In a discussion with one of my senior colleagues on growing intolerance between Hindus and Muslims recently, it was almost a consensus concluding point that this has begun since the Emperor Aurangzeb seated himself on Mughal throne. It was agreed that Emperors Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan had engaged themselves in interacting culturally with the Hindus. Arguments of patronage to different shrines, Hindu sciences, Sanskrit and Hindavi were surfaced. Though, I pointed out Shahjahan’s orthodox attitude and his demolition of Bundela temple but that was swept under the carpet since he was a romantic person and had a sense for aesthetics. It was Aurangzeb who did all wrongs and divided the Hindus and the Muslims. I don’t know why, I felt uncomfortable with the opinion. First of all, Akbar’s idea of tolerance was not monolithic and had shades and phases into it. Mughals were very much a believer in the ideas of Hellenistic philosophical ideals of kingship (as represented by Akhlaq-i Nasiri and Akhlaq-i Humayuni), which required them to be a philosopher king, who had to create harmony and cooperation among his subject communities (ta'aif). As recent researches show, Akbar believed himself to be the Promised Messiah (Mehdi) not only for Muslims but he considered himself to be ‘final embodiment of King Manu’ (as explained in Razmnama, the Persian translation of Mahabharata) and an incarnation of god Rama. However, at times Akbar too used intolerant languages against idolatry and the 'kafirs' and how one can forget his butchering of common masses during the battle of Chittor (1567-8).
 |
| Lord Rama killing Ravana: Persian Ramayana |
We have evidences that Aurangzeb too had good relations with several akharas of Saivites in Punjab, Banaras and Bihar. He advised his sons to take care of the Rajputs since they are valiant and loyal supporters of the house. However, no one can deny the bigotry and orthodox attitude of Aurangzeb, his some of the orders unprecedented in the history of the Mughals, of excluding Hindus from madad-i ma‘ash grants. But at the same time the grants of Saivites of Jangambari and Bodh Gaya were allowed after the very period. If we see political history of the time, it appears that it was a period of suffocation for the Hindus. Did this period really draw a thick line between the two communities? Then how one should interpret the event narrated by Bernier? He says that one of his Muslim servants killed a peacock for consumption and a local Hindu reported the matter to the shihna of the locality (Bengal). Killer of the peacock was arrested and was reminded of the rule of the Mughals that killing a peacock since Hindus consider it to be holy is a crime. Bernier argued with the shihna that Islam does allow eating a peacock, but the officer did not pay any heed to him since the crime was of hurting the sentiments of a Hindu neighbor. How should one see the administration of Aurangzeb? Seeing the bigotry of the emperor that Muslim shihna should have acted like an orthodox Muslim and released the accused since it is no sin to eat peacock in Islamic sharia?
 |
| Silver Medallion of Jahāngīr depicting Ram and Sita [1610 AD] |
With this kind of religious understanding of earlier centuries let us now move to the next century, i.e. the eighteenth century. Abdur Razzaq Banswi (spiritual master of Mullah Nizamuddin of Dars-i Nizami fame) had two Bairagi friends, Chait Ram, and Paras Ram. Banswi used to attend the dance-drama party of Krishna bhakti. Once, while in a similar party to celebrate the appointment of the successor of Chait Ram at his place Banswi fell into trance. Banswi claimed that Lord Krishna was present there. After the play was over, Banswi retired to rest. Some of the chelas then asked their bairagi guru, if they too could have the vision of the Lord. The guru replied that the person who just has left, if wishes, can you have the Lord’s darshan. The chelas then approached Banswi, who managed them a vision of the Lord. Even theologians like Mullah Nizamuddin was blessed by his pir to see Lord Krishna and the gopis. Mulla Nizamuddin, his brother Mulla Muhammad Raz, and their nephew Mulla Kamaluddin saw the Lord in their way from Lucknow to Bansa. Initially, the mullahs mistook Lord Krishna and his gopis for an ordinary man and his womenfolk. But as they approached near the Lord, who said: Convey my salam to your pir. In another case Banswi had a vision of Lord Rama and Lakshman in a jungle of Deccan when he lost his way; it was Lord Rama and his brother, who showed him the way since Banswi was from Lord’s “Own Lachhnau”. (Shahjahanpuri, Muhammad Khan, Malfuz-i Razzaqi and Manaqib-i Razzaqiya of Mullah Nizamuddin Farangimahalli)
It is highly unlikely that Banswi’s vision of Lord Krishna and Rama was a personal spiritual experience. These visions were the tools used for communicating his world view to his disciples as well as to a wider audience of Awadh region. The sufi functioned within the inclusive spiritual geography of the region and was like any other spiritual gosain guru, who acted on the stage of spirituality. It seems even during the eighteenth century, even though the political landscape appears divided, the contact-cooperation between the two communities were intact. It seems the divide permeated into the masses from above at a later stage. I propose to see this in changing notions of ‘proprietary rights’ and processes of individualization.