Aurangzeb casts a long shadow over us. But what about the British?

This hypothetical scenario says a lot when juxtaposed with the historical reality of British colonial rule. Although we focus on Aurangzeb today, a mere 80 years after his time, the East India Company from Britain established direct dominance over India, precipitating extraordinary exploitation. As economist Utsa Patnaik points out, the British extracted wealth to an astonishing degree — approximately $45 trillion between 1765 and 1938. This loot — more than 10 times of our present GDP — led to deprivation and death for 1.8 billion Indians.

The brutality of the British cannot be overstated. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre is just one example. The cruelty unleashed by the British to subjugate Indians following the War of Independence in 1857 is chilling. The amount of wealth extracted from India and the violence inflicted are staggering. Despite all of this, the graves of British officials don’t seem to bother us. The reason is that the struggle for India’s Independence was driven by leaders who committed to opposing British rule without fostering hatred towards their oppressors. Their vision centered on a united India, eschewing historical grievances to focus on future aspirations. They refrained from embedding anti-British sentiment in the national consciousness, instead emphasising the principles of democracy and liberalism. By prioritising resilience and openness, they aimed to cultivate a spirit unburdened by the past.

Aurangzeb and the Mughals were not representatives of a central authority from Uzbekistan. They were factions within a complex political milieu. The Mughal Empire was not controlled by an external political power like the British Empire. Hindustan possessed neither defined political boundaries nor a military dedicated to protecting them. Soldiers in Hindustan fought for various kings and frequently changed their loyalties. Given this backdrop, what exactly does it mean that Aurangzeb or other Mughal rulers had dominion over Hindustan?

The British rule exerted significant influence over various aspects of life, like all modern governance structures do. This was not limited to tax collection; it encompassed trade, economy, policing, education, justice, and public works. This level of state control was not a characteristic of medieval rulers. Their authority had minimal impact on the daily lives of ordinary people. Therefore, recognising the substantial difference between the rule of Aurangzeb or other medieval leaders and that of the British can help reduce our obsession with medieval history. We were not subjugated in the manner we believe.

“If we forget our medieval history, we will become slaves again” is an argument frequently used today. Such statements ring hollow, as the “we” of medieval times and the “we” of today are fundamentally different. When the concept of a nation did not exist, borders were undefined, and there was no army to defend them, and it is absurd to assert that foreign invasions occurred due to our lack of unity. If we wish to glean any lessons about defence today, it would be wiser to reflect on the incursion by China in 1962 and the Pakistani aggression during the Kargil conflict in 1999 rather than on attacks from medieval factions.

The nationalism that was born of the struggle for freedom from British colonial rule has waned today. Instead, a nationalism rooted in medieval history prevails — one that perpetually unsettles us. Aurangzeb’s “dominion over our mindset” is likely to persist for a long future.

The writer is an economist