrative demonises a group, it provides fertile ground for hateful ideologies to take root. This leads people to see the “other” as inherently different or dangerous, setting the stage for further hostility.

2. Acts of Prejudice: Hate speeches and protest

As biased attitudes become more socially acceptable, they manifest in acts of prejudice, which include hate speech, social exclusion, and dehumanisation. In the Nagpur incident, hate speeches followed the release of the film, with individuals and organisations openly expressing hostility toward Muslims, deeming them to be followers of Aurangzeb and “traitors”. These speeches did not occur in isolation; they were meant to provoke reactions and mobilise groups around a shared sense of grievance.

The subsequent protest further escalated tensions. While protest itself is a legitimate form of expression, it often turns into a platform for inflammatory rhetoric. In this case, the demonstration was not just about dissent; it became a catalyst for heightened communal sentiments, reinforcing the idea that one group was under threat from another.

3. Discrimination: Institutional neglect and selective action

Hate does not spread in a vacuum; it requires institutional tolerance. Discrimination, the third stage of the Pyramid, involves systemic inequities in policies and enforcement. In many instances of communal conflict in India, law enforcement is accused of being slow to act or biased in its response. If authorities fail to curb hate speech, misinformation, or mob violence, it signals tacit approval of discrimination.

In Nagpur, the law enforcement allowed the hate speeches and protests to go unchecked in case of BJP MLA T. Raja Singh, it contributed to the escalation. Additionally, with the State CM and Deputy CM also echoing the same divisive sentiment by indulging in inflammatory diatribe against Aurangzeb and his tome, other influential leaders also got the leeway to make offensive statements. Failure to counter false narratives spread through rumour-mongering further alienated communities and deepened mistrust. This selective action—or inaction—allowed prejudice to turn into active hostility.

4. Bias-Motivated Violence: The clashes

As tensions continued to rise, the situation eventually escalated into violent clashes. This stage of the Pyramid—bias-motivated violence—includes assaults, arson, and attacks on property or individuals based on identity. At this stage, hate is no longer just a belief or rhetoric; it translates into direct harm.

The violence in Nagpur was not spontaneous; it was the culmination of escalating intolerance. The clash was a symptom of the deep-seated communal divisions that had been nurtured through earlier stages. When rumours spread unchecked and violence is justified in the name of retaliation, the possibility of a full-scale riot increases.

5. Genocide: The extreme end of the Pyramid

At the very top of the Pyramid lies genocide—the systematic destruction of a group. While the Nagpur clash did not reach this extreme, history shows that unchecked hate can escalate to large-scale atrocities. Incidents like the 2002 Gujarat riots, the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, and the 2020 Delhi riots all followed a similar trajectory, beginning with hate speech and rumours before descending into mass violence.

CM Fadnavis and Union Minister Gadkari appeal for calm

In the wake of communal violence in Nagpur, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Union Minister Nitin Gadkari have urged residents to remain calm and not be swayed by misinformation. Highlighting Nagpur’s legacy as a city known for communal harmony, Fadnavis called upon citizens to support law enforcement efforts and refrain from spreading or acting on rumours.

#WATCH | Nagpur (Maharashtra) violence: Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis says, “The manner in which the situation became tense in Mahal area of Nagpur is highly condemnable. A few people pelted stones, even at the Police. This is wrong. I am keeping an eye on the situation. I… pic.twitter.com/nBUqPv7D5U

— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2025

“Nagpur has always been a symbol of peaceful coexistence. I appeal to all residents not to fall for false information and to cooperate with the police in maintaining order.”

Union Minister and Nagpur MP Nitin Gadkari echoed similar concerns, attributing the unrest to rumour-mongering. Stressing the importance of upholding the city’s tradition of peace, he appealed for restraint.

“Certain rumours have created a situation of religious tension in Nagpur. However, our city has always demonstrated unity in such circumstances. I urge everyone not to believe or spread misinformation and to ensure peace prevails.”

Criticism of the state government’s handling of Nagpur violence

While the administration sought to de-escalate tensions, the Maharashtra government faced sharp criticism from the opposition over its handling of the situation. Shiv Sena (UBT) spokesperson Anand Dubey held the government responsible for its failure to prevent the violence, pointing to a collapse in law and order. Expressing deep concern, he remarked,

“Maintaining law and order is the fundamental duty of any state government. The violence in Nagpur is highly regrettable—vehicles have been torched, stones have been thrown, and the situation has spiralled out of control. This is a city where people of all communities have historically lived in peace. The government has clearly failed to foster unity and prevent such unrest.”

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray took to X, stating, “The law and order of the state has collapsed like never before. Nagpur, the home city of the CM and Home Minister, is facing this.” His remarks underscored the irony of unrest unfolding in the stronghold of Maharashtra’s Chief Minister and Home Minister.

The law and order of the state has collapsed like never before. Nagpur, the home city of the CM and Home Minister, is facing this. https://t.co/AJxitSe1JB

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) March 17, 2025

Supriya Sule, Lok Sabha MP from the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), also condemned the violence, calling it unfortunate. She urged citizens to “not believe in any rumours” and appealed for mutual harmony, reminding people that Maharashtra has always been a land of progressive ideas.

नागपूर शहरात दोन गटांमध्ये झालेल्या हिंसाचारात मोठे नुकसान झाले. ही घटना अतिशय दुःखद आणि दुर्दैवी आहे. नागरीकांना आवाहन आहे की कृपया कोणत्याही अफवेवर विश्वास ठेवू नका. परस्पर सामंजस्य आणि सौहार्दाचे वातावरण कायम ठेवण्याच्या दृष्टीने आपण सर्वांनी मिळून प्रयत्न करुयात. हा…

— Supriya Sule (@supriya_sule) March 18, 2025

Congress leader Pawan Khera pointed out that Nagpur has not witnessed riots in 300 years, suggesting that recent events were a deliberate attempt to stoke historical divisions for political gains. “Over the last several days, attempts were being made to weaponise 300-year-old history and use it now to create divisions, distractions, and unrest. These clashes expose the real face of the ideology of the ruling regime—both at the Centre and in the state,” he stated.

Reports of riots in Nagpur are deeply disturbing. Mahal is Chief Minister’s own area. In its 300 years of dynamic existence, Nagpur has never experienced riots.
Over the last several days, attempts were being made to weaponise 300 year old history and use it now to create… https://t.co/gqC5cAyz3B

— Pawan Khera (@Pawankhera) March 17, 2025

Leader of Opposition in the Maharashtra Assembly, Congress MLA Vijay Waddetiwar, went a step further, alleging that the violence was “government-sponsored”. He demanded a ban on Telangana BJP leader T Raja in Maharashtra, accusing him of instigating communal tensions. He also questioned why the BJP government, despite being in power both at the state and central levels, was protesting over the Aurangzeb issue instead of governing effectively.

Similarly, Ambadas Danve, Leader of Opposition in the Maharashtra Legislative Council, blamed CM Devendra Fadnavis and his government for the unrest, asserting that the BJP was deliberately fuelling communal disharmony in the state.

Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi also slammed the ruling party, warning that the Maharashtra government was “ruining the state for political opportunism and leading it towards a violent implosion.” She pointed out that the violence occurred in Nagpur, the constituency of both the Chief Minister and the Home Minister, making their failure to control the situation even more glaring.

Instigating violence, creating instability in the state, keeping the citizens busy over the past history while getting away with tough questions on the state’s financial doom, increased debt burden, growing joblessness and farmer suicides. Maharashtra is being strategically led…

— Priyanka Chaturvedi (@priyankac19) March 18, 2025

The opposition’s critique highlights growing concerns over state-sponsored communal polarisation, the failure of law enforcement, and political machinations aimed at deepening religious divides in Maharashtra.

Related:

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

The post How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What was ‘provocative’ has not yet been publicly explained which seems to suggest that despite no legal ban on displaying of photos of either Aurangzeb or Tipu, social media posts by three Muslims boys have been declared a crime. Despite the arrest of those who posted these photos, the Hindutva goons in their hundreds decided to descend upon the city. This was done despite Maharashtra being ruled by leaders aligned to both the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and their affiliates’ aggressive brand of Hindutva politics. A point of note is that independent India’s first Minister for Home Affairs (MHA), Sardar Patel, lived in a house at Aurangzeb Road (1, Aurangzeb Road) till his death (December 15, 1950) in New Delhi. The name of the road did not offend this ‘Iron Man’ a current favourite of both PM Modi and RSS.

The latest in this sorry, recent  saga is that on May 11, an FIR was registered by the Navi Mumbai police against a man, Wasi for displaying Aurangzeb’s image as his Whatsapp profile picture. He was arrested when local Hindutva organisations lodged a complaint with the police.

‘Provocative’ social posts or no posts whole of Maharashtra has been witnessing the running amok of the Hindutva bandwagon. One prominent English daily described the horrible reality in the following words:

“Since November, under the banner of the amorphous Sakal Hindu Samaj, an umbrella body with no single leader or organisation, and many outfits linked to the Sangh Parivar, ‘Hindu jan aakrosh’ morchas or rallies have been held across the state’s districts. Their stated agenda: To press for laws against ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad’.

“The attendance of BJP and (Shinde) Sena leaders, MLAs, and office-bearers at many of these rallies and the climate of impunity in which hate speeches are made and minority-baiting takes place, frame an attempt by the BJP to corner its main rival for the Hindutva vote, the Uddhav Thackeray-led Sena. In the process, it also frames a curious phenomenon — of the BJP, indirectly and in local contexts, mobilising on the streets in ways that threaten the rule of law, to press its demands in a state where its own government is in power.”

[Editorial, ‘Express View on Devendra Fadnavis’s communal rhetoric: Dog-whistle in Mumbai’ in The Indian Express, Delhi, June 10, 2023. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/devendra-fadnavis-aurangzeb-ki-aulad-kolhapur-communal-tension-8655090/]

The most shameful response to Kolhapur violence came from Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister, who also holds the home ministry portfolio. When violence by the Hindutva goons was still on and the local law and order establishment under Fadnavis was yet to analyze the causes of the violence he declared:

“Sawal yeh uthta hai ke Achanak Itni Aurangzeb ki auladen kahan se paida hogayi ? Iske peeche kon hai ? Iska Asli Malik Kon hai yeh bhi hum dhoond ke nikalnege…Kon Maharashtra me qanokn Vayvastha kharab ho, Maharashtra ka naam kharab ho yeh karne ki koshish kar raha hai yeh bhi hum dhoondkar nikalenge.

[The question arises that suddenly from where have so many Aurangzeb’s off-springs born? Someone is behind it. Who is the real culprit/creator we will have to unearth. Who are trying to spoil the law-and-order situation and who want Maharashtra to be defamed, this also we will find out.]”

[https://gallinews.com/achanak-itni-aurangzeb-ki-auladen-kahan-se-paida-hui-kolhapur-protest-hone-par-bole-dcm-devndra-fadnavis/]

This shocking statement can only be described as dangerous, toxic and motivated by a deep communal prejudice. This kind of language is learned (and thereafter spoken) in Hindutva-inspired boudhik shivirs [intellectual training camps] and does not augur well for the stability of the rule of law (writ of the Constitution) in Maharashtra. It is sad that failure of the home department in controlling the excesses of the Hindutva zealots is being covered up by using hysterical Hindutva rhetoric. Such language does not befit a man holding a constitutional position and explanations need to be sought from him.

Next to the content of communal diatribe by Deputy Chief Minister, Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis.

Does Fadnavis when he brands those Indian Muslims who put up photo of Aurangzeb in their social media posts “Aurangzeb ki Auladen” actually mean that these Muslims are the direct descendants of Aurangzeb or Mughal rulers? No.

