How RSS has tied itself in knots over Aurangzeb

medium119419838The normally clear-headed Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) appears to be all over the place and struggling to explain its line on the latest anti-Aurangzeb controversy.Not only is it at odds with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the issue, but its own leaders are speaking in conflicting voices.For a famously sure-footed organisation, the prevailing sense of confusion on an issue that’s such an integral part of its ideological agenda is striking.Let’s start with RSS spokesman Sunil Ambekar’s statement that Aurangzeb is no longer “relevant”, which, not surprisingly, has prompted intense speculation, especially in the more excitable Muslim circles.Has the RSS really given up its old hard line on the Mughals and no longer believes that exhuming hundreds of years of old bones serves any purpose?Some have even rushed to see his comment as a rebuke to the BJP, which is leading a high-octane campaign to remove Aurangzeb’s tomb from Khuldabad in Maharashtra.Asked by reporters ahead of the RSS’s annual Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha last week whether Aurangzeb, who died more than 300 years ago, was still relevant today, he said: “I think (he is) not relevant.”Later speaking to TOI, he clarified: “The tomb issue is not irrelevant; Aurangzeb is (irrelevant).”The clarification took some of the shine off his original comment, but was still considered significant because of its timing — bang in the middle of the BJP’s often violent agitation against the most polarising 17th-century Mughal figure.In a roundabout way, his statement suggested a shift from its long-held ideological position not to let Hindus forget what the “cruel” Mughals, particularly Aurangzeb, did to them, their places of worship and culture.If not exactly a shift, there appeared to be at least a softening of its old orthodoxy — even as the BJP continues to cling on to it. medium nocaptionhttp://youtu.be/MJYutbEtuQY?si=NysTrXUIaEP8pCV2Only two days before Ambekar’s statement, BJP’s feisty spokesperson Sanju Verma — when asked on a TV debate whether it was relevant to keep obsessing about Aurangzeb — reminded the interviewer of the old adage that “if you forget your history, you are doomed to repeat it”.A loyal Sanghi can be forgiven for being confused about who to take seriously — the RSS or the BJP?Moreover, Ambekar’s remarks handed ammunition to the Sangh’s estranged former ally, Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray), to accuse it of “double speak” — challenging it to call off the ongoing protest if it believed it was “not relevant” anymore.“If Aurangzeb is irrelevant, why don’t they (RSS) tell this to their leaders?” asked Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray.But forget all this. Here’s what one of the Sangh’s most prominent intellectuals, Ram Madhav, had to say on the subject.In a newspaper article published shortly after Ambekar’s argument that while Aurangzeb was “not relevant”, the “tomb is”, Madhav took an exactly opposite (and more sensible) view.After giving a quick lowdown on Aurangzeb’s “sordid history”, which “undoubtedly makes him the most hated among the Mughal rulers”, he wrote: “But we must remember that the course of history doesn’t change merely by removing a couple of symbols here and there… What is worth fighting is not the dilapidated grave but the debased legacy of Aurangzeb.”So, what’s going on?Coming as they do from the top echelons of the Sangh leadership, these discordant voices (publicly contradicting each other) cannot be simply brushed aside.Not least, because the famously disciplined Sangh leaders are trained to speak from the same script and any deviation invariably invites disciplinary action. medium nocaptionhttp://youtu.be/yQxdFDq4yPI?si=kNqzedrwCS4GCI1AUnless it’s the old “good cop, bad cop” routine which the RSS does so well — saying different things to different people depending on what they want to hear, though in the end, the hard line prevails.Remember how Muslims fell in love with Mohan Bhagwat after he told his followers to stop “looking for a shivling in every mosque” and initiated a much-trumpeted dialogue with Muslim intellectuals, raising hopes that “achhe din” were round the corner?Three years later, however, nothing has changed: the search for “a shivling in every mosque” continues unabated and the “dialogue” never really got off the ground as the RSS lost interest.It will be interesting to see how this one pans out. In a reprieve for Aurangzeb’s tomb or its demolition?Either way, the broader ideological war against what Madhav calls the “sordid” Mughal legacy will go on.There’s something almost Freudian about the Sangh’s obsession with the Mughals.Obliterating all reminders of Mughal rule — street and city names, monuments and mosques built by them, even their graves and tombs — remains its final goal.And nothing is off the table. Including the Taj Mahal.The focus currently is on razing Aurangzeb’s mud grave, grandly referred to as a tomb and regarded as a painful reminder of his atrocities.Well, here’s the reality: “There’s 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 ‘civilisational revenge’ disturbing the dead?” wrote a TOI columnist.And here’s what Madhav wrote: “Aurangzeb’s grave in Khuldabad near Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar is a small and unimpressive structure with no fanfare or paraphernalia. Historians claim that Aurangzeb himself had wanted it that way and no coffin was used to bury him.”So much for the horrific symbol of Aurangzeb’s bloody, Hinduphobic reign.The truth is that the agitation for removing this apology of a tomb has nothing to do with any real issue but is simply meant to keep Hindu-Muslim tensions alive. medium nocaptionhttp://youtu.be/zssaq9gYBi8?si=9-8p2uzy1MWjudgHHaving said this, however, Muslims can’t ignore their own role in becoming a target of anti-Mughal fanaticism.Instead of pushing back on the Sangh’s “Babur ki aulad” narrative and disowning any association with the Mughals, Muslims have become so defensive as to almost sound like apologists for Aurangzeb and company.Samajwadi Party leader Abu Azmi’s remark defending Aurangzeb is of a piece with the Muslim community’s defensive reaction to any attack on the Mughals.The point is not whether the attacks are justified — that’s something for historians to debate. But whether it’s fair to hold today’s Muslims answerable for their actions.Of course, it’s not. But at the same time, Muslims must stop being so sensitive to any criticism of Mughal rulers — and desist from laying claims to Mughal-era mosques and monuments as inheritors of Mughal legacy.It was a grave blunder to be drawn into the dispute over Babri Masjid given Hindu sentiments even if politically motivated. And they are making the same mistake over other mandir-masjid disputes.Every such claim and every attempt to defend the Mughals plays into the Sangh’s “Babur ki aulad” propaganda.Of course, this is not the only mistake the community has made over the years. But that’s an issue for a separate column.For now, it’s the Sangh that needs to get its act together on an issue so dear to its heart.Read more from the author here.