 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. You're watching Present, Past and the Future. Much of Hindu nationalistic politics is built around the argument that injustices perpetuated on Hindus in 1200 years, period of Ghulami or slavery in medieval India have to be undone. This period is depicted as virtual struggle for freedom because Muslim emperors ruled during this era. They are accused of establishing Islamic rule in India. It is claimed that since 2014, India is beginning to come out of this liberation struggle because we now have a prime minister who proudly proclaims his Hindu nationalistic orientation. It is difficult to logically argue against one-dimensional theories on history. It is futile to contend that religious persecution was not the primary objective of rulers. In medieval states, many members of the ruling classes including some of the finest generals were Hindus. Hindu nationalistic hypothesis is based on history as stories of emperors and religious identities. People's identities, state character and policies are ignored because these do not fit political binaries. In Hindu nationalistic misrepresentation of medieval India, expletives are reserved for so-called invader kings and Mughal emperors. Invader kings are portrayed as villains whose sole intention was to plunder and return with captured goodies. Mughals are targeted because the dynasty ruled for the longest duration. In contemporary politics, Babur and Aurangzeb are most vilified. Babur, chiefly for allegedly ordering the demolition of the Ram temple at Ayodhya and Aurangzeb for being an Islamic despot. In contrast, Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar or Shahin Shah Akbar as is popularly called has been given the epitaph of great and his memory enjoys considerable public goodwill. Almost eight decades ago in 1941, a reader of Times of India wrote a letter to the editor. He praised Akbar, calling him great Indian soldier, statesman and the greatest Indian nationalist of all time. His words represented what average Indians thought of Akbar at that time. And I quote, in these days of domestic discord, communal dissensions and particularly the Hindu-Muslim split, India feels more than ever the need of an Akbar, the Apostle of United India. Does it appear that he was talking about today's India? In contrast to this sentiment, defence minister Rajnath Singh in 2015 asked very provocatively why Akbar was great and why not Rana Pratap. His views were transmitted on the Sangh Pariva Tom Tom messaging system. The campaign to vilify the great Mughal continues. Yet folklore is full of tales from Akbar and his life. Everyone has a favourite Akbar Birbal story. Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi narrated a story with links to the Mughal emperor to me when I was writing his biography. His village, Vadnagar, was home to legendary sisters Tana and Rivi. According to the lore, they sang Ragh Malhar to those flames after Mia Tansen's powerful rendering of Ragh Deepak for the emperor. But was Akbar actually great or was he not so great? No historical character we all know is linear. Yet their portrayal in contemporary world is often very unidimensional. A balanced reading of Shahin Shah Akbar is essential in today's India because adversaries use him as shield or weapon. Mani Muktasharma, historian, author and jurist will help us decode Jalaluddin Akbar's multi-layered life and contribution to Indian governance and development. His much acclaimed book, Allah Hu Akbar, understanding the great Mughal in today's India was recently published. Significant portions of what have spoken so far are drawn from here. Welcome Mani Muktasharma, it's really wonderful to speak to somebody who's actually written a very scholastic book on truly a great Indian who's being very misrepresented in contemporary India. Now when somebody like us we were growing up Akbar was the great. The great, the title given to him only to Emperor Ashoka besides Akbar. In popular culture also Akbar has been considered to be a very powerful person but over the decades there has been a gradual transition. Akbar does not have the kind of image which he was there. There's been a very sustained campaign as somebody who's a virtual biography also with a huge amount of setaways moving aside. How do you look at how Akbar's image has undergone the transformation in the last few decades? First of all I'm delighted to be here and I'm glad we are talking about Akbar because it is these conversations that really should happen. What has been happening in the last few years is that we no longer have a conversation. It's just a monologue which is served to us which says that Akbar was as tyrant as Adolf Hitler. I mean that is one example which was given a comparison that was made by a spokesperson of the Bharati Janta Party. And of course that comment comes because there is absolutely no understanding of the past. I mean we tend to understand the past through our present and are the conflicts that we are surrounded by the problems that we face. These tend to shape our understanding of the past. So our idea of the past often varies, is that variance with the past itself. The same thing has happened with Akbar. Now for a very