Fadnavis is using the term as a metaphor to describe these Indian Muslims as carriers of Aurangzeb’s heritage. Is it true that Indian Muslims represent or carry forward the heritage of Aurangzeb? This is a falsehood constructed and magnified by the Hindutva supremacists (nationalists). Even the mainstream ‘Hindu’ narrative of Aurangzeb’s rule reveals that his rule like the rule of other Mughal rulers of India was also the rule of Hindu Privileged (High) Castes as all contemporary documents establish.

Hindutva zealots like Fadnavis must know that the ‘Islamic’ rule of Aurangzeb or Mughal rule survived due to large sections of these Hindu privileged (high) castes joining the ‘Muslim’ rulers in running their empires with just a few exceptions. How cemented this alliance was can be gauged by the fact that after Akbar no Mughal emperor was born of a Muslim mother. Moreover, Hindu high Castes provided brain and muscles to the ‘Muslim’ rulers most faithfully.

Aurobindo Ghose who played prominent role in providing a “Hindu foundation” to Indian nationalism confessed that Mughal rule could continue only due to the fact that Mughal rulers gave Hindus, “positions of power and responsibility, used their brain and arm to preserve” their kingdom. [Cited in Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 3, Publication Division  Government of India, Delhi, 1992, p. 162.]

Renowned historian Tara Chand relying on the primary source material of the medieval period concluded that the from the end of 16^th century to the middle of 19^th century, “it may reasonably be concluded that in the whole of India, excepting the western Punjab, superior rights in land had come to vest in the hands of Hindus” most of whom happened to be Rajputs.

[Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 1, Publication Division  Government of India, Delhi, 1961, p. 124.]

Maasir al-Umara  [biographies of the commanders] a biographical dictionary of the officers in the Mughal Empire beginning from 1556 to 1780 [Akbar to Shah Alam] is regarded as the most authentic record of the high rank officials employed by the Mughal rulers. This work was compiled by Shahnawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai between 1741 and 1780. According to it Mughal rulers in this period employed around 100 (out of 365) high-ranking officials most of them “Rajputs from Rajputana, the midlands, Bundelkhand and Maharashtra”. Brahmins followed Rajputs in manning the Mughal administration so far as the number was concerned.

[Khan, Shah Nawaz, Abdul Hai, Maasir al-Umara [translated by H Beveridge as Mathir-ul-Umra], volumes 1& 2, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.]

Interestingly, Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha [established in 1893] “committed to the cause of Hindi as official language” published Hindi translation of this book in 1931.

It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb [1618-1707] did not commit heinous crimes against his Indian subjects. It needs to be remembered that his cruelty was not restricted to non-Muslims, his own father, brothers, Shias, those Muslims who did not follow his brand of Islam and Muslim ruling dynasties in the eastern, central and western parts of India faced brutal repression and were annihilated.

Aurangzeb executed renowned Sufi saint, Sarmad in the precinct of Jama Masjid of Delhi [his grave at the end of stairs on the eastern gate of Jama Masjid is revered by many]. It is also true that there were countless cases when Hindus and their religious places were violently targetted during Aurangzeb’s despotic rule.

However, there are contemporary records also available of his patronizing Hindu and Jain religious places. Two living examples are the grand Gauri Shankar temple, a stone’s throw away from Lahori Gate of Red Fort, built during Shahjahan’s reign which continued functioning during Aurangzeb’s reign and Jain Lal Mandir just opposite Red Fort.

[Trushke, Audrey, Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, Penguin, Gurgaon, 2017, pp. 99-106.]

Reducing all his crimes to the repression of Hindus only will tantamount to reducing the gravity of his crimes against humanity.

Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji in the battle-field. It was his commander-in-chief, a Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), Jay Singh I (1611–1667) who was sent to subjugate Shivaji (1603-1680). Jay Singh II (1681-1743), (nephew of Jay Singh I) was other prominent Rajput commander of the Mughal forces who served Aurangzeb. He was conferred the title of ‘Sawai’ [one and a quarter times superior to his contemporaries] chief by Aurangzeb in 1699 and thus came to be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. He was also given the title of Mirza Raja [a Persian title for a royal prince] by Aurangzeb. The other titles bestowed on him by other Mughal rulers were ‘Sarmad-i-Rajaha-i-Hind’ [eternal ruler of India], ‘Raj Rajeshvar’ [lord of kings] and ‘Shri Shantanu ji’ [wholesome king]. These titles are displayed by his descendants even today.

We have first-hand account of Raja Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayasth who functioned as Deewan Ala (prime minister) of both Shahjahan, and Aurangzeb. According to a biographical work penned by one of his direct descendants,

“Raja Raghunath Bahadur having attained to the most exalted rank of Diwan Ala (prime minister) was not unmindful of the interests of his caste-fellows [Kayasths]. Raja appointed every one of them to posts of honor and emoluments, according to their individual merits; while many of them were granted titles of honor and valuable jagirs for their services. Not a single Kayasth remained unemployed or in needy circumstances.”

[Lal, Maharaja Lala, Short Account of the Life and Family of Rai Jeewan Lal Bahadur Late Honrary Magistrate Delhi, With Extracts from His Diary Relating to the Times of Mutiny 1857, 1902.]

This account shows that despite the rule of Aurangzeb, a ‘bigoted Muslim’ a Kayasth prime minister of his was able to patronize his Caste fellows; all Hindus. Aurangzeb was so fond of this Hindu prime minister that after latter’s death in a letter directed vizier (minister) Asad Khan to follow ‘sage guidance’ of Raja Raghunath.  [Trushke, Audrey, pp. 74-75.]

The linking of the crimes of Aurangzeb or those committed by other rulers in pre-modern India, who happened to be ‘Muslim’ will have serious consequences even for ‘Hindu’ history as narrated by the RSS.

Take for example, Ravana, the king of Lanka who according to this ‘Hindu (tva)’ narrative committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and his companions during 14 years long vanvaas or exile. This Ravana was a learned Brahman who also happened to be one of the greatest worshippers of Lord Shiva.

The epic Mahabharata is a story of a great war between two families known as Pandavas and Kauravas (both Kashtriyas) not between Hindus and Muslims, in which 1.2 billion people are stated to have been slaughtered. Draupadi was disrobed by Kashtriyas.

If like Aurangzeb and other ‘Muslim’ rulers the crimes of Ravana, Kauravas, Jai Singh I and II etc. are linked to their religion then the history of this country will turn into a Saga of Butchery.

Moreover, finally if indeed “revenge” is to be taken from the present descendants of the past perpetrators then beginning must be made from the beginning of the Indian civilization; the turn of Indian Muslims will come much later!

Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than 500 hundreds of ‘Muslim’ Mughal rule which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an almost 2/3 of the population being of the Hindu majority. It was the British rulers that first held a Census in 1871-72. This was the period when even the last bit of ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over.

According to this Census report:

“The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ millions [sic] of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent. And 9¼ millions of others, or barely 5 per cent., including under this title Buddhists and Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Brahmoes…”

[Memorandum on the Census Of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, 16.]

These figures clearly establish that persecution and cleansing of Hindus was not even a secondary project of the ‘Muslim’ rule. If it had in fact been one, arguably, Hindus would have disappeared from India. At the end of ‘Muslim’ rule Hindus were 73.5% of the population. Now according to the 2011 Census, Hindus have increased to 79.80%. On the flipside, Muslims who were  (1871-72) 21.5%  of the population, have today been reduced to 14.23%. India seems to be the only country where despite ‘Muslim’ rule of more than half of a millennium the populace did not convert to the religion of the rulers.

The Indian Express (June 10, 2023) correctly stated that “The new politics of polarisation in Maharashtra is attempting to make inroads into areas and regions of the state even with little or no significant minority presence, and where, as in Kolhapur, there has been a legacy of progressive politics upholding values of tolerance and inclusion”. 

What then is the motive behind the perpetrated violence and hate-letting in Kolhapur? On the surface, this may appear to be an attempt to instill terror into the Muslim population which such actions necessarily do, but the political motive goes deeper. It is to establish Hindutva hegemony in an area which –though ruled by Maratha Hindu Kings –remained a princely state where rulers did not lose sight of principles of social justice and egalitarianism. Shahuji Maharaj (1874-1922) who ruled Kolhapur State for 28 years took powerful measures to improve status of Sudras and lower Castes among Hindus. This has a lasting impact on the social fabric even today.

Sahu Maharaj patronized Satya Shodhak Samaj established by Jyotiba Phule. He abolished Untouchability. Shahu ji Maharaj was the first ruler in the Indian history to provide 50% reservation in jobs and educational institutions to weaker sections. He withdrew all special privileges enjoyed by Brahmins. He went to the extent of removing Brahmin priests from palace and court duties and appointed a Maratha young man as priest of non-Brahmins. Despite strong opposition from the Privileged High Castes he supported education of girls in his State.

So, clearly then, the RSS-inspired BJP rulers of Maharashtra are cynically aiming to cleanse all that is and was egalitarian, pro-women and Dalit in the history of Maharashtra. If all Indians do not rise up to resist this Hindutva onslaught, it is not just Maharashtra but whole of India that will pay a very high price.

(The author a historian by inclination is also a retired professor of Delhi University; his writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:

The post ‘Aurangzeb ki auladen ‘, a term for Indian Muslims or high caste Hindus? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Speaking to Sabrangindia, SP Mahendra Pandit stated that the whole town of Kolhapur was under curfew presently, peace had somehow been ensured and added that all those guilty of the bandh-instigated violence would be prosecuted. FIRs were also registered against those who attacked a Muslim vendor on June 6 and six arrests have been made.

Yesterday, a group of Hindutva inspired extremist youth thrashed a Muslim minor for reportedly sharing a social media status hailing Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. The status (social media) simply valorised Aurangzeb and Tipu and did not in any way attack another community or contain any words to offend or hurt the religious sentiments of any individual.

A video showing a mob of at least 8-10 men abusing a Muslim minor has surfaced online. Incidentally, organisations representing the Muslim community specifically wrote to the SP, Kolhapur Pandit urging that the truth behind the social media posts be established and the entire community not be held hostage.  Former corporator from the city, Adil Faras who was alleged to have been the “author” of the controversial posts clearly distanced himself from the post and has publicly asked the police to get to the bottom of who the real culprits are. SP Pandit and the IG, according to reports from the ground obtained by Sabrangindia, patrolling the streets and urging that the bandh call given by extremist organisations not be adhered to. At 5.30 p.m. a peace meeting has been called by the local police and citizens.

The video can be viewed here:

Location: Kholapur, Maharashtra

Hindu extremists thrashed a Muslim youth who uploaded status hailing Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan.

Via: @mashoorkumandan pic.twitter.com/v2qth5EVTt

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 7, 2023

After the first act of violence against a Muslim minor, individuals and groups owing allegiance to Hindutva outfits indulged in vandalism and intimidation. After the reported incident yesterday, it has also been reported that stones were pelted at Muslim Boarding Masjid and Badi Masjid during the protest rally held by the Hindutva far-right groups. Further, Banda Sakunkhe is seen in a video trying to urge that people observe a bandh. In his speech, Sakunkhe can be heard saying “We need to come together… should we shut down Kolhapur tomorrow?” The crowd can be heard cheering loudly at this. The video shows lots of commotion after his words. The crowd was asked to congregate at Shivaji Chowk.

The video can be viewed here:

Later, stones were pelted at a mosque during the protest rally by Hindu far-right groups. The situation remains tense as far-right leaders like Banda Sakunkhe try to keep the pot simmering by delivering communal speeches. As of now, Kholapur Police continues to ignore his hateful… pic.twitter.com/qL16Sw0ba8

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 7, 2023

This was on Tuesday, June 6 and on June 7, reports from the ground showed that the situation in Kolhapur remained tense. Police patrolling has taken place and curfew has been imposed in parts of the city, especially minority dominated areas.

