There is no difference between Hitler and Aurangzeb. What Hitler did to Jews, Aurangzeb did to Hindus and Shias. While Hitler is rightly demonised and denial of his atrocities is a punishable crime in Europe and Canada, Aurangzeb is glorified as a great religious leader in India.
As we speak of criminalising denial of his atrocities, those who expose his religious despotism and atrocities are accused of spreading communalism even today.
No wonder, the ruthless Mughal despot is emerging as the new hero of the self-anointed seculars and liberals in the country. A gradual process is going on to deify the cruel Mughal king as a “pragmatic ruler” who even made “liberal donations” to Hindu temples.
His recorded and indisputable atrocities towards Sikh Gurus are gradually being overlooked, while his cruelty towards Shiva Ji and his son Sambha Ji is being disputed, if not completely denied. Some Muslim leaders and scholars suffix ‘RA’ (Rahmatullah Alaih), a title reserved for noble souls.
As the ‘Chhaava’ movie based on the life of Sambhaji Maharaj made waves at the box office, creating awareness about Aurangzeb’s atrocities, the ‘secular-liberal’ brigade in the country is out again to malign the movie by alleging that it is spreading communalism. This ‘secular-liberal’ brigade does not have a single argument against the facts detailed in the movie, yet it suggests that such movies are spreading communal hatred in the country. When has telling the truth led to spreading communal hatred? And should truth be hidden for the fear that it may spread hatred?
Hatred between ‘whom’ or against ‘whom’?
When a couple of years ago, “Kashmir Files” movie was released, which also became a box-office hit, similar canards were spread about that movie. “Kashmir Files” is more of a documentary, which graphically documents some of the cruel and brutal incidents that happened with the Kashmiri Pandits, leading to their eventual exodus from their homeland, Kashmir.
Like “Chhaava”, the “Kashmir Files” was also based on historical facts. There was not a single incident depicted in the movie, which was imaginary or fictional. The entire movie documented real incidents, which had taken place just about two to three decades ago.
Obviously nobody could object to the movie based on its factual position. The narrative spread against the movie was that it had tried to malign a “particular community”, although there was not a single reference to any community. Similarly, “Chhaava” is alleged to lead to communal polarisation against a “particular community”, when there are no references to any such “particular community”.
Why should any members of a particular community identify with or relate to the perpetrators of atrocities depicted in both the movies? Why should any particular community assume that it was being targeted just because the movie was identifying the real perpetrators of the atrocities?
The problem starts when any community or majority of its members refuse to identify with the victims and instead identify with the perpetrators as happened in case of the “Kashmir Files” and is now happening with “Chhaava”.
No particular community living in the country should assume that it is being blamed for the sins committed by the people who share its religion.
Also read: DMK keen to keep the linguistic pot boiling
Why should any community have any objection in revealing the truth? The truth is that those who committed gruesome atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits, including massacres, do belong to a “particular community”.
That is a fact of history, which cannot be obliterated or wished away. There is no reason for anyone to take it upon himself/ herself. Someone committing a crime and sharing your faith does not mean you are a partner in that crime. Nor should anyone defend the “crime and the criminal” just because s/he shares the same faith.
Same is the case with “Chhaava”. Aurangzeb committed inhuman atrocities on the members of the Hindu, Sikh and Maratha communities. His treatment of Sikh Gurus and Maratha rulers is well documented and recorded in history.
Why should any particular community feel disturbed when truth is revealed about the Mughal despot? The members of the community should identify with the victims. Instead, that “community” is not only identifying with Aurangzeb, but also glorifying him? This is something similar to “anti-semitism” and must be treated as such, the way it is treated in Europe and America.
Denying that holocaust is a crime in Europe. But denying similar crimes in India is “secularism and liberalism”. If anyone describes Aurangzeb as a bigot, he is described as a right wing hate monger, and the one who describes him as someone who contributed to temples, is a secular and liberal.
The narrative about Aurangzeb having contributed to building of temples was built up by the “left-liberal” ecosystem in the country, which in turn, was promoted and patronised by successive regimes. These regimes preferred “political correctness” over harsh facts, for unexplained reasons. The consequences are that now when somebody tries to speak the truth, he is damned as a “bigot”.
No wonder, movies like the “Kashmir Files”, “Chhaava”, “Kerala Story” and others are damned and dismissed as spreading “communal venom”.
Time has come for India to criminalise the denial of atrocities by despots like Aurangzeb.
Follow us
