Why Nehru’s View On Babur Is Fake Secularism?

Babur, Nehru, and the Illusion of Secularism: A Critical Examination of Historical Narratives

The history of India is complex, rich, and often contentious. One of the most contested aspects of Indian history has been the narrative around the Mughal rulers, particularly Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire. Babur, a conqueror from Central Asia, laid the foundation for one of the most significant empires in Indian history. However, his rule, like many other medieval rulers, was marred by acts of religious intolerance, including the destruction of Hindu temples. This aspect of his rule is not often highlighted in popular historical narratives, particularly in the writings of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister.

Nehru, in his seminal work The Discovery of India, presented Babur in a largely positive light, focusing on his cultural contributions, administrative abilities, and his role in establishing a new era in Indian history. Nehru’s approach to history, particularly his treatment of Babur, reflects a broader ideological framework of secularism, which has been a central pillar of India’s post-independence political identity. However, this framework of “secularism,” as promoted by Nehru, has often been criticized for its selective and distorted representation of history, especially when it comes to the actions of rulers like Babur.

In this article, we will explore the role of Babur in Indian history, Nehru’s interpretation of his reign, and how these historical narratives contribute to the concept of “fake secularism.” By examining the contradictions in Nehru’s portrayal of Babur and the broader implications for Indian historical discourse, we will understand how selective history can shape a nation’s identity and impact its contemporary politics.

Babur: The Conqueror and His Religious Intolerance

Babur’s legacy in India is undeniably tied to his military conquests and his establishment of the Mughal Empire. Born in 1483 in what is now Uzbekistan, Babur inherited a small kingdom in Central Asia. However, it was in India that Babur’s name became synonymous with conquest. In 1526, he defeated the Sultan of Delhi, Ibrahim Lodi, at the Battle of Panipat, marking the beginning of Mughal rule in India.

Babur’s military prowess and his ability to establish a vast empire are well-documented. However, his reign was not without controversy, particularly with respect to his treatment of religious and cultural minorities. Babur was a devout Muslim and often used religious justification for his conquests. His campaigns were not only about expanding his empire but also about asserting Islamic dominance in a land that was predominantly Hindu.

One of the most significant aspects of Babur’s rule was the destruction of Hindu temples. Historical accounts, including Babur’s own Baburnama (his autobiography), mention the destruction of several temples, particularly in regions of resistance. For instance, after his victory at Chanderi in 1528, Babur reportedly destroyed a Hindu temple and replaced it with a mosque. Babur’s destruction of temples was not an isolated incident. His campaigns often targeted symbolic structures of Hindu identity, such as temples, which were destroyed as a means of asserting Muslim power.

In Baburnama, Babur also describes his views on the Indian subcontinent and its culture, which he often found strange and inferior to his Central Asian roots. He criticized various Hindu customs and practices, reflecting a cultural bias that was common among foreign conquerors. These actions and attitudes contribute to a more complex and less glorified view of Babur’s rule, one that is often glossed over in mainstream historical narratives.

Nehru’s Portrayal of Babur: Secularism or Selective History?

Jawaharlal Nehru’s portrayal of Babur in The Discovery of India is strikingly different from the historical reality of his rule. Nehru, who was a staunch advocate of secularism, sought to present Babur as a ruler who brought a new cultural and administrative framework to India. Nehru admired Babur for his intellectual pursuits, particularly his poetry, and for his role in establishing the Mughal Empire. He emphasized Babur’s love for gardens, his literary achievements, and his efforts to create a more organized state.

However, Nehru’s portrayal of Babur as a “cultured” ruler overlooks the darker aspects of his reign, including the destruction of temples and his role in consolidating Muslim rule through violent means. Nehru’s selective presentation of history can be seen as a reflection of his broader political agenda, which was to promote national unity and a secular identity for post-independence India.