Dilip Pawar, a comrade of the late Comrade Govind Pansare spoke to Sabrangindia and explained how Muslim organisations and other citizens and groups intervened pro-actively since yesterday evening to ensure that matters are not allowed to escalate into tensions between ordinary Hindus and Muslims. Reportedly an office bearer of the Bharatiya Janata Party Jadhav and the son of former BJP MLA Rajesh Kshirsagar, Ruturaj were also proactive in furthering tensions. Unconfirmed reports of Muslim fruit vendors being attacked by Hindutva extremists have been surfacing from the area. In the said video, a mob of such persons can be seen pelting stones at a Muslim person, and later hitting him with a stone while a police woman can be seen running away from the scene. After the Muslim vendor gets attacked by the mob of more than 10 individuals, and to protect himself, he picks up one or two stones too and hits the crowd. This has no effect on the crowd, which keeps on pelting stones at the Muslim man. A police car can then be seen arriving at the scene.

The video can be viewed here:

Location: Kholapur, Maharashtra

Muslim fruit vendor attacked by Hindu extremists amid tensions in the area.

pic.twitter.com/GsduYDMolp

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 7, 2023

Following the tensions since June 6 in Kolhapur, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar said that the ruling party “encourages” instances of communal violence, as has been reported by the Indian Express. “Incidents of communal clashes in Ahmednagar and Kolhapur have taken place over some mobile messages. What is the meaning of hitting the streets over such messages? Today’s ruling party encourages such things. Rulers should ensure peace and law and order. But if rulers start hitting the street and create enmity among two communities, that is not a good thing for the state,” Pawar said, addressing a press conference in Ahmednagar on Wednesday morning. He also said that the tensions were a result of the ideology of the ruling dispensation at work and that this must be deplored. (Reports in ABP Marathi and Indian Express)

Pawar said that it was good that the incidents were limited to certain parts of the state only. “But I am saying that this is being planned. I saw it on TV that someone showed Aurangzeb’s photo in Aurangabad, then what is the meaning of a communal clash over this in Pune?” he asked.

“Churches were attacked in states like Orissa or others. I do not understand the reason behind attacking a religious place for an action of an individual. This is not a work of an individual but an ideology works behind this. This ideology is not good for the society,” Pawar further said.

It is pertinent to note that this is not the lone event in Maharashtra where tensions had erupted in Maharashtra’s Ahmednagar too this week after posters of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb were raised during a procession on Sunday in the area with two people. The police have filed a case against four people in total, two have been arrested. The arrests were made after a video of the event went viral where a man can be seen holding a poster of Aurangzeb in Ahmednagar’s Mukundnagar area. “Amid music and dance in the procession, four youths carried posters of Aurangzeb. An offence was registered against these four under Indian Penal Code for intention to incite a community to commit an offence against another community, hurting religious sentiments, as well as other offences,” a police official told news agency PTI.

Maharashtra has witnessed a number of localised communal clashes since the formation of the BJP-Sena government. On Tuesday, the Sangamner area of Ahmednagar district witnessed communal clashes between two groups after a rally by Sakal Hindu Samaj. In Kolhapur, right-wing Hindu organisations called for a bandh on Wednesday over a reportedly objectionable message involving Mughal king Aurangzeb.

Reacting to the matter, state Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Monday said such acts would not be tolerated, as was reported by India Today.  “If someone flashes the poster of Aurangzeb, it will not be tolerated. In this country and state, our revered deities are Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj,” Fadnavis was quoted as saying by the PTI. This statement by a person in power certainly sends a message!

The video of the incident can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKwflc0F2iA

It remains unclear how or when the act of holding up a poster of, or putting up a status of, the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb becomes a crime under the Indian laws, attracting penalties and arrests. Today, the polarised political situation has made the religious minority prone to be slapped with Section 295A for expressing their own beliefs, valorising rulers from their own community or engaging in nothing more than peaceful speech, and booked under the charges of spreading religious enmity and hurting the religious sentiments of the other communities.

Increasingly, in recent times, the names of Tipu Sultan, an 18th-century Mysore ruler, and Aurangzeb, the sixth emperor of the Mughal Empire, have been stigmatised by elected officials of the BJP government –through selective manipulations of their role and rule in the past –and the fringe Hindutva outfits as part of their extremist Hindutva propaganda and erasure of Muslim history.

Neither does it help that every other day, such right-wing Hindutva leaders (and even elected officials) are making public speeches spreading misinformation regarding these two Muslim rulers, attributing only brutal acts to ensure polarisation on the ground. In fact, in December last year, nine less than the Prime Minister Narendra Modi had spoken about Aurangzeb at an event in Varanasi, a ruler who had died 300 plus years more, and said that “Aurangzeb’s atrocities, his terror, he tried to change civilisation by the sword. He tried to crush culture with fanaticism.” A month before this, in November 2022, he had even mentioned the Mughal ruler’s name again while speaking on the occasion of the 400th birth anniversary of Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur, who was beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam, and said that “even though Aurangzeb severed many heads, he could not shake our faith”.

Related:

Film as Propaganda: the months between June 2023 & May 2024

Stop drama or die: Threats to Tipu Sultan play in Mysuru

Uttarkashi: Cross marks, “leave” threats on Muslim shops, hatred spreads to other towns: Uttarakhand

Repeat offender Radha Semwal snatches Aadhar cards of Muslim traders, threatens them

Uttarakhand: Mazar demolished by far right extremists

The post Kolhapur Maharashtra: Valorising Aurangzeb will now result in abuse & arrests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amid the growing attempts towards distorting the history of places and spaces by changing their names, it is being reported two families have been forced to leave their homes in Hatkanangale tehsil of Maharashtra’s Kolhapur district over the last week due to pressure from local residents and Hindutva activists over WhatsApp statuses praising Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Last month, an uproar had occurred when the name of the Aurangabad city had been changed to Sambhaji Nagar. This decision has led to two different reaction, with one group peacefully protesting the said change, while the other group, led by Hindutva outifts, took it upon themselves to force this decision down the throats of those who did not agree with it.

Earlier this week, it had been reported that two FIRs have been filed against those who posted these status, and a third complaint has be referred. The accused in one case, namely Mohammad Momeen, is in custody, while the accused in the second case is untraceable. Momeen, a 19-year-old resident from Savarde village who sells jute bardana bags, was booked under IPC sections 298 and 505, has been in custody at Kolhapur sub-jail since his arrest. 

As reported by Newslaundary, the status put by him read, “Tum naam toh badal loge, lekin itihaas naa badal paaoge. Woh pahaad aaj bhi gawah hai, iss shahr ka badshah kaun tha aur kaun hai; Aurangzeb Aalamgeer. (You can change a name but you will not be able to change history. The hills stand witness to who was and is the king of this city; Aurangzeb Aalamgeer.)”

As was previously reported, the day after Momeen had put up this status, on March 17, the Hindutva groups has assembled at Momin’s house and caused havoc, setting fire to Sugar Sack Warehouse and a tempo owned by the family. They had also attacked and assaulted Momin’s father. Even though assault on property and human bodies is held to be offences in India, it was Momeen who was arrested. Now, it has been reported that Momeen’s family were also forced to leave the village.

According to the report by Newslaundry, the complainant, Parshuram Chavhan, associated with the BJP and the Sambhaji Bhide-led Shiv Pratishthan Hindustan, said “Police arrested him and his family left the village. Although they have been seeking forgiveness…we want to set an example. We will discuss the matter among our people and then take a final decision. Without our permission they cannot enter the village.” The Newslaundry report had further provided that Vadgaon police senior inspector, Bhairu Talekar, had said that Momeen was arrested “because his WhatsApp status was not correct and could have led to a riot-like situation in the area”. Both the police and the Savarde sarpanch Amol Kamble refused to have any knowledge regarding the family of the accused being forced out.

The second FIR, also filed on March 17, was against Faizan Saudagar, a 23-year-old tempo driver from Minche village, over his WhatsApp status, which read, “Namumkin ko mumkin banaanewala badshah sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir (Aurangzeb Alamgir, the emperor who made the impossible possible.)”

This FIR, filed under IPC sections 298, 295A, and 505(2), also alleged that the status was posted with the intent to offend Hindu religious sentiments. Vaibhav Hirawe, a member of Shiv Pratishthan Hindustan, had filed the complaint.

The third FIR, filed on March 21, was against Kudrat Jamadar, a 21-year-old resident of Khochi village, over his WhatsApp status. His status read, “Aurangabad Aurangzeb ka hee rahega (Aurangabad will remain Aurangzeb’s). It was also accompanied with an audio remarking that “it doesn’t matter who the forest belongs to, the hunt will be the tiger’s – Aurangzeb Alamgir”.

Related:

Rising Intolerance in Maharashtra: 2 Muslim boys arrested for putting a status on Aurangzeb

Take action against hate speech in Mira-Bhayandar: Residents, Opposition parties to Commissioner of Police

Maharashtra: Vitriolic speaker from Gujarat calls for economic boycott of Muslims in Mira-Bhayandar

A roundup of the CJP’s efforts to curb hate speeches by Hindu Janajagruiti Samaj, from filing preemptive complaints to following up with officers

Memo seeking preventive action against Hindu Janajagruti Samiti event sent to authorities

Citizens’ attempts to prevent hate speech event ignored, Hate Event allowed by Ratnagiri Police

Maharashtra: The new breeding ground for hate, oaths of allegiance to the Constitution brutally violated

The post Family of Momeen, arrested for posting whatsapp status for Aurangzeb, forced to leave village appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Maharashtra, once known for having a diverse mix of cultures co-existing together, has changed, and how. A state that once offered a vibrant genre of resistance and dissent, the biggest one being the anti- Citizenship Amendment Act in the year 2020, as well as messages of peace and solidarity, is now run on the whims and whips of the majority government and the extremist outfits backed by them. In a deeply worrisome and disturbing incident, 2 Muslim boys have been booked by the Kholapur police for expressing their opinions and stating their beliefs.

This incident, reported from Savarde, Kholapur, had started with a status on social media. A Muslim teenager named Mohammad Momin had put a status on Aurangzeb and the recent name change of the city of Aurangabad. In February, Aurangabad had been renamed as Sambhaji Nagar. The said status put up by Momin had caused a flurry of reactions from the Hindutva far-right groups, who took to violence. As reported by Lokmat, a local Marathi newspaper, the Hindutva groups has assembled at Momin’s house and caused havoc. According to reports, the far-right extremists had also set fire to Sugar Sack Warehouse and a tempo owned by the family. They had also attacked and assaulted Momin’s father.

It has further been alleged that the extremist Hindu outfits had been pressuring the panchayat to throw Momin and his family out of the village. While the local Sarpanch, who along belongs from the majority community, had been resisting the demands, the police did not do the same. In a turn of events, instead of arresting the goons who set Mohammad Momin’s warehouse on fire, attacked his father and had been threatening the Sarpanch to throw Mohammad Momin’s family out of the village, Mohammad Momin himself has been arrested by the Kolhapur Police and charged with harming “religious harmony”. Momin has been booked under Section 295 (injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class) and other relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 

Lokmat further reported that the said status, regarding Aurangzeb and the renaming of Aurangabad, another Muslim individual named Fayas Saudagar had kept the same status. Pursuant to this too, the Hindutva far-right groups had taken out a rally till the local police station, putting pressure on the police to arrest Fayas too. It has been reported that Fayas was arrested by the Kohlapur police too.

Aurangzeb and the misappropriation of facts by the majoritarian regime 
400 years after his death, the cruelty of Aurangzeb has been in the news for several weeks now given the resurgence in temple-mosque politics. Hindutva trolls and extremist groups spare no opportunity to remind us of how he razed several Hindu temples to the ground to build mosques.

