The magazine brought out by the Modi government for the G20 conference in India introduced Mughal emperor Akbar saying that his democratic thinking was different from others and that he was ahead of his time.
This magazine highlights the political, social and cultural journey of India so far. The magazine ‘India: Mother of Democracy’ mentions India’s ancient civilization, democratic traditions, religions, saints, beliefs, great people and rulers.
Among the rulers of India, Rama is mentioned in the Ramayana, Ajatashtru of Magadha, the Mughal emperors and all the Prime Ministers of India since independence.
The magazine wrote about the Mughal emperor Akbar that ‘good administration should include the welfare of all, irrespective of religion.
The third Mughal emperor Akbar also adopted a similar democracy. Akbar gave the principle of ‘Sulh Kal’ i.e. universal peace. It was a rule made against religious discrimination.
Akbar’s generosity, religious tolerance and the democratic nature of his rule are discussed extensively in the magazine.
What is written about Akbar in the magazine of the G20 conference?
A magazine released for the G20 conference described Akbar as a democratic, tolerant king who did not discriminate on the basis of religion.
This move by the BJP government seems shocking, especially in a situation where many BJP leaders continue to criticize the Mughal rulers, including Akbar.
But does the government want to send a political message through this?
Senior journalist Sharad Gupta says that the elections are coming. So the government is trying to give a message to the minorities. Especially in front of world leaders. You cannot change the date suddenly. Therefore, Akbar is being described as the pioneer of peace and democracy.
Turkey was also present at the G20 conference, as were many African countries, where Islam is the main religion. That is why a Muslim king must have been praised in the magazine.
In the last few years, the Muslim representatives of the BJP have almost stopped reaching the Indian Parliament.
In such a situation, is the Modi government trying to show the international community that it is not ignoring Muslims?
Is the praise of Akbar as a benevolent king in the magazine of the G20 conference part of this strategy?
Sharad Gupta says, “BJP has no Muslim face in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. It is possible that they will not give tickets to Muslim candidates in the next elections as well. But the G-20 was an international conference. Therefore, there was a need to show its comprehensive face.
He says, ‘This BJP government is criticized in the world because it does not give respect and space to minorities. That is why the Modi government has tried to tell the international community that it is not as the world thinks by praising Akbar’s tolerance in the magazine of the G-20 conference.
Author Parvati Sharma has written a book titled ‘Akbar of India’, in which all aspects of Akbar have been mentioned.
He was asked what is the meaning of praising Akbar in the magazine of the G20 conference.
In response, he said that ‘BJP portrays the Muslim or Mughal emperors as if they were foreign invaders and had no part in Indian society. If done, it is definitely a contradiction.’
Other examples could be cited to discuss democratic values in Indian society since ancient times.
At the time of the Mahajan Padas, everything from the election of a king to the democratic practices of later kings could be discussed by consensus.
But why was the example of Akbar given for the promotion of democratic values?
On this question, Parvati Sharma says, “This government describes itself as secular, respects diversity and joins international forums. The Prime Minister or any senior representative of the government calls it the uniqueness of India. India’s diversity is its strength. He talks about everyone’s support, everyone’s progress. It is also true that unity in diversity is our specialty. But these things are being said only on international forums. In domestic politics, BJP’s policies are completely going against it.
“Akbar is seen as an exception,” says Parvati Sharma. In the writings of history and in the minds of the common people, he is an exception among the ‘fanatical’ Muslim kings.
He said that it is also evident from the magazine of the G20 conference that he is being seen as an exception. Otherwise the word ‘different’ or unusual would not have been used here for them.
Parvati Sharma believes that only Akbar’s ‘democracy’ is described in this magazine as different from the others. In a way, it is an attempt to make it look ‘extraordinary’.
Here it is not difficult to understand how he is presenting Akbar as ‘different’ from the centuries-long democratic flow in India. The democracy that is being defined in this magazine.
Parvati Sharma says ‘Akbar ruled for fifty years. His thinking, policies and governance were gradually becoming inclusive. They began to realize that they needed people from all walks of life and from all walks of life. He wanted people of every religion and caste in the Indian Empire. Hence, the concept of Salah Kal or religious coexistence and peace, Salah Kal, did not emerge in a day.
Hence, Akbar started debates on places of worship, to which people of all religions and sects were invited. There was a discussion. Initially most of the influential people under Akbar belonged to Central Asia. But gradually they divided the power.
Anti-Mughal statements by BJP leaders
Akbar may be mentioned in the magazine of the G20 conference, but BJP leaders are constantly attacking the Mughal emperors.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said at the foundation stone laying ceremony of the Sant Ravi Das temple in Madhya Pradesh last month, “When our beliefs were being attacked and restrictions were being imposed on us to erase our identity, Sant Ravi Das was steadfast. And that was the period of Mughal Raj. The biggest sin is to surrender to someone. People who do this do not get any respect.
In June this year, when communal tensions erupted in Maharashtra’s Kolhapur, there was much controversy over Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ statement that he was the ‘son of Aurangzeb’.
Union Minister Rajnath Singh also once said that historians have done injustice to Maharaja Pratap. He said that Akbar is called great but why Maharaja Pratap is not called great. Rajnath Singh had said that Maharaja Pratap was a national leader.
On the issue of Akbar, UP CM Yogi Adityanath once said that Akbar was the aggressor and the real hero is Maharaja Pratap. Yogi had said that the sooner the youth accepts this truth, the sooner the country will get rid of all its problems.
On the 350th anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s coronation ceremony, Yogi Adityanath praised the navy for adopting Shivaji’s insignia, saying that Indians could have nothing to do with the Mughals. That is why the Narendra Modi government chose an emblem associated with Shivaji for the Indian Navy.
Similarly, in 2020, Yogi Adityanath ordered to change the name of the Mughal Museum being built near the Taj Mahal to Chhatrapati Shivaji Museum. At that time, he was asked how Mughals can be our heroes. Shivaji’s name will instill nationalism and self-confidence in the people. There is no place for mental slavery in the new Uttar Pradesh.
In 2017, UP BJP MLA Sangeet Som called Akbar and Aurangzeb ‘traitors’ and asked that their names be erased from history books.
Sangeet Som had said that the Taj Mahal was built by an emperor who targeted Hindus by putting his own father in jail.
Sangeet Som had called the Taj Mahal a stain on Indian culture, while Union Minister VK Singh had once demanded that Akbar Road be named after Maharaja Pratap.
Earlier Aurangzeb Road was named as Abdul Kalam Road.
BJP leader Shaina NC once compared Mughal ruler Akbar with Hitler.
Lessons related to Mughals were removed from history books
In the month of April this year (2023), the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) removed lessons related to the Mughal Empire from class 12 history textbooks.
NCERT has published a history book for class 12 titled ‘Themes of Indian History’ in three parts.
Lesson 9 of its second part – ‘Kings and History, Mughal Court’ was removed from the book.
This 28-page chapter focusing on the Mughal rulers is missing from the new history books available for download on the NCERT website.
This move to remove India’s former Muslim rulers from the curriculum is being seen as an attempt to remove the Mughals from Indian history.
NCERT argues that this has been done to reduce the curricular burden on students.
Speaking to the media while defending the changes made in the history book, the then NCERT chief Dinesh Suklani said, ‘The history of the Mughals has not been removed but the burden of the syllabus has been reduced from the students. Some parts have been reduced to do.’
This 28-page chapter focusing on the Mughal rulers is missing from the new history books available for download on the NCERT website.