long time Akbar was lucky that he was not vilified to the extent that he is today. But of course we do see glimpses of that process beginning in the late 80s, early 90s itself. Gradually people started talking about all Muslim rulers in the same vein that they were not... Nobody was great and that they had a bias towards Hindus and that they killed in millions and millions of Hindus. This is what the term which we often find on social media as well as whenever politicians speak. Akbar was fortunate in that regard because the vilification of him started pretty late. But now of course he is talking about in the same vein as Aurangzeb because earlier when I was a student we used to have these binaries that Akbar was the good Muslim and Aurangzeb was the bad Muslim. But now there aren't any good Muslims left. Now there aren't any good Muslims especially among the Mughals. Absolutely and not just the Mughals even the Delhi Sultanate. I mean just look at them. Delhi Sultanate in any case became bad quite early. Yeah true. Akbar was the last remaining good Muslim in history. Now he is no longer that. So what has happened is you have... Dara Shako remains the only Muslim. Dara Shako remains the only Muslim who is favored by the BJP and the RSS. But only because he serves a certain kind of purpose for them. Again a purpose of the present. Purpose of the present because you know this constant comparison between Aurangzeb and Dara Shako. I mean if you look at the contemporary chronicles and you don't see a religious angle or a good Muslim, bad Muslim angle. I mean Dara Shako was close to the Qadiriya Tariqa. The Qadiriya Tariqa supports Aurangzeb as well. So these are nuances which people tend to forget. With Akbar he was the only good Muslim left as you would agree that he was the only good Muslim left. Now he is no longer a good Muslim and this was done deliberately because he is the only other emperor who is considered to be great apart from our show. So now you have to actually present the entire dynasty as a bad dynasty. So the Mughals were bad because it's very integral. The 12th century Gulami is something straight out of a speech of Mr. Modi which I heard personally in 2012. That is why I used 1200. But various people use it differently. Somebody calls it 1000, somebody has a different way of dating it because it's not really a historical way of dating. But moving on, there is something very interesting which I found in your book that when you constantly, because it's present and past you constantly shuffle between the present and past. So you're looking for Akbar in modern times. You're looking for other rulers also in modern times. You've also seen that present leaders what, how to, to which emperor in the past are they have certain similarities. Rahul Gandhi you say has in his public behavior at least has certain very striking similarities with Akbar. When it comes to Modi, you talk about him being close to gas within Balban and Aurangzeb very controversially. I would like you to elaborate on this. Okay. So, you know, I was analyzing certain character traits of Akbar and he was a very informal sort of a man, at least in the early part of his reign. So I have mentioned a particular incident which is mentioned by Rafiuddin Shiraji. One of the historical sources that you have consulted. Yes. And Rafiuddin Shiraji was coming to Agra and at that time a representative of Shah Tahmas of Iran, the Safavid Emperor, he was coming. So Akbar had built a pavilion to welcome him. So when, when he comes and then there's a lot of commotion because Shiraji tries to find the source of it. So there's a lot of commotion and people started shouting Bacha Salamat, Bacha Salamat, Long Live the Emperor. So he could understand who is Bacha. Exactly. Yeah. So he was trying to look for the Bacha and his understanding of the Bacha would have to be right. Somebody imperial. Yeah. Somebody imperial, somebody very majestic and dressed very rightly. Straight out of kyaasir film. Absolutely. Perhaps that was the image. So he asked that, who is that? And then somebody says, that's our Bacha. And he said, does this court not follow any kind of etiquette? I mean, how can the Emperor mix with the common man? Because he is wearing a very simple kurta pajama with a half jacket and his hand is rested on the shoulder of another person and he's put his face on his hand. So it's a very informal way of appearing in public. So somebody tells him that, you know, this court is very elaborate when it comes to etiquette, but our Emperor is a very informal man. He keeps coming out to meet people. It's very difficult to observe etiquette when he's... And this was in the case with Balban or even with Aurangzeb. No, it was not. It was not. Because with Balban, and that's where the contrast comes, Balban was somebody who was the first Indian King to adopt the concept of Zillalla, which is the shadow of God on earth. It's essentially a Persian concept which he had adopted. So he tried to keep himself or project himself as somebody who is cut above the rest. You are not first among equals. You see the same trait in the Prime Minister. Yeah, so every act of meeting or say speaking to a commoner was portrayed as an example of his