Audrey Truschke: “What’s happening under BJP won’t augur well for India’s next generation”

There are few contemporary Indologists who raise hackles in the ranks of the Sangh Parivar the way Audrey Truschke does. An assistant professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University-Newark, Truschke’s book on Aurangzeb has made her a divisive figure in the contemporary Indian polity. The backers of the BJP and the RSS often accuse her of whitewashing Aurangzeb’s sins and harbouring a hidden, devious agenda. Rape, death threats and vicious trolling emanating from India have all been part of Truschke’s life since her book came out last year. On a recent lecture tour across India, she sat down with Dhairya Maheshwari for an interview:

Q. How has the response to your speaking tour in academic circles and among the larger community been, in the backdrop of the current not so favourable political climate?

A. The response has been encouraging. I spoke about many lives of Aurangzeb in Delhi and the response was tremendous. A tonne of people came out. The auditorium was full. I was told that more people couldn’t get in. The best part was that the questions were really fantastic. They were almost entirely about Aurangzeb, the historical figure rather than modern day issues. They reflected a degree of engagement and curiosity about the past, which, as a historian, I celebrate.

However, many Indians on Twitter were appalled that I had been granted a visa in the first place. I think that is a mistaken view. Even those who disagree with me should celebrate the diverse, plural democracy which can handle dissent and criticism. That is something which is worth embracing.

But, look, the Hindu-right is no fan of mine and my work. Whether Indian politicians join them personally in those feelings is what I don’t know. I did receive a conference visa to come to India, which is subjected to certain restrictions, which is a positive thing.

Q. One of the themes of your talks on this tour was the role of Sanskrit in the Mughal court. Could you elaborate on that?

A. In Hyderabad, I would have spoken on three topics. The first one was Aurangzeb and his assault on Golconda, which would have been very relevant in Hyderabad. The second topic was the decline of Indian Buddhism in the twelfth century and the story line that Islam killed it off and the problems with that story. Lastly, I was going to talk about Sanskrit during the Indo-Islamic role, which is my third book project and ongoing research subject. The three topics were made public in advance.

Q. You have said that Sanskrit was rather popular at the time of Mughals, and even had a presence in the Mughal court. Why is it not as popular today as it was back then?

A. What caused the end of Sanskrit is a very complicated question. I don’t think there is a single answer to what happened to Sanskrit. What I can tell you is that vernaculars didn’t kill off Sanskrit. Muslims didn’t kill off Sanskrit. It is not the case that British killed it off either. As is the case with many large-scale changes in the society, it was a result of variety of many different processes coalescing in different times and places.

Q. Was there any Sanskrit in Aurangzeb’s court?

A. No, none at all. I deal with this in the final chapter of Culture of Encounters, my first book. I argue that Dara Shukoh, Shah Jahan’s favoured son and the unofficial heir apparent, had favoured interactions with Sanskrit for better part of two decades. Because of that, when Aurangzeb beat him to the throne, it became important for Aurangzeb to come up with a way to be the Mughal king, to be different from Dara and not emulate him. So, cutting off the last remaining ties between the Mughal court and Sanskrit scholars was part of that.

Q. What’s your view of history education in India? Would you subscribe to the view that the current government is making efforts to distort history to suit their political agenda?

A. So, there are many different history textbooks in India and it is hard to generalise. I do believe that there has been an attempt, particularly at the level of regional textbooks, to blatantly change aspects of Indo-Islamic history. And I am thinking of the Rajasthan textbooks in which the outcome of the Battle of Haldighati has been altered. You just can’t change the outcome of the battle, no matter how much you wish it to have gone the other way.

So, I am concerned about alterations to certain historical facts. But I am more concerned about what this reflects about the changing nature of the Indian society, which is that increasing number of groups in India are willing to walk away from historical accuracy and historical methods and are completely fine with making up stuff. This all is eschewing rational thinking

Q. During your visits to India in recent years and during your interaction with academics and students, did you get a sense that the Indian public is buying into these distortions of history being pushed by certain groups? Why do you believe some people are trying to change historical facts?

A. There are strong political reasons that are motivating certain political minded groups to alter history. As for the general public, I think that we are witnessing a lot of pushback as well. That should be given due emphasis, which I am very happy and gratified to see. For others, I think we should not underestimate the power of education. You are not born knowing history. It is not anything that runs through your veins. History is something that is taught in schools, which is why you see Hindu right-wing groups targeting history textbooks.

