Some Brief Reflections on India And The Mughals

(i) Mahatma Gandhi is called the Father of the Nation. I wonder how Indians generally 'interpret' that statement; I 'read' it in the most literal sense. Gandhi is the Father of the Nation because the Nation was born on 15 August, 1947.

(ii) What that implies in turn is this : 'India', as a politically sovereign nation-state, did not exist before 15 August, 1947.

(iii) What existed earlier then? Well, you can invent a term for it : call it 'proto-India'. On August 14, 1947 we had proto-India which blossomed into India on the morning of 15 August, 1947. So, simply by definition, people such as Bahadur Shah Zafar, Lord Clive, and Rabindranath Tagore (to mention only three names) never lived in 'India', though they were all inhabitants of 'proto-India'.

(iv) Why this concern over words like 'India' and 'crypto-India'? Because a certain inattentiveness to the question of the putative reference of the term 'India' has resulted in the monotonously bland manner in which statements of the following nature are thrown around : 'The Mughals invaded India'. But which 'India' is being referred to in this last statement? The (non-existent) 'India' of the 5th century, the 11th century or the 17th century? If Gandhi is the Father of the Nation (born on 15th August, 1947), how could the Nation have existed in the 14th century when the Mughals were around? Therefore, it would be more historically and linguistically accurate to say : 'The Mughals invaded that piece of earth which we today, that is, the 'we' who hold an Indian passport for pragmatic and political reasons, refer to by the English word 'India''.

(v) Therefore, if someone were to come up to me and say, 'The Mughals invaded that piece of earth which we today call 'India'', my only reaction can be, 'Thank you for enlightening me with this historical fact, for that is just what it is : a historical fact, nothing more, nothing less. But everyone is invading everyone else at some point of time or the other. Are you aware that even today as you talk about the 'foreign Mughals' there are quite a lot of people in North-east India who claim that 'alien Delhi' is invading the North-East? So why blame it on the Mughals alone when, even as you speak, Delhi is allegedly doing it?'

'But don't you see that the Mughals killed thousands of Hindus?'

'Yes, I see that. But what are you going to do about it? Publish an essay about it in the newspapers? I have no objections to a report that will state precisely how many Hindus were killed, but the more important question is the one of what follows from the historical fact that thousands of Hindus were exterminated in the 15th century. Does it prove that some of those Mughals were blood-thirsty monsters? I readily admit that. And that some of them were savage beasts? Once again, yes. And also that some of them brutally persecuted Hindus? A third time, yes.'

'But it is a matter of national importance that Hindus are made aware of the persecutions that were unleashed upon them by the Mughals.'

'Which nation are we talking about here? The nation of the 15th century? As I said above, the nation did not even exist then. Nevertheless, suppose you are able to prove to me that there is a Muslim somewhere out there whose (Mughal) great-great...grandfather killed my (Hindu) great-great...grandfather. Will it make any difference to my life? I don't have the faintest clue as to who my great-great...grandfather was, and I want him to remain just where he is today, solidly buried under the forgotten debris of the past. So if tomorrow I were to meet this Muslim whose (Mughal) great-great...grandfather committed that act of murder, I would sit down with him for a coffee, find out what he does for a living, and who knows, maybe we can even go on to have one of those 'philosophical discussions' over the 'meaning of history''.