Divide And Rule: The Politics Of Historical Controversies In Contemporary India | File Photo
History cannot be changed, but it can certainly be used by political parties to their advantage by creating a narrative based on historical grievances to divert people’s attention from the issues of the day. In the modern political arena, the ancient strategy of divide and rule is well and alive.
Politicians across the globe have perfected this tactic: use history not to encourage debate but to polarise people and distract the electorate from real-life issues. The technique is simple but quite effective: stir up emotional divisions by demonising historical ‘injustice’, create a story and avoid answering hard questions.
Polarisation, at its core, according to sociologists and political analysts, is not just about disagreement. It is about turning two sides against each other and creating an emotionally charged socio-political discourse that makes rational thought and civil debate difficult.
Such an ecosystem helps politicians to divide people and deflect attention from their failure to create thoughtful solutions and policy actions to tackle issues and problems of livelihood, education, healthcare, environment, social mobility, and economic growth.
Instead of addressing these issues that require accountability, politicians resort to feeding on the fear and insecurities of the electorate by focusing on irrelevant issues and controversies relating to history.
As people get engrossed in inconsequential controversies, anger and polarisation thrive and politicians escape scrutiny of their own actions and policies. The recent controversy over the 17th century Mughal ruler Aurangzeb’s tomb in Khuldabad is hardly a subject of any meaningful contemporary consequence.
The mayhem and violence that followed in Nagpur over his grave, following demands by right-wing Hindu organisations to remove his tomb, which Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis blamed on the Hindi movie Chhaava, tells something about our politicians: seeking refuge in the past for their failure to effectively tackle the present.
Aurangzeb is one of the most controversial Mughal emperors, least popular and certainly not an icon for Muslims. But he happens to be one of the Hindutva brigade’s greatest enemies for the simple reason that his kingdom is viewed not from a nuanced perspective but as anti-Hindu.
History tells us that not all kingdoms were only good or totally bad. Judging history only from the prism of good versus evil will deprive us of a nuanced understanding of the past. No movie can give a rational perspective of history: a film is essentially a scripted narrative that pits someone in conflict with another. In the good versus the bad fight, the film champions the good guy and demonises the bad.
Chhaava cannot be the sole judge of Aurangzeb’s kingdom—his policies, which evolved over 50 years, his alleged bias against Hindus or his crudity. Judging Aurangzeb’s rule, or for that matter any Muslim king or kingdom, from today’s value system will give us a coloured understanding of history rather than a pure objective view.
Chhaava gives us a biased interpretation of Aurangzeb’s persona. The tragedy is that in today’s polarised times, the film has been projected as an objective account of a contentious historical figure. However, what gives it legitimacy is right-wing politicians endorsing and hailing it as a true account of history.
What is equally problematic is that politicians have taken cover behind its success to justify the anger it has generated against Aurangzeb and the anti-Muslim sentiment it fuelled. Controversies are intrinsic to the discipline of history. India has had a generous share of them.
But too often drowned in the din of politics and ideologies, they have rarely been approached with scholarly rigour and a dispassionate scrutiny of diverse perspectives. When historical controversies are politicised, it is easy for right-wing politicians to leverage the political character of historical grievances by cherry-picking history. All they need is inflammatory content, not reasoned arguments.
Central to the Hindutva Bridget’s ideology is the juxtaposition of a glorious Hindu golden age, followed by an era of Muslim oppression, key ingredients in the politics of nostalgia and score-settling. Of course, the BJP puts it differently. “New India is proud of its culture and also has confidence in its ability,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said in December 2021, after inaugurating phase 1 of the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor in Varanasi. “There is Virasat (heritage) blended with Vikas (development).” Unfortunately, the mix of development with heritage (read: religion) has become the dominant narrative for building a new India where thought, analysis and a nuanced view of history are replaced with outrage and reaction.
Nostalgia is said to be a powerful political tool. Evoking the glorious past, according to experts on populism and the radical right, “is the best way to make people feel good about themselves at a time when there is little to be cheerful about”.
Whether it is Donald Trump or the right-wing populists of Europe, they all play on nostalgia and the promise of a reborn glory. They play on economic stagnation and falling standards of living to encourage division and hostility against immigrants. India is no different: seeking refuge in the past and raking history time and again to play on emotions and stir passions to browbeat the Muslim community is politically expedient for the BJP.
The politics of historical controversies—galvanising people around what happened centuries ago—to deflect people’s attention from real-world issues is a tried and tested strategy to draw people into a never-ending cycle of outrage. Manufactured outrage may shift the conversation from problems of the day and help the government hide inconvenient data and the full story about the economy, unemployment, education, healthcare, malnutrition, mass poverty, falling incomes, rising inequality, rural distress, high indirect taxes, low corporate taxes, rising urban pollution, corporate loan write-offs, and below-par mass transport infrastructure, but the long-term effects of this political strategy are troubling.
There is so much economic disparity in India that it is an everyday struggle for the common man just to survive. Instead of acknowledging and focusing on serious issues that concern the average citizen, the BJP and its leaders seem more interested in using history as a political tool to stay in power. This is no way to handle historical controversies.
The writer is a senior independent Mumbai-based journalist. He tweets at @ali_chougule