The most popular example given is that of the Kashi Vishwanath temple that was demolished at the orders of the Mughal emperor, and how the Gyanvapi mosque was built using its debris. Today the mosque stands adjacent to the temple that was reconstructed later, but the controversy rages on. While we are not implying that Aurangzeb did not demolish other temples, there are documentary evidence of that as well, but, one must remember all historical facts, especially if the alleged actions of one man from 400 years ago are used to judge modern Muslims, often painted as hateful and cruel by right-wing extremist groups. A deeper analysis of the same can be read here.

Related:

Tension prevails in #Haveri, # Rattihalli after stone pelting on Mosque and Homes: Karnataka

Take action against hate speech in Mira-Bhayandar: Residents, Opposition parties to Commissioner of Police

Maharashtra: Vitriolic speaker from Gujarat calls for economic boycott of Muslims in Mira-Bhayandar

A roundup of the CJP’s efforts to curb hate speeches by Hindu Janajagruiti Samaj, from filing preemptive complaints to following up with officers

Memo seeking preventive action against Hindu Janajagruti Samiti event sent to authorities

Citizens’ attempts to prevent hate speech event ignored, Hate Event allowed by Ratnagiri Police

Maharashtra: The new breeding ground for hate, oaths of allegiance to the Constitution brutally violated

The post Rising Intolerance in Maharashtra: 2 Muslim boys arrested for putting a status on Aurangzeb appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post The Curious Case of RSS’ Praise for Dara ‘Shukoh’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was Emperor Aurangzeb who first asked the East India Company to quit India in 1686 in Surat!

The first war against the British was fought almost 200 years before independence: the Battle of Plassey, wherein Nawab Sirajuddawla of Bengal was treacherously defeated by the British in 1757!

The first signs of victory against the British were seen in Mysore where Nawab Hyder Ali first waged war against the British in 1782. He was succeeded by his son, Tipu Sultan who again fought them in 1791 and was eventually treacherously defeated and martyred in 1799. Tipu Sultan was the first General to use missiles in warfare!

The Mujahid Movement was active during 1824 and 1831 under the leadership of Syed Ahmad Shaheed and his two disciples and they were successful in liberating the North-west province from British authority. Syed Ahmad Shaheed was nominated Khalifa, but the freedom was short lived and he was martyred in 1831!

The last Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar was to lead the War of Independence in 1857. A country-wide war was to begin simultaneously on the 31st of May 1857, but the Indians among the British army revolted before that on the 10th of May 1857!

A startling 5,00,000 Muslims were martyred following the events of 1857, of which 5,000 were ulema (religious scholars). It is said that there was not a single tree on the Grand Trunk Road from Delhi to Calcutta but that an alim’s body was not found hanging on it for days together!

Indian ulema called for Jihad against the British and declared India as Darul Harb (Territory under Enemy control). This call found resonance all over the country with Muslims rising up against the British!

To liberate the countrymen from the cultural and educational bondages of the colonial empire, towering centers of learning like the Aligarh Muslim University were established in the late 19th Century, which are still counted amongst the leading Indian seminaries!

The ‘Reshmi Rumaal’ Tehreeq (Movement) was launched in 1905 by Shaikhul Islam, Maulana Mehmood Hasan and Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi to unite all the Indian states against the British. Maulana Mehmood was imprisoned in Malta and Kalapani for the same where he breathed his last!

The Indian National Congress, from the time of its inception to independence has seen 9 Presidents who were Muslims!

Barrister MK Gandhi served in a law firm in South Africa owned by a Muslim, who on his own expenses brought Gandhiji to India in 1916. Here, he started his agitation under the Ali Biradran (Ali Brothers)!

The Mopla movement saw 3,000 Muslims being martyred in a single battle!

The Non-cooperation Movement and the Swadeshi Movement saw overwhelming Muslim participation. Janab Sabusiddiq who was the sugar-king of that time gave up his business as a form of boycott. The Khoja and Memon communities owned the biggest business houses of that time and they parted with their treasured industries to support the boycott!

The 1942 Quit India movement was actually planned by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. He was imprisoned on the 8th of August and sent to Ahmednagar, because of which Gandhiji had to lead the movement on the 9th of August!

Jyotiba Phule was sponsored by his neighbour, Usman Bagban in his educational activities, so much so that the school in which he taught was owned by Mr. Usman. His daughter, Fatima was the first girl student there and joined as a teacher thereafter!

Muslim leaders always supported the Dalit cause. In the Round Table Conference held in London, Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar was lured into abandoning the Dalit cause in lieu of accepting all the other demands of the Muslims. But Maulana Johar refused to forsake the Dalits!

When Dr. BR Ambedkar could not win the 1946 Central Elections, the Bengal Muslim League vacated one of its own seats and offered it to Dr. Ambedkar, who won it in the bypoll. This gesture by the Muslim League paved the way for his entry into the Constituent Assembly and the rest as they say, is history!

Muslim freedom fighters were active in the field of journalism as well. Maulana Azad used his pen against the British despite being prevented by the colonial powers a number of times. In fact, the first journalist to be martyred in the cause of India’s Freedom Struggle was also a Muslim – Maulana Baqar Ali.

So why have these points, and many many such similar ones, been relegated to the dustbin by our historians? Why are these events of history not taught in our history classes? Why are our children’s text books bereft of these historical facts? Why this prejudice?

This is a deliberate attempt to discredit the Muslim leadership and indeed the Muslim masses, in order to spread in the Muslim community a sense of inferiority complex and to push them on a defensive stand.

What have you done for this nation to deserve the benefits of its independence, we are asked! The Muslim community has played a pivotal role in India’s Freedom Struggle and it is high time we Indians are made aware of these untold and hidden aspects of history.

India is again being enslaved by our politicians. It is time to liberate her again from domestic and international neo-colonialism.

(As received on Whatsapp).
 

The post Denying Muslims their due: Role in India’s freedom struggle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sitting in Sarkar’s home city of Kolkatta as I write this piece, I recall moments, decades ago when I browsed through the works of Jadunath Sarkar, lucky as I was to find their works in my father, Atul’s eclectic and vast personal library.Navigating modern, medieval and ancient (early Indian) history even as the works of DD Kosambi became real-life companions, it was and is fascinating to see how regional and national histories have evolved, the former often received short shrift in our desire to evolve a uniform, conformist national narrative.

Today, December 10 is Sarkar’s 176^th Birth Anniversary. It is worth recalling through two historical figures, Shivaji and Aurangzeb, how Sarkar’s monumental work was, in a sense sidelined or some would say even marginalised.

What did Jadunath Sarkar say about Shivaji’s Coronation and his diversity-driven governance? And how would Indian Rulers of today react? Why is his monumental work on Aurangzeb dis-satisfying to the left, constructing as it does a comparative narrative between that rulers reign and the more inclusive Akbar’s?

In my research on his work, used extensively in schools and training workshops, I have asked two specific questions; was Shivaji himself a victim of the evils of caste, and was he not in every sense an inclusive and plural ruler as some of the Mughals, were too?
Here are some of the answers I found, from books by Jadunath Sarkar himself. One of the oldest authorities on the Marathas, with two meticulously researched books on Shivaji, the historian has dealt with the ticklish issue of caste that did affect Shivaji’s acceptance as a formal ruler.

Sarkar deals with the deep schisms of caste that prevented from Shivaji from being finally accepted (anointed religiously, by the Brahman) as the ruler despite his successful military campaigns and massive popularity.
 
Says Sarkar, “A deep study of Maratha society, indeed of society throughout India, reveals some facts which it is considered patriotism to ignore. We realise that the greatest obstacles to Shivaji’s success were not Mughals or Adil Shahis, Siddis or Feringis, but his own countrymen. First, we cannot be blind to the truth that the dominant factor in Indian life —even today, no less than in the seventeenth century — is caste, and neither religion nor country……

Personal Jealousy Hindering Shivaji

Shivaji was not contented with all his conquests of territory and vaults full of looted treasure, so long as he was not recognised as a Kshatriya entitled to wear the sacred thread and to have the Vedic hymns chanted at his domestic rites. The Brahmans alone could give him such a recognition, and though they swallowed the sacred thread they boggled at the Vedokta! The result was a rupture… Whichever side had the rights of the case, one thing is certain, namely, that this internally torn community had not the sine qua non of a nation.

Nor did Maharashtra acquire that sine qua non ever after. The Peshwas were Brahmans from Konkan, and the Brahmans of the upland (Desh) despised them as less pure in blood. The result was that the state policy of Maharashtra under the Peshwas, instead of being directed to national ends, was now degraded into upholding the prestige of one family or social sub-division.

Shivaji had, besides, almost to the end of his days, to struggle against the jealousy, scorn, indifference and even opposition of certain Maratha families, his equals in caste sub-division and once in fortune and social position, whom he had now outdistanced. The Bhonsle Savants of Vadi, the Jadavs or Sindhkhed, the Mores of Javli, and (to a lesser extent) the Nimbalkars, despised and kept aloof from the upstart grandson of that Maloji whom some old men still living remembered to have seen tilling his fields like a Kunbi! Shivaji’s own brother Vyankoji fought against him during the Mughal invasion of Bijapur in 1666. “

No wonder then, that truth telling is not a favourite activity of the extreme right. Those who march today under Shivaji’s name, brandishing the bright saffron flag of an illusive if exclusivist nationalist past, would like us to also forget the deeply practical pluralism that guided Shivaji’s governance. Says Sarkar of Shivaji’s religious toleration and equal treatment of all subjects:

“He stands on a lofty pedestal in the hall of the worthies of history, not because he was a Hindu champion, but because he was an ideal householder, an ideal king, and an unrivalled nation-builder. He was devoted to his mother, loving to his children, true to his wives, and scrupulously pure in his relations with other women. Even the most beautiful female captive of war was addressed by him as his mother. Free from all vices and indolence in his private life, he displayed the highest genius as a king and as an organizer. In that age of religious bigotry, he followed a policy of the most liberal toleration for all creeds.

“The letter which he wrote to Aurangzeb, protesting against the imposition of the poll-tax on the Hindus, is a masterpiece of clear logic, calm persuasion, and political wisdom. Though he was himself a devout Hindu, he could recognise true sanctity in a Musalman, and therefore he endowed a Muhammadan holy man named Baba Yaqut with land and money and installed him at Keleshi. All creeds had equal opportunities in his service and he employed a Muslim secretary named Qazi Haidar, who, after Shivaji’s death, went over to Delhi and rose to be chief justice of the Mughal Empire.

“There were many Muhammadan captains in Shivaji’s army and his chief admiral was an Abyssinian named Siddi Misri. His Maratha soldiers had strict orders not to molest any woman or rob any Muhammadan saint’s tomb or hermitage. Copies of the Quran which were seized in the course of their campaigns were ordered to be carefully preserved and then handed over respectfully to some Muhammadan.”
(From Jadunath Sarkar’s book, ‘House of Shivaji’).

If Sarkar’s rendering of Shivaji pricks the Hindu right, his voluminous work on the Mughals and especially Aurangzeb has made him the unfair target of some ‘left’ and ‘marxist’ historians too.