magnanimity, that he always being such a big person. He's reaching out to a common man. And the common man is supposed to feel grateful about it. So that was pretty much the idea of Balban's kingship. So he will keep himself separate. And of course he did that because the Chahal Ghani, which was a clique of 14 nobles, they were very powerful. And Balban did that because he wanted to appear separate from the rest of them so that his kingship could be divine. So that's why he took that. But Akbar was not like that, a very informal kind of a person. He was very informal. Just like the ordinary citizen. Absolutely. And I have talked about Rahul Gandhi because Rahul Gandhi despite having that aura of a prince, that's how he is protected as. The Gandhi family. The Gandhi family, right. So it's a dynasty which is referred to as. And Rahul Gandhi has ridden on bikes. He goes, he sits, he sleeps at the Dalit man's house. He eats from his kitchen. He goes to his rallies where he's even kissed by women, admirers of his. So you don't expect something like that with, say, somebody like Mr. Modi. He does the opposite. You know, quite like Balban, where he suits with his, you know, name, you know, pinstripe onto it. Absolutely. And then every time he, after his Red Fort speech on 15th of August, he comes out and goes the encircle. Those are all choreographed. Yes. In a very controlled manner. We all know that as journalists, we know that they are very controlled because the security would simply not allow somebody like the Prime Minister to mingle with the crowd. Right. So in a way, it is orchestrated. It is done with a certain intent that, okay, so the leader is very approachable, but he's not. He is showing his magnanimity by reaching out to you and you are supposed to feel grateful. So that's what essentially happens. That's why I talk about Balban being an idea. And with Aurangzeb, Aurangzeb's austerity was celebrated by the orthodoxy by Rulayma of his time. And in fact, his supporter has really held him up as an icon because he was so austere in his ways. So what is the common image that we get that he used to sue Caps? He would copy the Quran and that's how he used to have his income and when he died, he was buried with the income that he made by selling Quran copies and the topies. So he was also a Fakir. He was also a Fakir, right? And incidentally, Aurangzeb was also born in Gujarat. He's not a Fakir. So that austerity is even celebrated by the Hindurite. You will not have many friends because of what you say. So, but that austerity, the Aurangzeb austerity is even celebrated by the Hindurite because I remember I had done an article and somebody, in fact, I got a lot of abuses for that. But then somebody also wrote that, you know, you should have talked about, you know, these things about Aurangzeb because, you know, these are nice things that he was so virtuous. He was so austere. He would sue. So even the bad Muslim had some good qualities. Right. And the austerity aspect we see even in Mr. Modi because when he goes to meet Obama in the White House, he's observing his Navratri fast. So, despite a rich banquet being hosted in his honor, he's having only one more. So he's forsaking something. Yeah. Yeah. So his above worldly pleasures. Absolutely. And that is what is celebrated and, you know, hailed, that, okay, look for the first time. That creates a moral halo. Now, let's try to move further, you know, the 1941 letter to the editor of Times of India, which I talked about in the introduction. Why is it, what did Akbar do that it evoked that kind of a sentiment in an average Indian that he can save us from the impending doom which was clear in the beginning of 1940s? We all knew, you know, if you actually read through the history, that sensitive Indians of the time knew from the 1940s onwards that what lay in store for the country. Right. Maybe not the final contours of partition and all that, but knew that communal conflict is here to stay and only going to intensify. And only Akbar can actually come and save it. What was it that Akbar did that generated such hope and expectations from him? Right. Akbar's image, at least till that time, was of a remarkably open-minded ruler who united different people under the same, around his throne and offered them a platform for people of different faiths and beliefs and ideologies to stand together. That was made possible because of this concept of solhe kul, universal brotherhood, universal coexistence. The Indian idea of secularism even today, was heavily from that? was heavily from solhe kul because it's very different from the western model. Akbar... Secularism in India is not what is there in the English dictionary. No, it is not. It is a pluralistic state. So we have, we tolerate and we, we don't finance or propagate any religion, but that's going by the definition of the constitution, but we don't discriminate on the basis of that and we allow people to follow their faiths. So Akbar, solhe kul, tempted people of the time, say in the 1940s when we saw that there was so much commotion going on and there was so much communal rhetoric that was being, that was coming from different sides and the Congress and the Muslim League were completely falling