There is no denying this fact: the original Islamic conquest of North India (beginning approximately 1000 AD), which brought new rulers from outside the Indian subcontinent, was quite violent. The signs are even there today in Delhi, which served as the place from where the invaders decided to administer their newly conquered territory.
Telltale signs are unmistakable – archaeologists in the Qutub complex can show you signs of some structures that came up there using materials salvaged from the destruction of Jain temples. This crude attempt was supplemented by violence against the local population that has been recorded in literature describing that period in Delhi. Of course, things became a little better from the time of the Mughal Akbar. Akbar was sagacious enough to realise that he could not rule over such a large geographical area without local support, and hence he included Hindus in his administration. But when his great-grandson Aurangzeb took over, things became worse, and a tax called Jizyah was imposed on Hindus. Not without reason is Aurangzeb hated so much, and rarely are any children named after him.
With the British ruling over India from the 19th century, the Hindu-Muslim divide was deliberately exacerbated by the Britishers, who believed that the divide-and-rule policy served them best. So, in 1947, when they left the country partitioned, a huge number of Hindus from the newly created Pakistan came in — they were filled with anguish over relatives being killed and maimed. They fled, leaving their assets and livelihood in Pakistan. They were understandably very angry and, over time, destroyed the Babri Masjid, which they claimed was built after the original Ram temple was demolished. Now there are planned efforts to reclaim the sites in Mathura and Kashi.
If you look at India (or Bharat, should we say) from the perspective of South India, things are different. You can see symbols of Bharat in Angkor Wat in Cambodia, where magnificent Hindu temples (which later became Buddhist) still stand today as a testimony to the Indian expansion abroad. Signs of Bharatiya expansion can be seen in Indonesia, where Bali is a Hindu island. Temples of Hindu deities loom large there, and even the currency of Indonesia is called Rupiah. The name Singapore was originally Singhapuram, and even Hindu architecture is common in Thailand. The entire Southeast Asia is an expansion of Hindu influences, which was led by Tamils to begin with. The main airport in Bangkok is called Suvarnabhumi. The study of Hindu influences in Southeast Asia makes for a fascinating story that must be taught to schoolchildren so that they are proud of their Indian roots.
Stalin, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, probably had this in his mind when the issue of languages and parliamentary representation came to his attention. But he chose the wrong method to advocate for it. In 1975, the number of Lok Sabha seats in Parliament was frozen at the existing level of 543. The freeze on seats was originally set for 26 years, lasting until 2001, but it was extended for an additional 25 years, pushing the deadline to 2026. Pranab Mukherjee, who was part of the Congress party at the time and later became the President of India, said at a conference that it did not matter whether the number of seats was increasing or remaining constant. Clearly, he was wrong, as the issue was not merely about the overall number of seats changing or staying the same.
For South India or Tamil Nadu, the issue is that the population is growing slowly compared to that in states such as UP and Bihar. So, after delimitation of seats, the total increases will be more in these states and will be lesser in South Indian states like Tamil Nadu and many others. So, delimitation will result in more seat increases in North Indian states than in South Indian states. This would mean compromises in the strength of South Indian states. That is what Stalin wanted to say, but he has chosen to change the symbol of the Indian rupee without realising that the symbol was made by a Tamil designer (son of a former DMK MLA). By doing so, Stalin’s actions have resulted in something other than delimitation. The BJP, which unfortunately has not relatively grown in South India, is not keen to do a rethink. This is the problem. Who will solve this dilemma? Search me.
Now to make it a combined south India issue, Telangana chief minster Revanth Reddy otherwise seen as a light weight has jumped into the issue by making common issue with Stalin and saying that this was a way to disenfranchise the southern states and also some other non BJP states like Punjab (where BJP is very weak). He said that this was a way to create more power in north states where BJP has more seats. This will enfranchise BJP states and leave the southern states weaker, he argued. Thus we can see that the whole issue is very complicated and offer for no easy solutions.
Kingshuk Nag is a senior journalist who worked for TOI for 25 years in many cities including Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Bangalore & Hyderabad. Known for his for fire brand journalism, he is also a biographer of Narendra Modi (The NaMo Story) and many others.
Also Read: What Will Rekha Gupta Do For Delhi At PM Modi’s Behest?
