Dr John Mohan Razu
Throughout the history of Homo sapiens we see violence brutally inflicted by the powerful as against the powerless. History also exposes the greed and dominating nature of humans that shows no rationality and justifiability. Take any history whether micro or macro—all involved the most heinous nature of the aggressors as against the aggrieved. The tendency of the mighty do not stop with one conquest but wants to acquire as much as they could. This is how we have the emergence of imperial and colonial powers across the world.
It should be borne in mind that colonialism and imperialism are the past and have no relevance for the present which is total a wrong assumption. Expansionism, empire-building, and new-colonial trends we have been witnessing nowadays. For example, the war between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, US present Donald Trump’s declaration of taking over Green Land and Gaza Strip and also pushing Canada to joining the United States as the 51st state of the United States and Changning the names and taking over of Panama Canal do represent the avaricious nature of the politicians not the recent phenomenon now but has been there in the past as well.
Careful consideration is to be given to look into the features and traits of imperialistic, neo-coloniastic, and empire-building shades. Never take or consider histories be it micro or macro, or as sacred and straight-jacketed, but is filled with all sorts of interpretations, perspectives, and nuances. Theories of suspicion and hermeneutics be applied before taking it as it is. Each scholar or historian has his/her own perspective and ways of interpretation. One should cautious and doubly careful while reading or writing about history. As far as possible those who want write about events that happened at one point should be careful and cautious in interpretative sides of that happened long ago or recently.
Whatever said in the above in detail is being handled by Charmy Harikrishnan in her short piece in “The Times of India” dated 21st March, 2025, p. 14 titled: All History’s Violent. Why Pick Only Aurangzebs?She starts with this: “On the road from Aurangabad city to the caves of Ellora in Maharashtra, if you take a short detour, you reach Khuldabad. Past small shops selling tiny cannons and cars, there is small, rather cramped, whitewashed arch. It is the entrance to the dargah of a Sufi saint, Syed Zainuddin Shirazi. Inside lies the most unassuming grave of a emperor-Aurangzeb.”
She continues, “If his faith Shan Jahan built the most magnificent mausoleum, the Taj Mahal, Aurangzeb wanted a simple, unadorned grave open to the skies for himself. It is just a few feet of a mud, a sapling in the middle. The marble flooring and the jalli were added much later by Lord Curzon. Is this what BJP MP Udayanraje Bhonsale wants to demolish?” She continues as “There is nothing to destroy here. You can upturn this grave with a garden shovel. But is Hindutva’s greatest enemy a 17th century emperor, its weapon a spade, and its “civlisational revenge” disturbing the dead?”
Expanding further, “There is an increasing and disturbing, tendency to frame the violence in Indian history in terms of religion – Hindu and Muslims. India’s history is a litany of wars that Hindu kings waged against each other. It is marred and marked by rapacious colonialism by the European powers. But no one is seeking to take revenge on a Chola emperor or going on protest march against British PM Keir-Starmer.”
While deepening her analysis she delves into an important aspect that “The demolisation of Muslim—from Babar to Tipu – is an end in itself for Hindutva groups, but it is also an attempt to project that Hindu as an undivided whole who was victimized. It is convenient and false othering, which brushes under the construction of Muslim villainy, the multiple and layered forms of violence within Hinduism – casteism and atrocities against women and tribals that cleaved and oppressed people and which persisted across kingdoms and regions.”
The core of her arguments is put in this way: “If a Hindu can find in the vestiges of history a perceived hurt against an abstract ancestor, and weaponize it to seek revenge in the present, then, millions of lower castes can rise against the upper castes for centuries of oppression and ostracism that strained their sense self, reduced them to poverty and illiteracy, prevented the from education and decent jobs. Accessing roads and entering temples, apart from actual physical violence that rained on them in terms of beatings, brutalities, slavery and hard labour.”
She delves deep into the reality of Indian society that “If lower castes seek reparations for humiliations and discrimination by upper castes, Hindu kings would have a far bigger price to pay than Muslim emperors would. If lower castes ask for destruction of every monument by an oppressive ruler, then there won’t be many historical buildings left standing in India.” For example, she cites example that “In Kerala, priests of the centuries-old Koodalmanikyam temple went on a strike recently, when a lower-caste man was appointed to make garlands for the deity.” Many cases surface on temple entry issues by the Untouchables across the country
Slicing layer by layer she goes deeper citing “In the village of Gidhagram in Bengal, it was just last week that Dalits, protected by the police and Rapid Action Force, entered the local temple for the first time in generations. Can those who wage war against the oppression of Aurangzeb fight for lower castes to become temple priests, for Dalits to become tantric?” She gets into various forms of untouchability meted out by the Dalit. In addition, discrimination in the educational institutions, work and public places, marriages and in other realms is rampantly prevailing. Caste is even now very well thriving abroad wherever Indians live or congregate.
She elaborates that “Modern India is a recent project which is untangling centuries of inequality and unlevel playing field. We have largely been a poor, uneducated people. Even in the 1891 Census of British India, only 10% of men and 0.4% women were literate. About 89% men were illiterate in Bengal, 94% in Central Provinces, and 85% in Madras. When it came to women, 99.6% were illiterate in Bengal, 99.8% in Central Provinces and 99% in Maras. However, male literacy was high in less discriminatory religions – 53% among Jains, 47% among Buddhists, 34% among Christians. For the Hindu, there is much to be aggrieved about in history, beyond Aurangzeb.” The data on illiterate and literates amplifies the glaring gap more than others. Charmy Harikrishnan unequivocally says that all history’s is violent. And so, views at episodes of India’s past were blood. In addition, there were brutal Europeanism colonialism and caste oppression even now continue and so India’s civilizational road map and well as colonisers trajectories show similar chequered histories too.
While concluding she says that “India, as a nation, which both strives for and bases itself in equality, is just 75 years old. It is a new construct, written into existence by a constitution that was shaped by a Dalit, who renounced Hinduism for Buddhism. If we reveal historical would of a pre-requisite India, we will never heal as a nation.” As right said India is still digging and scratching the old wounds on the binaries – We Vs Others, I Vs You, employing all sorts of divisiveness in social, religio-cultural, educational and economic spheres by constructing a narrative between “Majoritarianism Vs Minoritarianism”. History has taught us many lessons and so go beyond these constructs and set right the defects and plug the holes and gaps.