Sarkar wrote at the end of his vast, five volume study of Aurangzeb-
“Aurangzeb did not attempt such an ideal [of nation-making], even though his subjects formed a very composite population…and he had no European rivals hungrily watching to destroy his kingdom. On the contrary, he deliberately undid the beginnings of…a national and rational policy which Akbar had set on foot.” Akbar had successfully converted “a military monarchy into a national state”—not constitutionally but in effect—by remaining open both to talents of the Hindu Rajputs and to the “right type of recruits” from among the fortune seekers who came from Bukhara and Khurasan, Iran and Arabia.
Aurangzeb in particular failed precisely on this score. Whereas the “liberal Akbar, the self-indulgent Jahangir, and the cultured Shah Jahan had welcomed Shias in their camps and courts and given them the highest offices, especially in the secretariat and revenue administration”, the “orthodox Aurangzeb…barely tolerated them as a necessary evil”. The latter’s conflict with the Rajputs and “the hated poll-tax (jaziya) lent Shivaji the aura of a Hindu “national” leader in the eyes of his contemporaries."

Shivaji or Akbar, Aurangzeb or Babur, it is strange and telling how we pick, and exclude those aspects from the figures of the past that do not suit our own perceived contemporary realities.

It is when we as a society and people, are able, calmly and confidently to appreciate the works of scholars –whatever side of the ideological spectrum we may place them on—on the objective merit of their work, that a truly modern consciousness could be born.

Sarkar, once vice chancellor of Calcutta university, historian of India’s history from the 17^th to the 18^th century, a moving force behind the Indian Historical Records Commission (IHRC), and the forerunner of the National Archives of India (NAI), is undoubtedly one such. Not only was he instrumental in letting the British colonial authorities allow greater access to archival material for Indian scholars; his monumental five-volume History of Aurangzeb, and two crucial works on Shivaji are a must read for a generation so inundated with the here and now: What’s APP and Social Media.

A shorter version of this article has appeared today in The Indian Express and may be read here.
 

The post From Right to Left, Jadunath Sarkar’s Renderings of Shivaji & Aurangzeb Have been Reviled by Both appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I was born in 1928 in Mumbai in a Maharashtrian middle class family. Except for the Marathi-speaking families of Maharashtra, Mumbai was known and spoken of as Bombay.

Even those Marathi speaking gentlemen who had higher education – which had its accent on English – and wished to show their proficiency in the language of the rulers, would fondly call the city Bombay.

Bombay was fashionable with us, Mumbai was natural and, of course, the original. It was turned into Bombay by the white sahibs first and then by the brown sahibs as was the normal practice.

Mumbai of my childhood was not as sprawling and overcrowded as it is today. The city was limited to its core area which was sparsely populated. You could walk on the roads at any time of the day without fear of being bumped off by a speeding vehicle or colliding with another pedestrian rushing to reach somewhere. Even with clocks and watches around, life was long enough to be enjoyed with its simple comforts and to be lived without the persistent feeling of anxiety.

We still had to learn and recite, by heart, a poem eulogising George the Fifth, the then emperor of the British empire on which the Sun never set. The poem was a part of our school curriculum.

At the same time the air outside was charged with Mahatma Gandhi’s movements of non-violence and memories of Lokamanya Tilak and Shaheed Bhagat Singh which were still very fresh in the minds of the elders.

My mother, who was a housewife and, like most women of the time, barely educated, talked fondly of the meetings she had attended of Tilak and his powerful oratory and the terrible night on which Bhagat Singh was hanged. ‘Bhagat Singh! Hai! Hai!’ She would tell us how these muffled slogans of the mourners echoed on the roads of Mumbai throughout that night. My college-going elder brother was already in the freedom movement and had pledged himself to swadeshi and chakra, the spinning wheel that Gandhi had turned into a household item.

Once in a while the atmosphere would suddenly get tense. I remember one such occasion. I was hurriedly brought home from my school nearby, and my elder brother who had grown a beard was pressurized by the family to shave it off for the time being. These were sure signals that a communal riot had started in the city.

On such occasions, Hindus would shed any resemblance to a Muslim, take extra care to look thoroughly Hindu and make it a point to avoid Muslim localities till things got normal again. In their routine existence, most Hindus had very little to do in Muslim localities anyway, except passing through them in a tram or a bus. For them, it was an alien part of the city, segregated in their psyche like the prostitutes area.

During riots, one strictly avoided even passing through the Muslim area for safety’s sake till the end of the tensions between the two communities were officially over. Withdrawal of curfew was a sure sign of the situation returning to normal.

The media strictly avoided any mention of the community background of the aggressors or the victims so there was no way of knowing what happened to the Muslims in the city during the riot situation. But even as a child I would hear of incidents in which a Muslim hawker or a beggar who strayed into the Hindu locality was promptly stabbed. As a rule, any recounting of such an incident would necessarily involve recounting a similar incident of a Hindu being stabbed in a Muslim locality. It was perhaps necessary both for the Hindu listeners and narrators to convince themselves that violence against a Muslim was simply a case of squaring of the account, a tit for tat and therefore perfectly justified.

I clearly remember the hush that would precede or follow any conversation about communal violence. This hush was not out of any doubt about the wisdom of such a justification but probably because the white collared clerics and their families felt uncomfortable even talking of violence. They had got so used to the smooth working of the law and order machinery of the British Raj and the peaceful existence of the politically uninvolved middle class under it.

Truly, life then was paradise for my family and for families like mine when compared to the routine gang wars, murders and dacoities in the white-collared middle class localities of Mumbai today and the much publicised complicity of the police in such terrible happenings. One could not even dream of such complicity then. Not only the police, but the government machinery as a whole was taken to be above board in its functioning. Whether it was in fact, is anybody’s guess.

To return to the topic of my paper, I did not get an opportunity to meet any Muslim or even see one in real life and from close quarters till I was over 12- years-old. Not many from the white – collared middle class got to meet and know a Muslim on a personal level, not even in the normal course of growing to be an adult in the so-called cosmopolitan city of Mumbai. One was only aware of a Muslim presence in another part of the city and inherited some stray ideas about them while he or she grew into an adult.

 “A Muslim meant someone with a beard. The word also conjured up an unclean appearance, uncouth behaviour, lack of education and culture. A Muslim was someone you stayed away from. Contact with them in any form was supposed to be dangerous. I still remember a common expression very frequently heard in casual conversations among white-collared adults: “Manoos Ahes Ka Musalman?” (Are you a human being or a Muslim?)”

What were these ideas like?

Let me recount from my own experience.

A Muslim meant someone with a beard. The word also conjured up an unclean appearance, uncouth behaviour, lack of education and culture. A Muslim was someone you stayed away from. Contact with them in any form was supposed to be dangerous. I still remember a common expression very frequently heard in casual conversations among white-collared adults: “Manoos Ahes Ka Musalman?” (Are you a human being or a Muslim?)

This was seldom said seriously; the tone would be light; half jocular, even frivolous, casual. Once this was said in my class, I was in the first standard then, by my teacher to one of the troublesome students. The student did not mind it, he just grinned sheepishly. In fact, no one seemed to mind. It was a way of saying someone’s behaviour was most unseemly.

My first education on Muslims began with historical plays of the time. Those plays invariably dealt with the ascendance of Shivaji, the Maratha king who freed the Hindus of Maharashtra from the Mughal rule and established his own rule which came to be known as Hindu pada padashahi i.e. the empire of the Hindus.

The first such play I saw had Shivaji’s son and the Maratha emperor after him, Sambhaji, as the hero. According to the history of that period, he was a passionate womaniser and an alcoholic and a generally irresponsible young man who preferred a martyr’s death in Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s prison to conversion to Islam. It was staged in our school as part of the annual day function.

All the actors were school children (older than me) and they were directed by one of our teachers. The play originally written for adults had earned acclaim on the commercial stage. Like any Marathi historical play of those days, this one too portrayed the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, Shivaji’s arch-rival in his fight against the tyrannies of the Muslim religious fanatics against Hindus, as the bad man of the play.

He was painted in loud colours, a religious fanatic, a ruthless tyrant, an obnoxious figure with a long white beard on a crooked face, wearing garish costumes and shouting swearwords supposedly in Urdu and Farsi (I did not understand them but felt very piqued by them;) at Shivaji’s son and the ruling Maratha Emperor Sambhaji and his men. In short, he was like the villain in any commercial Hindi masala film of to-day, alternately comic and repulsive. The rest of the Mughal characters in the play were drunkards, lechers, capable of any dastardly act and bigmouthed cowards who always lost in a fight with Sambhaji’s brave little men (mavlas, the Maratha soldiers were small in stature.)

The Maratha mavlas stood in sharp contrast to these Mughal ruffians and buffoons. All the applause-winning dialogues was given to Sambhaji and his men by the playwright; the ‘enemy camp’ only spouted hatred toward the kafir Marathas, their holy cows and showed contempt towards Hindu religion on the whole.

As children we were made to participate in and watch many such baffling (baffling for us children) specimens of adult theatre; this was only one of them. After watching the first of these, I brooded over it for days.

You can imagine my reaction at that age to this mind-blowing theatre experience. Being a school production the audience was mainly of children in the 6-16 age group.

Apart from this, our school text-books carried excerpts from Marathi historical plays which shaped our ideas of our past and also the present to a large extent. Access to authentic history at that age is out of the question. Even if one gets access to them at a later age the ideas—some of them weird and twisted are already formed at an early age and though they can change over time, I doubt whether they disappear entirely from one’s psyche. Our attitudes have a lot to do with what we internalise in our early formative years.

The first real Muslim in my life was a boy in my class. This was after we left Mumbai for Kolhapur, a small town and a separate state during British rule with its own king. My new school had boys from lower castes who were the sons of lorry drivers, tailors, carpenters. We also had a girl in our class who was the daughter of a kept woman or concubine of a rich man, a novel experience even for the more knowledgeable among us.

I met Sheikh here in the school. On the first day of school, we were made to stand up one by one and say, “Present Sir” as our class teacher read out the roll call. When a tall, gaunt boy with high cheek bones and small peering eyes answered to the name of Aman Ali Izaz Ali Sheikh, I looked twice, with utter disbelief at that boy wearing a home washed pyjama, a neat cotton coat fully buttoned on a clean white home washed shirt and a black shapeless cap properly placed on his head through which his unruly pink hair sprouted out from all sides.

I simply could not believe my eyes. He did not fit into the concept of a Muslim in my mind at all. He was like any other boy. He looked so gentle and shy and soft-spoken in spite of looking bigger than us! (In my mind I imagined him as Aurangzeb or one of his hefty looking men with me as Shivaji’s mavla s and felt terribly disappointed He was no patch on those foul-mouthed villains I had seen and heard in the historical plays.)

“As a child I would hear of incidents in which a Muslim hawker or a beggar who strayed into the Hindu locality was promptly stabbed. As a rule, any recounting of such an incident would necessarily involve recounting a similar incident of a Hindu being stabbed in a Muslim locality. It was perhaps necessary both for the Hindu listeners and narrators to convince themselves that violence against a Muslim was simply a case of squaring of the account, a tit for tat and therefore perfectly justified”

As the days passed, I also found that Sheikh was a studious boy, who spoke my language i.e. Marathi. Later, I found that his Marathi had a natural mix of Urdu, but not of the Aurangzeb kind. He spoke in this mix when he was away from the school, especially at his home and with his family. This mix of Urdu and Marathi sounded sweeter to me than my chaste Marathi.

Sheikh was very sociable, warm in his general behaviour, eager to make friends, a boy who never uttered a single swear-word and was very cooperative. When I was unwell and had to stay away from class, Sheikh would voluntarily help me in catching up with the backlog by offering me his note-books. We became friends despite my deep rooted reservations about his being a Muslim.

He lived in a locality which was in the same direction as mine. He had to walk farther on. So we left school together every evening and chatted on the way. For days I could not make up my mind on whether I should invite him home or not. He was a Muslim, after all. Besides my own reservations about Muslims, I had apprehensions about how Sheikh will be received by others at home. I had even avoided mentioning our friendship to my parents.

