When did the idea of India begin? What role did the Mughal Empire play in the development of the modern idea of India? What were the contributions of Babur ki Aulad (progeny of Babur)?
These questions were discussed, debated and elaborated upon on Monday at a seminar that took a critical look at Salman Khursheed’s 2008 play, “Sons of Babur, a play in search of India.”
At the seminar, held in Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Minister of State for Minority Affairs (Independent Charge), read out portions from the play and explained that the impulse to situate it in the Mughal period came from his own experiences of dealing with complex questions relating to identity, Hindu-Muslim issues, and the idea of a composite India, all of which became points for debate in the tumultuous 10-year period between the December 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid and the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat.
The Minister dwelt on the concept of “home” as it evolved through the Mughal Empire, finally crystallising in the heart and mind of Bahadur Shah Zafar. The last Mughal Emperor felt so deeply for Hindustan that he grieved for the loss of his motherland, penning some of his most beautiful poetry around this theme.
Later, Mr. Khursheed told The Hindu that for him the idea of India began at the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar. Drawing a contrast between Babur and Bahadur Shah Zafar, he said the former could never accept India as his home and forever lived in the memory of Kabul, whereas the last Mughal pined for Hindustan and wanted nothing more than to be buried here.
Mr. Khursheed likened Sonia Gandhi to Bahadur Shah Zafar and said he had dedicated the play to Sonia Gandhi because her “admirable commitment to India” embodied the idea of India, and “defines us.”
In the preface to the book, Ather Farouqui, a scholar of language politics, traces its starting point to ‘Babur ki Aulad,’ a pejorative that has been thrown at Muslims by sections believing in extremist, exclusivist ideologies.
G.J.V. Prasad, Professor and Chairperson for English Studies at JNU, said he found the play significant because of who Mr. Khursheed was, and also because the protagonist he had chosen, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was “interestingly provocative.”
However, “the person he [Mr. Khursheed] has to explain is Aurangazeb,” Mr. Prasad said, drawing attention to the Minister’s own view that Aurangazeb went against the nature of India, and was in a sense the obverse of today’s Hindutva. When some people in the audience wanted Mr. Khursheed to explain his silence on the September 2008 Batla House encounter deaths, Mr. Prasad came to the Minister’s defence. He said Mr. Khursheed was not a “Muslim politician,” and “Sons of Babur” was not a Muslim play. “The play is a secular quest for a secular India,” he said.
