For the world, the Taj Mahal is a monument of peerless beauty; the “teardrop on the cheek of time” that is one of the Seven Wonders of the World. For us Indians, it is a monument that dates back over 350 years; a testament to the architectural and engineering abilities of our forefathers and something to be justly proud of. For the non-sentimental, the Taj Mahal is a tourist site that generates crores in revenue and employs literally lakhs, either directly or indirectly. So what possible problem could any Indian have with this stunningly marvelous creation that every travel-buff in the world probably has on their must-see bucket list?
Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath feels that the Taj Mahal is ‘Un-Indian’ - according to him, “minarets do not reflect Indian culture”. He felt that it was wrong that dignitaries visiting India were given Taj replicas and now such dignitaries carry back copies of the Ramayana or the Mahabharata instead. Earlier this month, the UP government issued a tourism booklet from which the Taj Mahal – among the most photographed buildings ever and a UNESCO world heritage site – was conspicuous by its absence.
More recently another BJP leader and MLA has attacked the Taj Mahal. Sangeet Som lamented that “the person who made Taj Mahal imprisoned his father… he targeted the Hindus of Uttar Pradesh and India… if these people still find place in history, then it is very unfortunate.” (Som has his historical facts laughably wrong; but that is by the way). He added “and the blots which are in our books, be it of Akbar, Aurangzeb, Babur… the government is working to remove them from history.”
There is of course also another theory about the Taj Mahal – that it was not a mausoleum built by a Mughal Emperor at all – but is a Shiva Temple call Tejo Mahalya built by a Hindu king (a theory propounded by someone who thinks the Vatican was also a Shiva temple and that all monuments of note in the world are of Vedic origin, in case one is interested).
Indian monuments
Both Yogi Adityanath and Sangeet Som are accused of inciting communal hatred and for participating in/instigating riots. Their anti-minority; particularly their anti-Muslim stance is no secret. Unfortunately these and others who subscribe to their ideology are unable to differentiate between Hindu and Indian. They are unable to comprehend that the idea of India is a vastly more generous, comprehensive and inclusive idea and their narrow interpretation of the word ‘Indian’ not only militates against a huge number of Indian citizens, but also against the idea of India itself.
This warped ideology is also unable to differentiate between ‘settlers’ and ‘occupiers/colonizers’. While Babur was an invader not born in India, he settled in India and died here. All subsequent Mughal Emperors were born in India, married here, spent their lives and died here. They maintained no links to the place that Babur hailed from; nor did they repatriate wealth back to any location outside India.
They were Indians in every sense of the word. Contrast this with the British occupation of India, where the imperialists occupied India and exploited Indians and Indian resources for the benefit of their ‘home country’ Britain and for rank personal profit. It was never the intention of the British to become ‘Indians’ in any sense of the word.
From the foregoing, it becomes clear that those who have objection to the Mughals and who refuse to acknowledge even the fact that Akbar was among the most benevolent and enlightened leaders of his time – base their objection chiefly on the Islamic faith of the dynasty (though in Akbar’s case even that rings hollow in view of his inclusive nature, his inter-faith marriages and his promulgation of the faith Din-E-Ilahi based on tenets of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism).
To say that the Mughals were not Indians simply because Babur was an invader or because the rulers were not Hindu, is to have a very skewed and extremely limited perception of what it is to be Indian. Does one’s religious persuasion make one an outsider? In that case, am I, a Parsi Zoroastrian also an outsider?
British monuments in India
Following Yogi and Som’s comments, some justifiable questions have been raised: will we be willing to destroy the Taj Mahal because it was built by ‘outsiders’; because Som feels the need to “erase” the “blot” of Mughals from our history books?
Are all monuments built by Muslims – India is littered with such iconic structures – destined for the same fate? Will the Prime Minister of India stop hoisting the Indian tricolor from the Red Fort every Independence Day; seeing that it was built by ‘outsiders’. Also is the hatred reserved exclusively for Muslim perceived as ‘outsiders’ or other, actual outsiders such as the British colonizers? If so, will we go ahead and demolish all buildings that the British built – such as the Victoria Terminus, Rashtrapati Bhavan, Gateway of India, Victoria Memorial?
People who differentiate between Indians based on religious faith are doing untold harm to the very idea of India – which to my mind is an inclusive, accepting entity that welcomes and encompasses different faiths, regions, languages and multiple cultures. It is this very varied and diverse nature of India that makes us more than the sum of our parts.
If only the netas who believe in divide and rule would understand the power of our diversity vis-à-vis their petty, political agendas.
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