One day during the lunch break he offered me something from his lunch box. I had not thought of doing so. I ate from my box and he from his though we would be sitting on the same school bench. That day when he took out something from his lunch box and held it in front of me I dithered. I did not know whether I should eat from a Muslim’s lunch box. I did since I could not say no to Sheikh but my conscience troubled me that night for doing what I had done.

I even imagined in my sleep that I had turned into a Muslim and my family was blaming me for eating from a Muslim’s lunch box. ‘Good for you!’ they were saying in a chorus. ‘Want to eat from a Muslim, eh?’ And my mother was crying her heart out as her son had become a Muslim.

But soon this feeling of guilt disappeared and I even invited Sheikh to my house one day to see my collection of kites. I did not inform my family about the religion of my school friend but they discovered it while Sheikh was at our house. Probably by his way of speaking or his appearance, I am not sure. To my surprise they did not object. But my mother took care to tell me that night not to go to his house and not to be ‘very friendly’ with him. ‘He seems to be a good boy’ she said, but these people (she meant the Muslims) are not our kind. It is better to stay away from them.’

If I remember correctly, he was uncomfortable and tense for a while in his first visit to my house. But he liked the house and my family and later came frequently to my house to play with me.

His father was a butcher by profession. I did not know this for months, nor did my family with their vegetarian habits; otherwise I would have been forbidden from mixing with Sheikh. I myself came to know of it when I was compelled to go to his house for the first time. I learned that Sheikh was not well and would not be able to come to the school for some time.

After knowing this I wanted to help him in his backlog of studies. So I decided after some inner resistance to go to his house.

I remember the shock I felt on meeting his father. A typical village Muslim, dark of complexion, a large frame and a big belly, and a pink and black beard grown all around his face up to the head which had an upright growth of black and pink hair which matched with the beard and gave his face a fierce look. He reminded me of Aurangzeb and his men. But he was very warm, natural, robust yet gentle in manners, attired in a coloured lungi and kurta.

He was curious about me and my upper caste Hindu family. He had seen and even met Hindus but only as clients who came to his shop to buy mutton. He kept asking me questions about how we lived at home, addressed each other, what my father did for his living, how many brothers and sisters I had…

He had seven children. Aman Ali was number five. He had no qualms about his profession. He talked about it as casually as my father used to about his clerical profession. My father talked of files and papers; Sheikh’s father talked of the quality of the mutton he sold and the intestines, the brain and the liver of the sheep he killed. His gentle nature hardly matched with his big black frame and his profession in my mind was a violent one.

“How can he kill the poor, innocent animals and be so gentle?” I used to ask myself in those days. Years later, I became a meat eater but have never cared to ask myself how I relish eating animals killed by someone, despite my gentle, non-violent nature.

Sheikhs’s mother and sister stayed confined to the kitchen whenever men or even a boy like me was around. They wore burkhas and looked mysterious, even sinister, to my eyes because of that. I had not seen anyone in a burkha till then. Not even in a Marathi historical play. I could not imagine my mother or my sister moving in our house in a burkha. I imagined myself in a burkha and felt stifled.

Sheikh’s mother called me ‘beta’ (son) and gave me some sweet to eat. I had not eaten anything as tasty as that in my life or I thought so while I ate the ‘special dish’. Sheikh was not keen to show me his father’s shop. Out of curiosity I insisted that he should take me there at least once. I went with him and could not take in the gory sight of raw headless cadavers hanging upside down. It upset my stomach and I even felt that I shall throw up but managed not to.

That first sight of raw flesh and blood was so irresistible to me in spite of the revulsion I experienced that I wanted to visit that shop again and see a sheep being killed by Sheikh’s father. For some reason Sheikh avoided it. May be he himself did not like his father’s profession. Or he did not relish killing.

My friendship with Sheikh was my first genuine education on the subject of Muslims. Sheikh remained behind when we left Kolhapur for Pune, a predominantly Brahmin city at that time. It was nearly impossible to get accommodation in a Brahmin locality of Pune if you were – no, not a Muslim – a non-Brahmin. You would be asked to state your caste before anything else was discussed and we were non-Brahmins. Which mean that we were flesh-eaters. In fact, my family was strictly vegetarian but it took a lot of effort on my father’s part to get a place for us in a decent ‘no flesh’ locality.

The next crucial influence in my life vis-a-vis Muslims was the experience of partition of the country. We were given to understand mostly through the discussions of the elders, the media and all kinds of hearsay and we readily believed that Mohammed Ali Jinnah was the villain of the piece in this gory drama that unfolded before us. Even the most authentic accounts of the massacres that took place in this period on both sides of the dividing line read like cheap pulp fiction consisting of unlimited violence and the most perverted kind of sex.

“I ate from my box and he from his though we would be sitting on the same school bench. That day when he took out something from his lunch box and held it in front of me I dithered. I did not know whether I should eat from a Muslim’s lunch box. I did since I could not say no to Sheikh but my conscience troubled me that night for doing what I had done.”

For us Jinnah and his Muslim League was the cause of it all. The word Muslim had a familiar connotation for us. It meant uncultured, illiterate, undeveloped minds, full of perversities, driven by violence and always ready to go berserk. Hindus, though cultured and civilized, had no option but to retaliate with the same pervert violence.

Everyone around seemed convinced about this.

I was in my late teens then.

When we heard on the radio that Gandhi has been assassinated everyone around me knew for certain and made no bones of it that the assassin had to be a Muslim. When we were told that he was not a Muslim but a Hindu our benumbed minds stoutly refused to believe it.

But, then, we knew why a Hindu had to kill the Mahatma: because of the pro-Muslim politics of the otherwise great man, a politics which pampered the bloodthirsty, wicked Muslims at the cost of well-behaved, gentle Hindus.

Those were the days of a rabid anti-Muslim feeling around me.

This was when I heard a new Marathi word for the first time. It was not new in that sense. I had heard and even used it before in a different context. The word was Laandya). It literally meant ‘an animal whose tail has been cut’, generally a dog. When I heard it for the first time in a new context to suggest a Muslim, I could not catch its meaning. Then I was enlightened on the subject by my Hindu friends. Muslims were circumcised after their birth. I, too, tried to use this word in my speech that had acquired a new twist and felt very self-conscious, embarrassed and thrilled at the same time. That word became a household word during those days among the boys of my age. They would always refer to a Muslim as Laandya.

The bias which had been intentionally and unintentionally sown in our minds when we were children now grew into confirmed opinion. Muslims were an aggressive, rowdy, savage, rabid minority… dogs with a cut tail. Their leaders used them for their gains and like fools the secular Hindu leaders were playing in their hands at the cost of the interests of us Hindus who were a majority but suffered at the hands of a mere minority.

As a growing boy in my teens, I too held this view though not with the fanatic rage of the typical white-collared Hindu of that time.

During this very period, another Muslim entered my life. He was leading the cultural squad of the undivided Communist Party in my state. He was Amar Sheikh Shaheer (the bard), popularly called Amar Sheikh. He came from a poor rural Muslim family and sang songs with a political message. He had a strong booming voice which thrilled an audience of thousands. You did not have to be a communist to feel charged by the magic in his voice. The ‘revolutionary’ message did not mar the lilt and the roar of his singing.

I was so charmed by his irresistible voice that the fact that he was a Muslim did not bother me even in the midst of a climate rife with anti-Muslim vitriol… The songs moved me as they seemed to come straight from the heart. Once in a while, I did wonder how Sheikh, a Muslim, could put so much passion in some of the patriotic songs he sang. But his style of singing them was irresistible.

I began singing those songs, imitating his style. I would stand like him, upright, chest thrown out and then sing imagining myself to be him. (My fair complexion could not match his tan black. And he was too manly in looks compared to my vegetarian, adolescent appreciate which gave me a terrible complex.) I was in my late teens now: still biased against Muslims in general but at the same time an ardent fan of a Muslim: Shaheer Amar Sheikh.

Many years later, we became friends; the relationship lasted till his death in an accident.

Incidentally, I came to know about his mother after he died. Munerbi, Amar Sheikh’s mother, was an illiterate Muslim woman married to a small farmer and a poetess of unusual strength. The poems she composed had a natural mix, a captivating intermingling of both the Muslim and the Hindu cult. The imagery came straight from the Bhakti poets and the poems flowed from Urdu into Marathi and back to Urdu like a child frolicking between two sections of a house divided by a recently erected wall.

At times the meter is traditional Marathi, used by the Bhakti saints while the language is Urdu as spoken by Muslims in rural Maharashtra. In one of her poems she sees Krishna, the Hindu God, in her Muslim son.

In 1967, her Muslim son, the bard Amar Sheikh, poses a question to his readers in an article: How am I a traitor?

He narrates a happening: “I cannot forget that day. I had returned from an election meeting in which I had performed as usual and was taking a nap when I was awakened by some commotion- A kick on the door of my apartment in the chawl. Then another kick. The door gave way with it. It opened wide. Someone rushed in, lunged at me. I sprang to my feet and grabbed him. A battle royal ensued. My attacker was in his early thirties. I had completed fifty. I did not spare him. Nor did he while letting himself go at me. It is not the beating I had to take that hurts but the words which he shouted at me, the mindset behind those words. ‘Amar Sheikh is a Muslim’ he yelled. ‘He deserves to be lynched. He has married a Hindu woman. Haul me before a court and put me in a jail but I shall come out and lynch this man. I shall become a martyr for killing a Muslim.”

Amar Sheikh writes further in this article: “I have been living in this locality for the last seven years. My attacker grew up watching me. My daughter grew up with him. And today he barges into my house after beating up three Muslims on his way. Why? – Because I am a Muslim. And a Muslim is a traitor; an arch-enemy of this country. I with my record of service to this country and to my people am called a traitor and he who has never shown any concern for this country is a patriot because he is born a Hindu! We were born as Muslims and that puts a stamp on our forehead in this country: TRAITOR! Why?”

This excerpt says everything.

“How can he kill the poor, innocent animals and be so gentle?” I used to ask myself in those days. Years later, I became a meat eater but have never cared to ask myself how I relish eating animals killed by someone, despite my gentle, non-violent nature”

I came across Munerbi’s poetry and this article of her son in a book which was given to me during the post Babri-masjid days i.e. when communal passions were running high once more in the country and a spate of communal riots was already on. The climate around me was once again rife with Muslim-hating and the word I had first heard used against Muslims at the time of the partition of the country was once again common currency: Laandya: The human dog with a cut tail.

The answer to Amar Sheikhs’s question immediately came to my mind:

Because we were brought up that way. We, Hindu children; with casual remarks like “Manoos Ahes ka Musalman?”

Because of our upbringing which taught and prohibited us to shun any contact with Muslims.

Because of the biases, knowingly and unknowingly, sown in our minds at an early age by presenting and teaching us our history (in my case the Mughal and Maratha period of it) in a wrong light.

Because of the experience of the partition of the country through its portrayal by the mass media and of the preceding years of Hindu-Muslim relations as they percolated to us through the attitudes of our elders.

And most of all, because of the total lack of contact, a wide chasm, between us and the Muslims among us as people.

Yes, I am aware of the games politicians have played among both the communities from time to time and the communal passions whipped up by them to suite their politics of self interest based on hatred. But those games would not have succeeded to the extent they did if we Hindus and the Muslims had known each other better; if we had grown together from our childhood as one community rather than two separate worlds within one nation, within one city.

After Amar Sheikh, I had the good fortune of having Hameed Dalwai, the Muslim reformer of the ‘60s in my life. We became friends much before he plunged into the Muslim reform movement. He was a creative writer. He wrote short stories. I was the editor of the monthly magazine in which they were published. I published his short stories. I was one of the first readers of his writing. He wrote about his community. His childhood. He wrote with anguish about his mother who was the third wife of his father. About communal riots. He wrote with a searing insight about his community, the Muslims.