apart when it came to the idea of a united India. So at that time Akbar appeared as a ray of hope. So someone, was somebody who could actually tell people that religious identity is not your only identity. You have a far more important identity and on that basis you and the other person is the same. Absolutely. And when Akbar was having those conversations with people from different religions of the Ibadat Khana, increasingly he was convinced that the state power and the church power should become separate. So he stops patronage of church activities. By church I mean religious activities. So the state becomes distant from, so the temporal power and the spiritual power are completely separated. And so this is what those people were longing for. I mean that's what gives Akbar his image of a monarch who tried to unite his different people. So he gave them equal rights. He believed in equal rights. He ended slavery. The people who are defeated, you should not make slaves out of them. They have dignity of life. So these are things that really appeal to people. I mean of course you could say that it was the propaganda of the time that these aspects were augmented, amplified so that people would think that okay this is a great king to emulate. I also maintain in my book that we always can learn from the past. But our past realities cannot influence our present. And we cannot look for a savior in a 16th century emperor. But we do have a problem. He was not definitely, he didn't work in a democracy. Absolutely. And so we should situate him in his time and context. But at the same time we do have a problem if a 16th century emperor appears as the better man and compared to 21st century democratically elected leaders. So then would you say that in many ways Akbar was possibly ahead of his time? Absolutely. I say that in my book as well. He was very ahead of his time because he believed in rationality. There are so many aspects, there are so many conversations that he had in his court which are documented by Abdul Fazal and Barahani, which would appear very problematic for very religious minded people even today. The way he says things about the prophet and he does not believe in the marriage which is central to the Islamic understanding of the prophet, the splitting of the moon. So he actually mocks them in court and he says that who will believe in all these things today? I mean it's just impossible. So that upset the ulema of the time, the orthodox, the religious minded people and they would upset even people like that today, people who are rooted in religion and their beliefs. He talks about these practices of Hindus where daughters are not given rights. He talks about the concept of sati and he does not like that and he thinks that this is just crazy. He articulates it very well. In fact, Abdul Fazal articulates it on his behalf but these are very striking things that I came across and these actually make Akbar very special for his time as well as for our time. There is something very interesting. If you look at present, especially when it comes to popular culture, we are talking about cinema, we are talking about TV serials. Of course, you know K.A. Asif and Jodha Akbar remain by far the most representative of Akbar's, the image of Akbar in society. Completely different from what we were talking about of him being a very ordinary citizen type, not given to wearing imperial robes all the time whereas in the sets he is always walking as a very stiff person not having the kind of fluidity which is there in the sources that you have cited. But if you look at the films and look at the depiction of Muslim rulers, you have Aurangzeb, Alauddin Khilji, even Tipu Sultan, either using very abusive language or being vilified but Akbar has not really been vilified or has not been shown to be using the kind of language which he actually used, which you said in your book. But do you see that now beginning to happen? You see, even today, I mean... Greater amount of demonization, that is what says Rajna Singh of course started by saying, why not Rana Pradab? So when you talk about the language that he used, of course he was a very earthy man and he was probably closer to India because the common thing that is the argument is that he was a foreigner. Everyone tends to argue on those lines that Mughals were foreigners because Akbar was also a foreigner. There has to be a point after which a person seizes to be a foreigner. The way we celebrate Indians, people of Indian origin who are doing very well in political career outside India in other countries in America or in the UK, if we are celebrating them then we should be open and embrace those people who have come from outside and have gone on to become Indian citizens, as good or as bad Indian citizens as all of us are. Right, true. And in fact, in the movie Jodha Akbar, that movie also tries to make the same point. So you have one exchange where Jodha set certain conditions only if Akbar fulfills those conditions, he will marry him. And Akbar comes out and says that we should tell him that we are born of the earth like he is. So it stresses that he is no longer a foreigner. There is a point at which he is crossed. So everybody else, thereafter after the