Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Ajit Jogi, CM, though slenderly, of the new state of Chhattisgarh, said once to me: "I’m a tribal and a Christian, but I like Shiva. He belongs to everybody." I found other people outside the varna Hindu business similarly disposed and wondered why. Is it because he is older than the Vedas, that the Brahmins were opposed to him but were forced to co-opt him into the pantheon because he was too large to resist? They seemed to have accepted him with very good grace too, because though the upper caste composed the Puranas, they did not suppress Shiva’s lore but rather glorified him, and only him, as Mahadeva, the Great God. That it is his city, Kashi, that is the nerve centre of Sanatana Dharma?
From thoughts of Kashi, to thoughts of Panchganga Ghat dominated by Aurangzeb’s mosque, is a short step. But again, truth lies somewhere between black and white. The Hindus have every reason to dislike Aurangzeb as their enemy. He betrayed his own blood: his father Shahjehan had large, dark Rathore eyes from his mother Mani Gossain, princess of Jodhpur. And his grandfather Jehangir, as we all know, was half a Kachhwaha through his mother Jodha Bai, princess of Amber.
But it is easier to understand, at this distance of time, that Aurangzeb was a neglected and unhappy son, taken away as hostage for his father’s good behaviour while only a little boy and later kept afar for years in the Deccan. Meanwhile Dara the liberal Sufi, who was nevertheless an incompetent and spoilt weakling, was the `nayantara’ of his royal father. It is not surprising that Aurangzeb’s nature became warped and bitter and he made it his business to oppose everything that Dara stood for.
However Aurangzeb, in this case, apparently did what he did to humble the arrogance of the Brahmins at Kashi. I know this will upset and scandalise those whose minds are set in certain anti-Muslim perceptions. And equally, certain Muslims do not help heal history, do they, by loudly and tactlessly lauding Aurangzeb as a champion of Islam? That our founding fathers wanted to rise above sidetaking seems evident in an inane fact: one of the loveliest roads in the heart of Delhi is named after Aurangzeb. Nobody, in 50 years, though they’re changing names as fast as they can find them, has cheeped once about this, at least not in public memory.
What does all this have to do with Shiva? Simply, that he too was an instrument of humbling the Brahmins every now and then. It was perhaps his leela, that such things were made to happen in his citadels, be it Somnath or Vishwanath. But again, I need to hastily point out, that it is immature to think in sweeping terms. Let us not, as fashion dictates, castigate the Brahmins as responsible for all the evil in our world. Let us acknowledge that many of them, along with thousands of enlightened caste Hindus, invested in quality. They built institutions, universities, roads, bridges, cities and towns, fired by a shared futuristic vision of modern India.
A syncretic national identity is our only hope of peace and prosperity. And that is why, perhaps, the concept of Shiva is so appealing. What is he, anyway? The father (and yet, not!) of the First Family, with Gauri by his side, Ganesha and Kartikeya tumbling around him? The Mahayogi, who knows the deepest secrets of Creation? Nataraja, Lord of the Dance, whose Ananda Tandava energises Creation? Or, as the Kalabhairava Ashtakam says:òf40ó Kashikapuraadinatha Kalabhairavam bhaje, Kalakaala Ambujaaksham! Hail to the lotus-eyed Lord of Kashi, who is the Death of death. Or is it the shimmering beauty of Ardhanishwara as described by Adi Shankara? Or simply, that Shiva is Ashutosh, `easily pleased’, and thus a compassionate refuge for all human frailty? Whatever the reason, he’s certainly the oldest living deity on the planet!