My days with Hameed taught me the real lessons in understanding Muslims in my society. The working of the minds of the Muslims, their upbringing, what they were taught about us, Hindus, in their early formative years and the biases they were injected with at an early age. This entire realisation came through Hameed, through our long evenings and nights of intimate conversations.

Hameed had come to learn about my Hindu world more or less in the same way as I came to learn about his: through whatever little contact we could make with the ‘other’ world, the other side of the communal divide, by going out of our way in our adolescent years to know things by ourselves. His father was a Muslim Leaguer- A local leader of the League and a Hindu-hater. Hameed had grown up as a boy in this political climate. He grew out of it later, at a fairly young age.

When he worked for a better understanding between the two communities and propagated progressive social reforms in his own community, particularly concerning the state of Muslim women, he was branded a traitor and a heretic by the majority of his people – especially the diehard, conservative men of his community. He was simultaneously seen as an exception and a freak within his Muslim community by the Hindu intelligentsia.

I still remember. One of our senior writers who proudly proclaimed himself as a Hindu revivalist once advised Hameed with genuine concern: “You will always be an outsider among the Muslims. Why don’t you become a Hindu? After all, your forefathers were Hindu. You have Hindu blood in your veins. Come, I shall arrange for your conversion to Hinduism.”

Hamid laughed heartily every time he heard this.

But he did say to me once in his introspective mood: “We Indian Muslims are a peculiar lot. Our forefathers did not come from across the borders of the country. They were not invaders but the invaded like the Hindus. They were Hindus. They were converted to Islam mostly under pressure; even by force. If this is true, then we belong here.

“We have Hindu genes in our system and a Muslim upbringing, a Muslim bias. We are a product of a mixed or hybrid culture which makes us an isolated lot; removed from the general reality, the general ethos. We belong nowhere. Not to the Muslim world outside nor to the predominantly Hindu world of this country. We have no roots to claim.

“And our loyalties will always remain questionable in this country. Not necessarily because of what we do but because of what we are expected to do – as an alien race whose interests lie outside of this country. It will be presumed that we do it, that we have done it though we may have not. And we must not. Whatever happens to this country happens to us. Our fate is tied up to the fate of this society which may never accept us as its natural, integral part.”

My friend Hameed died prematurely of kidney failure.

After him I have had many Muslim friends. Some of them mean much more than friends to me. But when I look back at our friendship, I find a subtle difference between them and my other – I mean Hindu – friends. When I meet a Hindu friend I am never conscious of his religion. He is just a friend. But when I meet a Muslim friend I never forget, never can forget, that he is a Muslim. If I forget this for a brief while, my upbringing reminds me that he is a Muslim. I feel proud of my friendship with him. I love him more for being a Muslim.

Ideally, it should be no less, no more.

A friendship is beyond all considerations, is it not?

“Muslims were aggressive, rowdy, savage, rabid minority…dogs with a cut tail. Their leaders used them for their gains and like fools the secular Hindu leaders were playing in their hands at the cost of the interests of us Hindus who were a majority but suffered at the hands of a mere minority.”

While writing this, I am reminded of a Muslim character in one of my plays written in my later years; the only Muslim in my plays as far as I remember. The play is Sakharam Binder and the character is Daood – Daood Miya as he is fondly called by the central character of the play, Sakharam.

I did not consciously have this in character my mind when I began writing this play. That he has to be a Muslim was decided at a sub-conscious level. Therefore, my reasons for doing this are not known to me. It has happened to most of my characters. They get ‘born’, enter and exit as if by their own choice, so to say. I only see them entering and making their exits – like a member of the audience, which I, in fact, am while the play comes to me. This is not to suggest that I do not wish their movements; I do but at a sub-conscious level rather than at a conscious level.

When I thought of writing Sakharam Binder (The title came to me after writing the entire play), I had in mind Sakharam as the central character in the play. In fact I plunged into the unknown depths of the play holding on to this man about whom I had heard little and had imagined a lot before writing this play.

In the play, he enters his house on the outskirts of the town with a woman who was literally on the road after being thrown out by her husband. Sukharam, the unmarried male, is unmarried partly because of his meagre income as a book binder in a printing press, and also because of his complex personality, which is basically of a loner. He is a man who has always lived outside the established norms of a decent society and has learned to challenge them in words as well as in action.

He needs a woman in his house for sex as well as for taking care of the household chores. For this he picks up a married woman who is in the dumps, who has been driven out by her husband lock, stock and barrel. He takes her home to live with him till one of the two decides to end the ‘contract’ and call it quits.

In his relationship he observes a code of conduct and insists that it should be observed by the women till they cohabit. He makes his code of conduct known to every new woman he brings home before she formally makes her decision to stay. Generally, the woman has no other option but Sakharam insists on her being told the terms and conditions of the contract. This is done solemnly almost in the manner of a religious ritual.

I did not plan who the first woman in the play or the first woman in Sakharam’s house will be. The one before her has died in the local government hospital imagining her husband by her side and clutching Sakharam’s hand in hers.

Laxmi enters the play after this woman has died and her last rites have been performed by Sakharam. She follows Sakharam into his house like a sheep following the master.

Sakharam in my concept was a loner and an outcast from the local society but such characters, in my perception, invariably have one more person near them, a man, who is their link with the rest of the world and a vital outlet for voicing their anger against its ways. They share their innermost secrets with him and have utmost confidence in him.

This man is generally commonplace, unassuming, more of a listener than a talker, somewhat inferior in status to his mentor – cum – friend, willing to please him for minor gains and small favours and is faithful to his mentor. This character had to enter the play at some stage and he does at an appropriate point – as Daood, a local poor Muslim who earns his living doing odd jobs and is a bachelor. Sakharam, incidentally, comes from a Brahmin family; a legacy he has disowned at an early age by running away from his house for good.

Daood is a frequent visitor to Sakharam’s house and is familiar with Sakhraram’s non-conformist, odd and colourful life-style. Seeing a new female – a haggard and emaciated one mostly – in Sakharam’s house every so often comes as no surprise to him. He even shows his attraction for one of them openly in Sakharam’s presence but Sakharam does not mind because he knows that Daood will be careful not to cross his limits.

Coming to know of a new development, Daood reaches Sakharam’s house. Laxmi, the new woman, is already in the kitchen when he arrives on the scene. Wanting to see the new find of his friend, Daood says: “They say you caught a new bird?” Sakharam casually quips, “Yes. Just now. About an hour ago.”

Daood asks “Where did you get her?” Sakharam tells him. Daood cannot wait to see her face. “Let us have a look!” he suggests. Laxmi is at the kitchen door with tea for Sakharam. Daood sees her and feels sympathetic. Sakharam dryly and casually describes the plight of Laxmi after she was thrown out by her husband.

That Laxmi can hear what he is being told makes Daood self-conscious and he gestures to Sakharam to stop but Sakharam is not bothered. He goes on.

The difference between the sensibility of Sakharam and Daood, as expressed here, is significant. Daood is shown as more ‘human’ and caring, more circumspect in such respects than his rebel Hindu Brahmin friend, Sakharam.

Soon after arriving in the house, Laxmi settles down in her new environment after being ‘punished’ by Sakharam for her lapses in observing the ‘code’. She picks up the code soon with its nuances and subtitles, learns to find her way through them, and takes charge first of the kitchen, then of the house.

It is the day of the annual Ganesh-pooja. It is a Hindu religious festival and like every devout Hindu, Sakharam ceremoniously brings the Ganesh idol home from the shop which sells these idols, to worship. Muslim Daood is his helper.

At the entrance to his house Sakharam religiously shouts ‘Mangalmurti’ and like a practicing Hindu chants the rest of the traditional slogan : ‘Moraya!’ (Both are the callings of the Hindu deity.)

Laxmi completes the rites at the door-step welcoming the idol to the house. Sakharam and Daood then enter the house with the Ganesh idol. Sakharam places the idol at the specially decorated place prepared by Laxmi and Daood’s help. Sakharam lovingly addresses the Ganesh idol: “Be seated Mangalmurti. Relax. Eat. Drink and be merry. You have your mouse with you for company and ready to pounce on your prasad (sweet offering).”

A disapproving Laxmi snubs Sakharam: “You shouldn’t talk like that to God!”

Sakharam, not liking her intrusion, growls back: “Why not? Daood, did I say anything wrong? You tell me.” He will take Daood’s word on what is proper on such occasions rather than what a woman says. Daood, being what he is, will definitely avoid embarrassing him in such situations. He will side with his friend.

Daood, in a fix, inherently diplomatic and experienced in slipping out of such delicate situations, responds without committing himself: “Better not say such things if they are not supposed to be said. Let us talk of the prasad (sweet offering). I have to go back to the shop.” (He has to be working in a shop.)

Laxmi now prepares for the aarti (The traditional ode to the idol to be sung collectively). As Sakharam takes the aarti things from Laxmi and Laxmi lights the niranjana (the oil lamp), Daood helps both. Then Laxmi gestures to Daood, though in a subdued manner, to move away and keep his distance now that the aarti is to begin. Daood is a Muslim after all.

Daood instantly understands Laxmi’s problem and readily moves away. He does not join in singing aarti. Sakharam does not like this. In his house he is the master. He will decide what is right and what is wrong. He refuses to begin aarti till Daood sings with him. Daood sensing trouble and wanting to avoid a tricky situation joins in, singing half-heartedly while standing at a safe distance.

“I have had many Muslim friends. Some of them mean much more than friends to me. But when I look back at our friendship, I find a subtle difference between them and my other – I mean Hindu – friends. When I meet a Hindu friend I am never conscious of his religion. He is just a friend. But when I meet a Muslim friend I never forget, never can forget, that he is a Muslim. Even if I forget this for a brief while, my upbringing reminds me that he is a Muslim. I feel proud of my friendship with him”

Laxmi with her traditional mindset cannot accept a Muslim joining in aarti. She signals Daood to stop singing. Daood stops singing. Sakharam finding Daood’s voice missing looks back at him and roars “Come on Daood, why have you stopped? Sing with me!”

Daood does not, fearing a conflict situation because of him. Laxmi does not want him to sing, he being a Muslim. Unable to accept what is happening, she blurts out her objection and Sakharam goes wild with rage. “If I can sing aarti why not Daood?” he demands to know. But Laxmi just cannot think of a Muslim joining in a Hindu ritual of aarti. Enraged, Sakharam thrashes the frail but insistent Laxmi with a belt at hand. Not being able to stand it, Daood leaves.

Daood re-enters the play again after a substantial lapse of time when Sakharam’s turbulent days with Laxmi are over for as he driven Laxmi out of the house, locked the door from inside and said good riddance. He knocks on the door. Not getting a response, the knocking gets louder.

Sakharam thinks that Laxmi is knocking on the door and having heard the commotion, Daood has come to see what is happening. Sakharam opens the door for Daood. From behind Daood, using him as a cover, Laxmi also enters and slips into the kitchen. Daood mediates on her behalf though with utmost caution and diplomacy, taking care not to rub Sakharam on the wrong side.

This is a characteristic of Daood. He prefers to avoid situations which can lead to trouble. In his meek and unassuming style he succeeds in negotiating Laxmi’s return to the house though only for a while. Laxmi has to leave soon afterward.

Daood is seen next with Sakharam just after Sakharam has returned alone, after leaving Laxmi at the door of her distant and only nephew as per her wish. Sakharam is in an introspective mood as he smokes his daily chillum. He admits, as if to himself, that Laxmi’s leaving has ‘left a mark’ on him. Daood, as the loyal and silent listener, empathises: “Yes, that happens.”

Both are smoking chillum as is their routine at the end of the day.  Daood needs his peace at such times. He is seen enjoying his puffs as Sakharam is getting increasingly restless.

This is the end of the first act.

