Ibn Khaldun University held the fourth "International Sulaymaniyah Symposium" to discuss new ideas and approaches regarding the Babur (Mughal) Empire, which ruled most of South Asia from 1526 to 1761.
Shortly after the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) rose to power in India eight years ago, the rich (Mughal) history of the Babur state has become a subject in such turmoil that many of the Baburi rulers are beginning to disappear from textbooks.
This was the sentiment expressed by scholars and historians on the sidelines of the Fourth International Symposium on Sulaymaniyah, hosted by Ibn Khaldun University in Istanbul from 16-18 September, and discussing new academic approaches towards the Babur dynasty.
“In contemporary India,” says Irfan Ahmed, professor of sociology and anthropology at Ibn Khaldun University, “the Hindu nationalist anti-Muslim party has been ruling since 2014, which portrays Muslims as the enemy or the other to the nation.” He added, “The Indian prime minister himself supports this idea.” He described in Parliament the rule of Muslims in India as a rule of slavery.
Ahmed tells TRT World that Muslims are subjected to constant violence in the name of protecting cows, preventing "jihad" and protecting against "terrorism". “These things happen as Muslims are the enemies of the nation, and this is connected to the idea that Muslims were invaders.”
The Baburites ruled large parts of South Asia, including lands of modern India, from 1526 to 1761. A notable feature of their rule, as described by historians, was the emergence of a syncretic culture that was a mixture of different sets of beliefs and traditions. In this context, Ahmed asserts that "the idea of syncretic culture in modern India is used to 'erase the identity of Muslims'".
He explains that “the assumption is that Muslims should assimilate with the so-called (national culture), which was already defined as Hinduism,” and adds: “Therefore, it is clear that the discourse of syncretic culture seems nice, but underneath is the idea of turning assimilation into a process of obliteration, i.e. to erase the identity of Muslims.
As the Papuans consolidated their foothold on Indian soil, they introduced administrative mechanisms with which the local population rose through the ranks, often becoming the "Great" of the Papal court.
"colonial legacy"
Dr. Amita Baliwal, a historian from the University of Delhi in India, says that the kind of syncretic culture the Baburites introduced into India created a place where Indians did not feel “neglected.” She adds: “The best thing about the Mughals is that, unlike the English, they considered India their home, Especially the emperors who were born there like Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan.
He explains, "They did not drain the wealth from India, unlike the English. What they earned from India they invested in it. They gave something to India from which it still takes its revenue, for example the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort."
Shashi Tharoor, an Indian politician and leader of the Indian National Congress, wrote a book on British exploits in India, The Dark Age.. The British Empire in India.
Tharoor said that two centuries of British rule in India had reduced its glory as one of the world's richest countries to the world's poorest, noting that the British claims of development and political unity were misleading because "the British did not do anything intended to benefit India or the Indians."
In contrast, Siddharth Bhartiya, founding editor of Indian news platform TheWire.in, recently wrote about "how the Mughals became the latest BJP villain and Hindutva brigade".
This sudden rise in resentment against the Baburism, which often causes negative reactions against the Muslim citizens of India, is what Dr. Amita Palliwal describes as a "very unfortunate nation".
"Those who engage in such negativity are in complete denial of the existence of an empire that did not remain purely Turkish," she says. "Jahangir's mother was an Indian, a princess from Jaipur, and Shah Jahan's mother was a Rajput princess."
In her interview with TRT World, she confirmed that when the British began ruling in India, they had to justify their rule, so what they did was create rifts between communities, which did not exist (previously). "Under the leadership of the BJP, they are actually promoting the colonial legacy. Their approach is very colonial: divide and rule, that's what the British did," she concluded.