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.

Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an Islamophobic pressure group. (Bryan Smith, PA Images)

The legal tussle over President Donald Trump’s controversial ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries is being watched with the intensity normally reserved for a Super Bowl showdown. Experts track every move and countermove, trying to gauge which team is ahead and who will ultimate prevail. Unlike a normal game, though, there is more to these court battles than the points that flash on the scoreboard. They are also an opportunity for hate propagandists to air their tropes and talking points before a wide audience.

Indeed, if their past campaigns are anything to go by, this may be their primary objective – to exploit the high profile spaces afforded by democratic processes and institutions for propaganda purposes, thus nudging mainstream perspectives toward their own worldview. The actual implementation or enforcement of whatever policy they’ve been agitating for may be a secondary concern. Anti-Muslim ideologues have described themselves as fighting in a “lawfare battlespace”. 

Anti-Muslim ideologues have described themselves as fighting in a “lawfare battlespace”. The explicit goal of their litigation is to change public policy directly. But lawfare also presents an opening “to influence and shape public discourse to ultimately influence and shape public opinion”, says a 2015 publication from the Center for Security Policy, a major anti-Muslim think tank.

“The drama of a courtroom setting attracts public attention and thereby provides a forum and an audience for expressing the appropriate public policy narrative.”

“Litigation creates earned media and thus provides an excellent opportunity to engage the public through this media,” the report says. “Indeed, the drama of a courtroom setting attracts public attention and thereby provides a forum and an audience for expressing the appropriate public policy narrative.”

One long-running nationwide campaign to shape the narrative has involved purchasing advertising space for anti-Islam messages in various metropolitan transit systems. When a metro authority rejects an ad on account of its hateful content, the activists promptly take the authority to court for allegedly violating their free speech rights.

Even if the legal challenge fails, the controversy generates publicity for the cause. Defeat has its benefits, as it can be spun as further evidence of a rigged system. Thus, when the Washington DC metro blocked their effort, leading hate propagandist Pamela Geller accused the authority of cowardice and buckling under the Muslim Brotherhood’s pressure: “This is sharia in America”.

Another Islamophobia initiative that has won considerable public airtime in state legislatures is the campaign to stop Islamic law gaining ground in the US. The manufactured paranoia over sharia has moved more than ten states to enact new statutes or constitutional amendments to insulate themselves from non-American laws (worded broadly since they cannot explicitly discriminate against one religion). Some 20 other states have considered such provisions.there has been no push for sharia from the country’s tiny Muslim minority, and even if there were, American laws need no additional protection against subversion by competing traditions.

According to the American Bar Association and all independent legal scholars, these states are reacting to a non-existent threat: there has been no push for sharia from the country’s tiny Muslim minority, and even if there were, American laws need no additional protection against subversion by competing traditions.

But then that’s not really the point. The anti-sharia campaign’s utility lies in the opportunity to defame an entire faith in state capitol buildings, through ballot measures put to voters, and the news reports it generates.

Lawfare has also been deployed against small Muslim communities trying to partake of their freedom of religion. In 2010, Muslims in Middle Tennessee found their effort to build a mosque obstructed by anti-Muslim activists. In addition to harassment and intimidation, the Muslims were dragged into a court battle. Among other arguments, their opponents said that Muslims were not entitled to religious liberty – as Islam is not really a religion but a violent political ideology.

Predictably, the argument was thrown out; religious equality prevailed. Before long, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro was functioning as intended, as a place for prayer and education. But it was not a total defeat for the Islamophobia network: their talking points that belonged in the extreme fringe were dignified by being deliberated in court. The Islamophobia network’s direct links to the White House are beyond doubt. 

The Islamophobia network’s direct links to the White House are beyond doubt.

This is the background against which one has to analyse current events. The Islamophobia network’s direct links to the White House are beyond doubt. Foreign policy advisers in the Trump campaign include individuals linked to the aforementioned Center for Security Policy think tank, which was also the source of fabricated statistics cited by Trump to justify his proposed Muslim entry ban.

This line in Trump’s Executive Order protecting the US from foreign terrorist entry fits with the Islamophobia industry’s modus operandi: “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.”

One of the most consequential struggles of our times is the battle for hearts, minds and lives going on between Muslims who prize peace, freedom and inclusiveness, and those who demand obedience to an intolerant absolutism. This is a legitimate debate within Muslim civilisation.

Crystallised in this sentence are talking points that anti-Muslim hate merchants have cultivated for years, treating Islam as a non-religion that threatens American life and law through a violent ideology of sharia. These are the dregs that will remain, polluting public discourse, even if the policy is struck down by the courts – which would of course be milked as further proof that the establishment cannot be trusted.

One of the most consequential struggles of our times is the battle for hearts, minds and lives going on between Muslims who prize peace, freedom and inclusiveness, and those who demand obedience to an intolerant absolutism. This is a legitimate debate within Muslim civilisation. But the Islamophobia hate merchants want to persuade Americans that it is instead a clash between civilisations. They want Islam talked about exclusively in the context of terrorism.

Trump’s executive order may not survive judicial scrutiny, but it has already helped skew the global conversation in the Islamophobia industry’s preferred direction.

(Cherian George is the author of Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and its Threat to Democracy (MIT Press, 2016). He is an associate professor in the communication school of Hong Kong Baptist University).

This story, first published on openDemocracy, may be read here.
 

The post The hidden agenda of Trump’s Muslim ban appeared first on SabrangIndia.