Nehru’s vision of secularism was based on the idea that India, as a diverse and pluralistic society, should not be defined by religious divisions. For Nehru, this meant downplaying the religious conflicts that marked the medieval period and emphasizing the cultural achievements of rulers like Babur. He believed that focusing on Babur’s administrative and cultural contributions would foster a sense of unity among India’s diverse religious communities, particularly Hindus and Muslims.

However, Nehru’s selective approach to history has been criticized for glossing over the religious intolerance that was an integral part of many Mughal rulers’ policies. By focusing on Babur’s positive qualities and ignoring his actions that contributed to Hindu-Muslim tensions, Nehru’s version of secularism becomes problematic. It ignores the need for an honest reckoning with the past, one that acknowledges both the positive and negative aspects of history.

The Concept of Fake Secularism

Nehru’s treatment of Babur’s reign is emblematic of what can be called “fake secularism.” Fake secularism refers to the practice of presenting a distorted, sanitized version of history in the name of promoting national unity. In the case of Babur, Nehru’s selective portrayal of his reign ignores the historical reality of religious conflict and intolerance. By focusing on Babur’s cultural achievements and minimizing his acts of destruction, Nehru created a narrative that was more about political expediency than historical accuracy.

This kind of selective secularism has had long-lasting consequences for Indian politics and society. By promoting a version of history that downplays religious conflict, Nehru contributed to a historical amnesia that has affected subsequent generations’ understanding of India’s past. This has allowed for the perpetuation of myths and misunderstandings about India’s religious and cultural history, especially in relation to the Mughal period.

Fake secularism also manifests in the refusal to acknowledge the negative aspects of religious intolerance. Nehru’s vision of secularism was predicated on the idea of unity, but unity cannot be achieved by ignoring the painful realities of history. True secularism involves acknowledging the diversity of India’s past, including the religious and cultural conflicts that have shaped the nation.

The Role of Babur’s Religious Intolerance in Shaping Modern India

The selective portrayal of Babur’s reign by Nehru has significant implications for the way India understands its history today. By glossing over Babur’s religious intolerance and the destruction of Hindu temples, Nehru set a precedent for the treatment of other historical figures in Indian history. This approach has led to a tendency to minimize the role of religious intolerance in the formation of modern India’s political and cultural identity.

Moreover, by presenting Babur as a benevolent ruler, Nehru inadvertently contributed to the erosion of historical truth. This selective portrayal has made it difficult for Indians to confront the realities of their past, particularly the centuries of religious conflict and cultural assimilation that characterized the Mughal era. Acknowledging the full scope of Babur’s legacy, including his religious intolerance, is essential for understanding the complexities of Indian history and the ways in which religious conflicts have shaped the nation.

In the context of modern India, this historical amnesia is problematic. The failure to recognize the darker aspects of Babur’s reign has allowed for the perpetuation of myths about religious harmony during the Mughal period. These myths have been used by various political and religious groups to justify their own agendas, further deepening the religious divisions that continue to exist in Indian society.

Conclusion: Moving Beyond Fake Secularism

In conclusion, the portrayal of Babur in Nehru’s The Discovery of India and the broader concept of secularism in Indian historical narratives raises important questions about how history is written and interpreted. Nehru’s selective approach to history, particularly his treatment of Babur, highlights the dangers of fake secularism—an ideological framework that distorts historical facts to promote a politically expedient narrative.

True secularism must be grounded in an honest reckoning with history. It should involve acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of India’s past, including the religious conflicts that have shaped the nation. Only by confronting the uncomfortable truths of history can India move forward as a truly secular and unified nation.

The legacy of Babur, like that of many other rulers, is complex and multifaceted. While his cultural contributions to India cannot be denied, they should not obscure the fact that his reign was also marked by acts of religious intolerance and violence. For India to truly move beyond fake secularism, it must embrace a more nuanced and honest understanding of its history—one that includes all aspects of the past, both the good and the bad. Only then can the nation build a future based on true secularism, where the dignity and rights of all religious communities are respected, and the mistakes of the past are not forgotten but used to build a more just and inclusive society.