Mughals, Akbar and Humayun from thereafter everybody is as much Bharti as anyone else. Absolutely. And he was born on Indian soil in the house of a Rajput. Right, Rana Parshad. And he was breastfed after his mother by a Hindu woman called Dayabhawal, who was one of the concubines of Humayun. And so you see that identity that he is not foreigner at all. I mean he is Indian born on Indian soil. He spoke Hindustani and he used to abuse in Hindustani. I have said that in the book. So this very chased Urdu speaking Akbar that we tend to associate Akbar with thanks to mass media. He was not like that. The court language was different. The language that people spoke in their homes was very different. It's not very different from the language that we speak today. So Akbar was like that, a very informal sort of a person. He could be formal when he wanted to, but he really never needed to be formal all the time. So those images of Akbar contradict with the actual Akbar. And the actual Akbar was much more humane, much more likeable than the sine Akbar that we are used to. True. So he was an Indian king. There's no doubt about that. You know, they come towards the end of our program. My last question to you is that, you know, contemporary Indian politics is not something that has happened in the last few years only. You know, this is a process which has been going on for almost three decades. You know, further from the 1980s onwards, we have seen a greater amount of majoritarian expression becoming, you know, being acceptable in the public domain. In such a situation, what is the relevance of somebody like Akbar today? Well, Akbar shows you the way. Of course, we are talking about the 16th century, but we have to understand that there was still a lot of problems between different communities in the 16th century. It is not that everything was harmonious at that point. There was conflict. There were also issues related to religion. But it was not the dominating issue. Of course, religion was one of the factors. Now the moment there is a conflict, the first thing you put on the table is religion. Absolutely. Even when there is a crime like murder or rape, the religious identity has become the primary basis of social identity. Absolutely. And it was not like that in the past. At least the kind of things that we can glean from the sources tell us that the past was not like that. Of course, religion was a factor, but it was never the uniting factor when it came to conflict. Just to give you an example, when it comes to Akbar, the story of the conquest of Chittor is often amplified. Exactly. What is not very well known is that Chittor was defended. The garrison commander was somebody called Jaimal Rathor. Jaimal Rathor was a Meirata Rajput. Jaimal Rathor originally was a Mughal ally. He had asked for Akbar's help to take over the fort of Meirata, which had been snatched away from him by Rao Maldiv of Marwar. And Akbar sent in his armies and he was one of the commanders, Jaimal Rathor himself. He snatched the fort back, put the garrison to the sword and Jaimal Rathor was the one who actually pointed out to the Mughal commander Mirza Sharfuddin Hussein that you should not give them any quarter. Now, he goes back after Sharfuddin rebels, he goes back to Mewar because Mewar was his overlord, the Rana. And he becomes the garrison commander there. So, when Akbar's armies go, it is Jaimal who is defending the fort. After Jaimal dies, the Rathor clan is led by somebody called Saib Khan Rathor. And he's a Muslim Rajput. And Saib Khan Rathor's entire family commits Johar. I mean, his widows, his wives, they jump into the fire. He commits Saka. He rides to the battle. And Da is fighting the enemy. So, you don't see a religious angle there, do you? I mean, there are people on both sides. So, what you say the relevance of Akbar today is that somebody could say that religious identity is not everything as far as politics is concerned. That there could be alliances which could be stitched despite or in spite of religious identity. Absolutely, absolutely. I think it's very important to understand the greatness of Akbar and I hope that there will be a good reading of your book to be able to understand. There is need for more and more people who are trained in history but for who are not professional historians to come out and write in language which can reach out to a very wide range of people. Thank you, Mani Mugda. It's really been a pleasure and congratulations on your very successful book. Thank you so much. In times of conflict, memory of rulers like Akbar face constant threat from political leaders who set the social discourse. The Mughals are constantly depicted as nothing but villains by Hindu nationalists or forces committed to Hindutva. Yet, their leaders have much to worry about. After all, there are still a large number of people like Avtars of that later writing gentleman in 1941 who hoped for an Akbar-like figure to lead the country away from mutual antagonism and hostility. We must remember that even someone like Lala Lajpatraya considered Akbar as one of the greatest monarchs in history. Akbar had his shortcomings but then we cannot use the prism of the present to view the past. Thank you for watching.