The second act begins with a new woman on the stage. She is brought into the house like the previous woman and introduced to its code of conduct by Sakharam in exactly the same way as at the beginning of the first act. This new woman, Champa, is unlike Laxmi. She is younger than Laxmi and vivacious. Moreover, it becomes clear that unlike Laxmi, who was thrown out by her husband, Champa has walked off on her alcoholic husband whom she casually describes as the ‘corpse’ and a ‘ninny’. He wanted to push her into prostitution and survive on her income. She deserted him.

As Sakharam is going through the ritual ‘code of conduct’ with Champa, his new woman, he cannot concentrate on what he is saying because of the ‘oomph’ this new woman oozes, naturally. As this is going on, Daood, curious as usual to see the new woman (“bird”, as he calls Sakharam’s women), appears on the scene and is instantly charmed by this new bird.

His eyes rove over her body. He cannot restrain his excitement and calls her a peach while talking to Sakharam. He immediately apologises for using this word and gladly offers to make tea for the two. He goes to Sakharam’s kitchen and does so. (Being a Muslim his easy access to Sakharam’s kitchen is significant.) Champa, too, has instantly accepted Daood as a member of the house and orders him in a special tone, “Be a pet, go get me a nice paan”. He finds this so bewitching that he runs for the paan without taking money for it from Sakharam.

Sakharam for the first time become conscious of Daoods’s presence around him and his woman and has to tell Champa, “I won’t allow too much talking to strangers.” This is his new and hurried addition to his code of conduct.

Champa changes into a fresh sari (women like Champa have a way of doing this without exposing any part of their physique) while Daood is around. In the presence of Sakharam, Daood has to try very hard to pretend that he is not looking at her doing this. Sakharam is getting more and more alarmed by what he thinks is developing between Champa and Daood – though not in an obvious manner – and has to tell Daood, “From now I will come to your shop. We will meet there.”

Champa is now very impressed by Daood. She repeatedly describes him as a nice guy. This irritates Sakharam in spite of Daood being his only friend and a confidante.

Though Sakharam does not want Daood to be around while Champa is alone or with him, Daood, because of his fancy for Champa, comes calling for his friend in a scene that follows and finds Champa’s husband in the house with Sakharam. (Champa has gone to the river to wash clothes.)

Sakharam, himself of a crude and abusive tongue, has run out of patience with this worm of a man who talks of his wife as if she is a cow or a buffalo. (The size of her buttocks and breasts etc.) As a shocked and angry Sakharam is trying to throw Champa’s husband out of his house, Daood arrives.

He sees Champa’s husband for the first time and without being told knows that he must be Champa’s husband. He says to Sakharam: “So this is the bird’s cage! If the bird comes, the cage has to follow. It looks as though this time you will be looking after the cage and the bird.” He consoles Sakharam, “You must learn to put up with such things.”

Champa appears on the scene. She flies into a violent rage when she sees her husband. She beats him up with a ferocity which shocks even Sakharam despite his own violent nature. He has not seen anything like this in his life. He tries to restrain Champa but cannot and Daood has to take Champa’s unwilling, bloodied husband away for safety’s sake. Daood then returns to warn Sakharam: “Watch out, this bird is different from the others.”

“I am aware of the games politicians have played among both the communities from time to time and the communal passions whipped up by them to suite their politics of self-interest based on hatred. But those games would not have succeeded to the extent they did if we Hindus and the Muslims had known each other better; if we had grown together from our childhood as one community rather than two separate worlds within one nation, within one city”

Sakharam, totally sold on the vivacious Champa’s, is in no mood to take cognizance of Daoods’s warning. He spends almost all his time at home with his beauty, makes her drink alcohol and lose control. He does not attend to his work for days. Champa has taken to alcohol like a fish to water. Once, while she is heavily drunk, with Sakharam by her side, an unknowing Daood comes to the house. Champa in her drunken state provokes Daood: “Who is it? Daood. Come. You want to have fun with me? Have it. Take me.” A dumbfounded Daood stands there with Champa’s arms thrown around him and her clothes in disarray. A stunned Sakharam is watching all this.

A scene and some days later, Daood, the faithful friend, is seen trying to bring Sakharam to his senses by admonishing him: “You can’t afford to sit at home. You have got to work. There’s this house to run.” Sakharam refuses to budge from his present way of life.

Out of  concern for his friend, Daood even tells Sakharam what people in the locality are talking about him. Sakharam explodes: “What do I owe them or their fathers? Did they feed me when I was hungry?” Daood reminds him of earlier days, days with the previous “bird” – Laxmi Bhabi, as he nostalgically calls her. Sakharam roars: “Laxmi is gone. She is dead as far as I am concerned. Now it’s Champa.”

A resigned  Daood says, “It worries me what I see and hear. It’s up to you. I am off.” Realizing that his worldly wisdom gained through experiencing and watching life through the sensibility of a person born in a poor minority community – that too the Muslim community – is not going to help this man, Daood immediately distances himself from Sakharam’s fate. He withdraws from Sakharam’s present state and involves himself in his routine work. He does not meet Sakharam as he used to.

At the beginning of the third and the last act of the play, we find that Daood has not been to Sakharam’s house for days after their last meeting. Laxmi has unexpectedly returned on the scene. Her nephew refused to keep her in his house and she has no other place to go. So she is at Sakharam’s doorstep wanting to be taken in.

Sakharam, still under Champa’s irresistible charm, does not want Laxmi in the house. Laxmi is turned out of Sakharam’s house unceremoniously, and violently, by Sakharam for the second time. But Champa’s compassion is aroused by her pitiable state. Using her hold on Sakharam she convinces him to keep Laxmi in the house as the second woman who will take care of the domestic chores.

Sakharam has given in though most unwilling. He is still seething with anger and feeling very disturbed by the unexpected intrusion of this bygone, unwanted woman intruding in his present life. (Laxmi is a religious, god-fearing, and devout Hindu. She symbolises a moral and spiritual way of life for Sakharam which he does not want to be reminded of especially in his present state.)

In the midst of this, while Sakharam is in a restless mood (he looses himself in playing mridanga, a percussion instrument, in such moods) Daood enters. Sakharam has missed Daood for a long time. He growls when he notices him: “Found time to come to-day, did you?” Daood meekly replies: “Heard the mridanga and felt as if the old days have returned.”

What old days? Scowls Sakharam. He is not interested in any old days.

From inside the kitchen Laxmi hears Daood and eagerly comes to the kitchen door to greet him: “Daood Bhavjee!” (Bhavjee, a Marathi word used by women to address their brother-in-law.)

Sakharam is already in a deep spiritual crisis since the return of Laxmi and her constant presence in the house. He cannot indulge in his lust for Champa as freely with her around. Laxmi has no other place to go so she wants to hang on to this last outpost of her life at any cost. And she senses a potent enemy in the form of Champa., the other woman in the house. This is despite Champa’s compassionate gesture in allowing her to stay in the house with her.

Now comes the crucial scene. Laxmi enters the house (Sakharam’s house, (there is no one in the house). Her face shows extreme revulsion. She is breathless with excitement. Her eyes look hysteric. She speaks to the pictures of her gods in the kitchen. (In the play, she has a habit of speaking to ants and other insects).

Hysteric and in ecstasy, she narrates something which she has just seen or imagines that she has seen. (It is not clear in the play). But she narrates it as if it has happened. Lately, she has been keeping a watch on Champa and has finally been successful in catching her sleeping with Daood. She has seen them but has not interrupted their love making.

“Terrible! I shouldn’t have followed her. I couldn’t keep the man I married. For me this one (Sakharam) was my husband. Even when I was away (he had driven her out of the house), I worshipped him in silence every day.”

From inside her choli she produces a cheap mangalsutra (black beads strung on a cotton thread, a symbol of a married Hindu woman) and holds it before her Gods. “I wore this in his (Sakharam’s) name,” She tells her Gods in the most solemn tone. “I belong to him. If I am to get kicked let him kick me. If I have to die let me die on his lap – in full glory of a married woman.”

Her case against Champa (who has graciously allowed her to share the house with her;) is that she has not only spoiled Sakharam, her (Laxmi’s) husband, who is basically a good man, but has also been unfaithful to him. And she has been sleeping around with Daood, a Muslim.

While she is talking to her Gods as if they are listening, there are knocks on the door which he had locked from inside. Someone calls for Champa. A man. Laxmi meets Champa’s husband for the first time. He is back once again after being thrashed and thrown out by Champa earlier. He cannot live without his Champa, he claims.

Champa and Sakharam are not around. That he is Champa’s abandoned husband (she herself is the abandoned wife of her husband) produces an immediate empathy in Laxmi for the pathetic looking man. Besides, in the heart of her heart, she already has nothing but contempt for Champa who has enticed her (Laxmi’s) husband. (Her lawful husband has walked out on her for another woman.).

She cannot bear to see Champa’s drunken husband sobbing in grief. A man must never cry; must never look pathetic, she has been taught to believe. He must be proud, arrogant, and upright. Now she has more than one reason to act against Champa, her rival. The whore of a woman has already destroyed one man and is in the process of destroying another.

After Champa’s husband leaves, Laxmi vows to herself; “She will pay for this! The sinner! She will suffer. She will go to hell for this -Walks out on her husband, lives with another and carries on with a third!”

Laxmi has not yet decided on a course of action but she is already feeling triumphant. She has the trump card now and she can play it at her will. But before this can happen, Sakharam has reached a point of exasperation after a spell of impotence he has experiencing in his relationship with Champa. Champa too cannot take this any more and is resisting his sexual advances. A maddened Sakharam reaches a conclusion: all this is happening because of Laxmi’s presence in the house.

He virtually kicks Laxmi out of the house for good. A desperate Laxmi plays her trump card. Half-terrorised by a ferocious Sakharam bent on seeing her out, she blurts out what she ‘saw’ the other day: Champa sleeping with Daood.

The balance tilts immediately. “This is why the bitch (Champa) has been resisting my advances!” Sakharam assumes and in his impotent and chaotic mental state throttles Champa to death in the following scene between the two. Laxmi, at the end of the play, is his willing accomplice in his confused effort to cover up the murder after he realises what he has done.

The play ends with an ecstatic and hysteric Laxmi digging a ditch for her dead rival in a triangular relationship; and Sakharam, the male in the relationship, is seen standing by her side “as if all the sap has been squeezed out of him. He is just an empty shell.”

I have narrated the play with Daood as its focal point in the context of this paper. In the play itself, Daood is at the periphery of all the happenings though at the end he comes to the centre stage, though not in person. He, of course, has no knowledge of this since what Laxmi claims to have seen is quite possibly her fantasy, something she wants to happen.

As I have stated earlier Daood was not a conscious choice when I began writing this play. He came by himself; out of some necessity dictated by the play. Sakharam had to have at least one confidante and friend. His being a Muslim was not imperative to the play. He stepped in to the play as a Muslim, without this having been a conscious decision on my part.

He, with his minority mindset and all its subtleties, got woven into the play through some unknown process. The role he plays at the culmination of the play, whether actual or a product of Laxmi’s sick fantasy, also evolved out of some internal logic of the play, whatever that may be. It was not the result of a conscious decision on my part. And yet, the play happens to be my brain-child.

I am deliberately avoiding any self-analysis of this occurrence. I would like someone else to do it in the light of my sensibilities vis-a-vis the Muslims as described in this paper.

Serious plays are complex creative works while commercial films provide shallow entertainment. But both can be valid subjects for sociological analysis and debate if looked at from such an angle, since both have social content and carry a social message whether their makers mean it or not.

Quite often, they do not.

As told to Javed Anand; Archived from Communalism Combat, April 1997, Cover Story

The post Muslims and I – Vijay Tendulkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.