By Yasser Latif Hamdani
There are only two instances in the subcontinent’s history that universal Pan-Indian political unity was achieved. The first instance was that of Asoka of the Maurya Dynasty. The second, and perhaps more successful in terms of area, was that of Aurangzaib of the Mughal Dynasty. Both these pious men, rising to the top through violence and controversy, sought to establish their Empires around the idea of religious and cultural unity. For Asoka it was Buddhism that he imposed and for Aurangzaib it was puritan Sunni Islam of the ruling class.
Aurangzaib
has been rightly taken to task for his bigoted policy which alienated a great
mass of his population and led to the decline of the Mughal Empire. In annals of Muslim rule in India, Aurangzaib was not an extraordinary bigot
though. Even if we discount Mahmud
Ghaznavi, Muhammad Ghori and Tamerlane as merely adventurers from the West
driven by greed, the Delhi Sultanate is full of examples of religious bigotry
and exclusivism. Feroze Shah Tughlaq,
otherwise considered a humane emperor having ended the use of torture in his
empire, made every effort to wipe out Hinduism and convert his subjects to
Islam. He also ordered the massacre of
Shias in his realm. Sultan Sikandar Lodhi razed temples all over North India. Even Babur – taking cue from his illustrious
great grandfather Timur- declared a war on infidel “idol worshippers” when
attacking India. Akbar is seen to be a
general exception to this trend but then his ruthless suppression of Muslims
was equally disturbing. Though named and
styled Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar, the Mughal Emperor declared his own person
infallible and also forbade the name “Muhammad” amongst his subjects. This –
one may point out in all seriousness – sounds ironically similar to the 1984
Ordinance XX by General Zia ul Haq.
What
is amazing though is that Indian historians in particular and others historians
in general do not subject Asoka to the same criticism. If the decline of Mughal
Empire from 1707 to 1857 is to be blamed on Aurangzaib’s narrow minded
religious policy, shouldn’t the even quicker decline of Maurya Empire within 50
years of Asoka’s death be laid at his door?
Contrary to the sanitized versions of history that have been handed down
to us, Asoka was second to no Muslim Sultan or Emperor in his blood lust. Even
if we discount the fratricide (like Aurangzaib, Asoka also killed his father’s
favourite heir Sushim and like the Mughal Emperor later executed a brother for
being a heretic), he is accused of or the violence he inflicted on Kalinga as
early errors before he converted to Buddhism, Asoka’s generally intolerant
religious policy is self evident in the fact that he executed 18,000 members of
the Ajivika Sect, because one of them allegedly made a picture disrespecting
Lord Buddha. This was not an isolated
incident. The “non-violent” Buddhist emperor also burnt another Jain subject
and his entire family as punishment for elevating Mahavira over Buddha.
All
of this points to selective interpretions; of looking for heroes vs villains
with partisans in these debates to raise various historical figures to a
pedestal. Many Sunni Muslims extol the
simplicity and selflessness of Aurangzaib Alamgir as an example of what an
ideal Muslim ruler should be. The facts that he mistreated his family and
killed off his brothers are swept under the carpet in this narrative. The grand Indian narrative seeks to find
roots of Indian nationalism in Asoka, forgetting that Asoka was not the paragon
of virtue. Indeed this narrative is
taken up wholesale by our own self-styled Pakistani liberals, who write nauseating
pieces singing hymns to the superiority of Asokan ethic. This attempt to find heroes and villains in
history to justify political positions here and now is a detestable exercise
whether undertaken by the right or the left, by Muslims or Hindus, by
conservatives or liberals.
Both
Asoka and Aurangzaib are a part of our history, and in part something we have
rebelled against: the ancient notion of a Pan-Indian Empire based on cultural
unity. Neither Asoka nor Aurangzaib have answers to our future nor should we
selectively interpret the legacies of these two formidable Emperors – the Super
Maharajas- to our benefit. On Pakistan’s
part at least, both Taxila’s magnificent stupas and the imposing Badshahi
mosque are part of our cultural heritage, as is Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s mari
and the magnificent Kitas Raj temples. These should be taken for what they are:
relics of a magnificent ancient past of the region that we live in– nothing
more and nothing less.
By
making Asoka’s wheel the central feature of its flag (instead of the less
virile Gandhian spinning wheel), modern India did precisely that. By focusing selectively on Muslim rule in
looking for deep structures of identity, Pakistan followed suit. Both countries should revisit these
exclusivist cultural narratives that they have inflicted upon themselves and
maybe there would be a possibility of India and Pakistan living as peaceful neighbours
with the same history, remembering the past, honouring it for its worth but not
letting it define our future.