Historians have condemned the New Delhi Municipal Council’s (NDMC) decision to change the name of Aurangzeb Road, calling the move an attempt to rewrite history.
The NDMC had on Friday passed a resolution to change the name of the road in Lutyens’ Delhi to Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam Road, to honour the former president. The proposal was passed unanimously in the council, which has Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and New Delhi MP Meenakshi Lekhi as members.
According to East Delhi MP Maheish Girri, who had proposed the renaming, the ‘wrongs’ of the past had been righted with the change in the name. Hindu groups had been demanding that the name be changed, saying that Aurangzeb was responsible for razing temples.
But, historians see the move as an attempt to wipe out the legacy of the Mughal emperor.
R.V. Smith, one of Delhi’s foremost chroniclers, said the renaming of the colonial-era road was wrong. “Aurangzeb was not as cruel as being depicted today. He was a ruler in despotic times. The bigger worry is that where will this end? Will Shahjahan Road’s name also be changed?” said Mr. Smith.
He said that Aurangzeb Road had been part of Delhi’s heritage and changing its name would only lead to confusion. “It is also an insult to Dr. Kalam’s memory. A new road or museum or science centre should have been made in his memory. What was the need to pick Aurangzeb Road?” asked Mr. Smith.
Historian Sohail Hashmi, who conducts Delhi Heritage Walks, said the decision was the ‘worst kind of tokenism and petty politics’.
“The image of Aurangzeb as an enemy of Hindus was created by the British to divide Hindus and Muslims. Not only did he give grants to many temples, he even demolished a mosque as part of his campaign. Just by painting a signboard, you can’t change history,” said Mr. Hashmi.
He said that the fight between Shivaji and Aurangzeb was not one between Hindus and Muslims. “All the main commanders of Aurangzeb were Hindus and the commander of Shivaji’s artillery was a Muslim. This was a fight between two feudals. The imperialists labelled Shivaji as a defender of Hindus and Aurangzeb as an enemy,” said Mr. Hashmi.
INTACH Delhi’s convenor A.G.K. Menon said the name change was part of an unfortunate trend across India which is seeing an ‘attempt to rewrite history’.
“Aurangzeb was a complex character. There are instances where he ordered the destruction of temples, but there are also instances where he gave grants to build temples. To focus on one aspect is wrong,” said Mr. Menon.
Recently, there had been instances of the signage on roads named after Muslim rulers being blackened by right-wing groups. Mr. Menon said changing the name of Aurangzeb Road pointed to a bias.
“The trend is being seen across India. It may not be illegal as elected representatives have the right, but it is morally reprehensible,” said Mr. Menon.
The Hindu contacted half a dozen other historians to comment on the issue, but most declined, citing the politicised nature of the move.
