As communal hate is on the rise through the use of history in political battlegrounds, new dimensions are being added to this in the last few years. Apart from the propaganda and indoctrination of Hindutva politics, the mainstream media, particularly many TV channels and now many films have added to the prevailing misconceptions in Indian society. 

In the recent past Bollywood movies like Kerala Story, Kashmir Files have gripped society in the mania of hate. There have been other not so successful films like Swatantraveer Savarkar, 72 Hurain, Samrat Prithviraj to name a few. Now Maharashtra in particular and country as a whole film called Chhava, running to packed houses, is taking the hate a few notches up. This film is not a historical film. It is based on the novel Chhava by Shivaji Samant. Already, the filmmakers had to apologise for inaccuracies in the film.

The film selectively picks up a few incidents from Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj’s life and projects the cruel and anti-Hindu nature of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. In the 126-minute film; a good 40 minutes are devoted to the torture of Sambahji Maharaj, and this part is a part where the film maker may have taken lot of liberties of a fiction writer. The whole narrative is set in the presentation of medieval history as noble Hindu kings versus the evil Muslim kings.

Film used to promote misunderstandings

Sambhaji Maharaj was the eldest son of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.  As Shivaji set up his kingdom, he had his officers who were Muslims also. Maulana Haider Ali was his confidential secretary and there were 12 generals in his army who were Muslims, Siddi Sambal, Ibrahim Gardi, and Daulat Khan to name a few. When he confronted Afzal Khan, he was advised to carry iron claws, which were given to him by his subordinate Rutom-E-Jamaan. After killing Afzal Khan, the latter’s secretary Krishnanji Bhaskar Kulkarni tried to attack Shivaji.

From Aurangzeb’s side Raja Jaisingh led the army to attack Shivaji. Shivaji was made to appear in Aurangzeb’s court and later imprisoned. The person who helped him escape was a Muslim prince, Madari Mehtar.

The Hindutva propagandists raise questions about Sambhaji’s character, wine and women. For this he was imprisoned by Shivaji in Panhala Fort. Later Sambhaji did ally with Aurangzeb in his battle against Shivaji. Sambhaji also allied with Aurangzeb in his battle against Adilshah of Bijapur.

In the battle of succession after Shivaji, Sambhaji’s half brother Rajaram (son of Shivaji’s another wife Soyrabai) tried to poison him. As the conspiracy was unearthed Sambhaji got many Hindu officers killed.  In the battle against Sambhaji, Aurangzeb had sent his general Rathod to fight against him. Once Sambhaji was captured he was humiliated and subjected to torture, which has been presented in an  exaggerated fashion.

On the pretext of this film many understandings against Aurangzeb have been projected. He is shown to be very cruel as he dealt with his opponents. It is not a question of whataboutery but an attempt to understand the pattern of kingdoms. Many kings inflicted cruelties on enemies’ with gay abandon. Historian Ruchika Sharma tells us that when Chola kings defeated Chalukya’s army, they beheaded Chalukyas General Samudra Raj and cut the nose of his beautiful daughter. Ashok’s Kalinga battle is known for the worst type of brutalities. The ways of kings against their enemies was atrocious and cannot be judged by today’s standards. 

What would we say that one Hindu king had a fort on the top of a hill, where those conspiring against the king were thrown deep down in the deep valley with his feet and hands tied? Bal Samant in his book describes the atrocities done by Shivaji’s army while plundering Surat. Army and atrocities were closely associated; cruelty against enemies is condemnable but was not unusual. When Sambhaji’s Marathas attacked Goa, a Portuguese account (cited by historian Jadunath Sarkar) says, “up to now nowhere else in India has such barbarity been seen…” While such atrocity narratives have to be treated carefully, what it shows is that violence was pervasive, even if its degrees varied.

Facts and propaganda

Was Aurangzeb anti Hindu? One can say that Aurangzeb was neither Akbar nor Dara Shikoh. He was orthodox and did not welcome Hindus and non Sunni sects of Islam at one level. At another level he was master of alliances as he had a number Hindu officers in his administration. As Prof Athar Ali points out Aurangzeb had the highest number of Hindu officers in his administration (33%).

He did destroy some temples to be sure, but he also gave donations to many temples, like Kamakhya Devi (Guwahati) Mahakaleshwar (Ujjain) Chitrkut Balaji and Lord Krishna in Vrindavan. Even Shivaj used to give donations to a Sufi dargah of Hazrat Baba Bahut Thorwale. To humiliate the enemy king the victor king used to destroy the particular place of worship associated with that king. Richard Eaton (Frontline December- January 1996). Now the communal historians are making merry by selectively picking up temple destruction by Muslim kings and hiding the donations to Hindu temples by Muslim kings.

Aurangzeb did impose jizya after 22 years of his rule; it was exempted for Brahmins, disabled and women. It was not a means of conversion as it was a property like tax and was 1.25% while zakat which was paid by Muslims was 2.5%. As far as torture of Sikh gurus, it was wrong, but the underlying reason was the power struggle between Sikh gurus and the Mughal administration.

Communal historians are working overtime to dig sources and selectively pick up incidents without referring to the overall context of the period of the kingdoms. Kings did use religion to inspire their armies to fight the enemy; Hindu rajas used Dharmayuddh and Muslim kings used Jihad. These right wing historian’s selective sources may be apt but their framework is restricted by the communal narrative, which sees kings in the light of their religion and not that kings were ruling for power and wealth. Religion was incidental if at all in their goal of expansion of their kingdoms/empires. These are giving a booster to divisive politics, the major threat to the Indian Constitution. 

(The writer, a former IIT Bombay professor, is Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. Views expressed are the author's own.)