The recent release of Chhaava, which tells the story of a young Shivaji’s encounter with Aurangzeb, has once again stirred age-old controversy surrounding the Mughal emperor’s legacy. For centuries, Aurangzeb has been depicted as a polarising figure in Indian history while ignoring the fact that he was a just and fair ruler.
Chhaava has been strongly criticised by Muslim groups who claim that it distorts Aurangzeb’s image and perpetuates negative stereotypes about Muslims. The film’s portrayal of Aurangzeb as a cruel and power-hungry ruler has been criticised as inaccurate and biased. Historian such as Satish Chandra has argued that Aurangzeb’s policies were driven by a desire to maintain imperial authority and stability rather than religious fanaticism.
According to Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, General Secretary, Indian History Congress, “The movie is not based on any historical account but a novel of the same name! If someone has to understand Aurangzeb, one can at least read what Sir Jadunath Sarkar wrote on him in 6 volumes. And he was not biased in favour of the emperor.
“Who betrayed Sambhaji? None other than fellow Marathas. In the first place, who defeated Shivaji? Mirza Raja Jai Singh. Who incarcerated him at Agra? Ram Singh, son of Mirza Raja Jai Singh. Who helped him in escaping? A Muslim!” he argued.
“Actually, as I keep saying, these are the days when these people are not interested in what actually happened. They have their own wet dreams which they try to pass over as “history”! Aurangzeb was born of a father who had a Hindu mother. His grandfather was also the result of the marriage with a Rajput woman. Aurangzeb’s mother was an Iranian. His son Akbar once wrote to him: “Don’t you remember why you won over Dara?” Because the Rajputs supported you! Who was the finance minister of Aurangzeb? Raja Raghunath Rai: incidentally the first Hindu Finance Minister after Raja Todar Mal,” added Rezavi.
On the question why people misunderstood Aurangzeb, he said, “He is not “misunderstood”: it’s the propaganda of the ignorant which is being trumpeted as gospel of truth. Is PM not on record that the economy in 17th century before the setting up of British Colonialism was robust? Was he not praising Aurangzeb?
“On the other hand, let’s not forget that three centuries back (when Aurangzeb lived), there was neither the concept of a Nation, nor there was a constitution which guaranteed certain fundamental rights. And there was no democracy. Unfortunately today, we have all these things, yet people are being forced to live in fear. Their places of worship are not safe. They are not also being allowed to safely and openly practise their beliefs,” he said.
Rezavi further elaborated, “Under Aurangzeb when at Ahmedabad a certain clash occurred between the State officials (Muslim) and the banias. Aurangzeb came out openly in favour of the banias and the Mughal officials were punished. Incidentally when Shivaji Maharaj sacked and burned Surat. Who was looted? Who suffered? The merchant community of Surat which was predominantly Hindu bania!.”
“Aurangzeb is in the news as if he is not a historical figure but a contemporary one. More so after the controversy rose after the film Chhaava, based on a novel by Shivaji Sawant. The hate against Aurangzeb and thereby against today’s Muslims is jacked up. All negative things which are part of the pattern of kings are being selectively presented as an example of cruelty of Aurangzeb. That he imprisoned his father and killed his two brothers is shown as his cruel nature. Some historians and filmmakers deliberately overlook the fact that inheritance in the times of Kings was through power struggle among the royal family,” said Ram Puniyani, former professor at IIT Mumbai.
He added, “Let’s recall Emperor Ashoka killed many of his brothers to come to power. Ajatshatru killed his father to come to power. Chhaava film itself shows that Rajaram, Sambhaji’s half-brother, tried to poison Sambhaji. As far as breaking Hindu temples is concerned, Aurangzeb got few temples destroyed because some immoral acts were taking place there as in Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Sometimes temple symbolising rival kings were broken. The important point is Aurangzeb gave donations to over hundred temples (Farmans of King Aurangzeb by Dr.Vishambharnath Pandey). Some of the temples where he gave donations are Kamakhya Devi (Guwahati, Assam), Mahakaleshwar (Ujjain), Chitrakut Balaji and Lord Krishna in Vrindavan.”
“His policy towards Sikh Gurus was based on the rivalry as Prince Khurram was supported by Sikh Gurus; Aurangzeb also gave a place for building a Gurudwara in Dehradun. That he tried to convert Hindus to Islam is totally baseless. He did ask the defeated King to accept Islam, to get pardon. As far as ordinary folk are concerned, he never tried this. On the contrary the number of Hindu officials in his Court was highest (33%, Prof Ather Ali’s Composition of Mughal Administration). Raja Jaisingh, Jaswant Singh and Raghunath Bahadur were top officials in his administration,” said Puniyani.
The controversy surrounding Aurangzeb’s legacy is a complex and multifaceted issue that reflects deeper debates about Indian history, identity, and politics. While Chhaava has sparked outrage and protest, it also provides an opportunity for Indians to engage with their complex and contested past. By promoting a nuanced and balanced understanding of Aurangzeb’s reign and legacy, Indians can work towards a more inclusive and harmonious future.
Historians have criticised Chhaava for its portrayal of Aurangzeb and its alleged distortion of historical facts. According to Indrajit Sawant, a self-proclaimed historian, the movie wrongly portrays Soyarabai Bhosale as one of the antagonists instead of Annaji Datto, the Sachiv for Shivaji Maharaj. Sawant claims that this distortion is based on flawed historical research.
Other historians argue that the movie perpetuates a simplistic Hindu-Muslim binary, ignoring the complexities of medieval Indian history. They point out that the movie glosses over the fact that Sambhaji had allied with Muslim Sultanates against Hindu kings, and that the Maratha Empire was built through a combination of military conquests and strategic alliances with various groups, including Muslims.