Punjab: A history from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten
by AMMAR ALI QURESHI
IMAGE/Amazon
Rajmohan Gandhi’s pedigree is impressive. Mahatma Gandhi, his paternal grandfather, is probably the most famous Indian since Buddha; his maternal grandfather, C.R. Rajagopalachari, was a front rank Congress leader and statesman who served, from 1948-50 as India’s last Governor General, having replaced Lord Mountbatten, before the post was abolished. Rajmohan Gandhi himself is a prolific and prodigious writer. Apart from a number of books on history, he has penned four biographies – two on his illustrious grandfathers and the other two on Sardar Patel and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. In Pakistan, Rajmohan is remembered for his first book Understanding the Muslim Mind, a collection of pen-portraits of eight prominent Indian Muslims including Sir Syed, Iqbal, Jinnah and Azad.
…
For centuries, Punjab, due to its wealth and cultural richness, has faced number of invasions from its western frontier. As an exception, about two centuries of Mughal rule from Babur to Aurangzeb represented an extended period of peace and prosperity as well as stability and serenity. However, after Aurangzeb’s death, Punjab again descended into anarchy and instability which lasted for nine decades – weakened and worsened by the invasion of Persian king Nadir Shah in 1839 and Afghan king Abdali’s repeated episodes of loot and plunder from 1748-1767. Apart from a brief period under Adina Khan Beg, a Muslim ruler, Punjab did not witness any semblance of local leadership in the eighteenth century.
…
By 1799 Punjab was ready for its saviour and man of destiny- Maharaja Ranjit Singh – the most remarkable figure in Punjab’s history. He reversed the tide of history by invading and conquering this land of invaders. His empire lasted for 50 years (1739-1849) and represented the first instance of Punjab being ruled by a native in centuries. Ranjit Singh conquered Peshawar, Kashmir and Multan and also eyed Afghanistan and Sind but was thwarted in his expansion plans by the British. A secular ruler, Ranjit Singh was tolerant towards Muslims whom he appointed to high offices and gave generous financial assistance to their waqf trusts. At the time of his death in 1839, he left behind a strong army, trained by European officers, but no clear cut system of political succession.
Impelled by ambition and avarice but impaired by lack of foresight, palace intrigues, and absence of courage and competence, Ranjit Singh’s weak and wicked successors lost their empire to the British within ten years after his death. Punjab’s army fought ferociously during the Anglo Sikh wars but without competent leadership at the top was defeated by the British in 1849 after fierce battles.
The Friday Times for more
Aurangzeb, revisited
by ZIYA US SALAM
Aurangzeb, the convenient bigot of history, is finally getting a fresh coat of paint. Long projected as the bad guy for students who are told history is just a bout between heroes and villains, the tide could well be turning for the Mughal emperor who ruled Hindustan for half a century. No, he has suddenly not become a knight in gleaming armour. But, attempts are being made to look at him from a fresh perspective.
Around a year ago, William Dalrymple co-edited Princes and Painters in Mughal Delhi, 1707-1857 wherein he talked briefly of scholars taking a fresh look at Aurangzeb. Some even tried to redress the balance, which has forever been loaded in favour of Akbar. It always seemed that if Akbar was the greatest Mughal ruler, there had to be the worst one too. If Akbar was secular, brave and wise, there had to be an emperor who was bigoted, cruel and stubborn. In short, history never allowed Aurangzeb any redeeming qualities; the only exception being a mention of his simple lifestyle.
Though brief and almost fleeting in nature, William’s essay was more than a little footnote, because, all along, students had been taught that Aurangzeb was a man who banished all forms of arts from his court. Then, Dalrymple, who with the skills of a raconteur has done more for history than many seasoned academics, told us that scholars have now shown that Aurangzeb was “a pragmatic ruler who frequently patronised Hindu institutions, whose reign was less orthodox, less tyrannical and centralised than previously thought”.
…
Soon, the emperor’s simplicity, which has often been talked about in textbooks, is given space. Gandhi happily reiterates, “‘Of small stature, with a long nose, a round beard and an olive skin’, Aurangzeb, ‘usually wore plain white muslin’ and ‘applied himself assiduously to business’. At times he was seen with ‘a cheerful, smiling countenance….Under him the Mughal empire reached its greatest limits’.” Then come the emperor’s words of atonement. Gandhi reproduces Aurangzeb’s words written to his favourite Kam Baksh, “Son of my soul…Now I am going alone. I grieve for your helplessness. But what is the use? I have greatly sinned, and I know not what torment awaits me…Let not Muslims be slain and reproach fall on my useless head. I am sore troubled.” Aurangzeb and guilt? Aurangzeb and art?
The Hindu for more
(Thanks to Pritam Rohila)