They want them to believe in mythology rather than serious history. They understand that it is through history that you can shape young minds. The outcome of all that’s happening under the BJP won’t augur well for India’s next generation.

Q. You are a scholar of both Persian and Sanskrit. How would you rate the state of archives, in terms of the way they are preserved?

A. In terms of archival access and the condition of ancient material in libraries, it really is a mixed bag. There are archives that are very well kept and are a pleasure to do research in, such as the Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library in Patna. And then, there are archives like in the Asiatic Society of Bengal that are a nightmare. There is everything else in between. I am cognisant of the limit of resources that many institutions face here in India. I think that somewhat explains the lack of preservation. I also think that there are some bureaucratic reasons which feed into as to why certain archives do better than others.

I wish we could take all this energy and fervour about rewriting India’s past and pour it into preserving documents that tell us about India’s past.

Q. How long have you been researching about India now?

A. I have been researching about various topics concerning India for a better part of two decades now. I started studying India in 2000 when I went to college as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago. The first time I visited India was back in 2002. I have made several trips since.

Q. You mentioned that you have been a rather frequent visitor to India. As an academic, would you say that India has changed for the worse since 2014?

A. I certainly feel that academics are facing increasing pressure. Much of that pressure is splashed across the pages of international newspapers. The assaults on JNU are particularly unconscionable and abhorrent. That has been something which is very sad to watch from abroad.

India’s higher education has been a great jewel and treasure of this country. Among that, JNU has further stood out as a particularly illustrious institution of higher learning which has been on par with many institutions of the west. But the way things are going, one wonders if JNU would retain its spot among the world’s best in 10 years from now. It is really a very sad thing to contemplate.

Q. How has the book on Aurangzeb changed your outlook towards India? You are still trolled on social media by a section of the right wing for highlighting certain facts about Aurangzeb in that book. Has all that affected you personally?

A. It was not until I started talking about Aurangzeb publicly that I became sort of a public figure in India. Before that, my work was mostly confined to the academic sphere and to my colleagues in India. Though my first book Culture of Encounters was well received in India, life went on as usual.

So, the book on Aurangzeb brought me into a more public role. There have been negative results of that. No one likes getting hate mails. Nobody likes receiving death threats. It doesn’t really make you feel good. It can be personally difficult to deal with at times.

But obviously, there have been some positive aspects as well, which are less available to the public eye. My hate mail tends to be public, but my fan mail tends to be private. But I do get emails from people saying that the book on Aurangzeb made them question their previously held beliefs. And that’s fantastic. That’s what I wanted to hear. That’s the sort of impact I was aiming to have with that book. So, I try to focus on the positives and I won’t let the negatives change my research agenda. The Hindu right can scream at me all they want, but I won’t temper my research and my views about India’s past.

Q. Would you say that attitudes towards Aurangzeb have changed over recent years?

A. I think Aurangzeb’s reputation in India has worsened over the last few years, especially since 2014. I sometimes say that for a dead guy, he has a lot of PR problems. I would say that is because he is useful for the BJP, the RSS and other members of the Sangh Parivar. He is a sort of figure that they would latch on to and use for their own political plans. In addition to increasing communalism that results from that, my other objection is that they are obscuring history.

Q. As a historian, how do you rate Indians’ sense of history?

A. I think Indians really care about history and, honestly, that is very exciting. For myself, it is incredible to work in an area of the world where even a chaiwallah cares about the past. There is also a negative side to that, when people care more about mythologies and start judging the past like they do. But, I still think that in many ways, it is a net positive.

Q. Why did you choose Aurangzeb as topic of your book, and not Dara Shukoh? Or why did you not opt to write on any other Mughal ruler, say Akbar?

A. In my opinion, Aurangzeb is the most misunderstood of all the Mughal kings. I also picked him because nobody has written a serious biography of him in decades. He was in need of scholarly research and interpretation. I picked Aurangzeb over Dara Shukoh because Dara didn’t become king.

While Dara is a very interesting figure in terms of intellectual history, he doesn’t help me explain what happens in the late 17th and early 18th century in India, because he wasn’t ruling at the time. Aurangzeb is the key figure for that.

Q. Are there any other myths about Aurangzeb that are waiting to be demolished, besides the ones published in your book?

A. I am sure that there are. I would also take this opportunity to say that I don’t want the last word on Aurangzeb Alamgir. I did not set out to write the definitive book in the field. I set out to start a conversation. So, I invite other scholars and students to question my work, not from a political angle but from a historical angle. I certainly hope that 10 to 20 years from now, there is a better book on Aurangzeb.