FilmIndia (1945)

Historical Truth About "Humayun" Such Sugary Mughal Pictures Only Distort Modern Problems By Prof. KRISHNA GOPAL, M A. ( Ex-Lecturer : University of Delhi. ) Seeing that Mughal pictures are generally popular with the masses and hence produced in a greater number by our over-greedy producers, I cannot restrain myself from laying bare the naked truth about them. Glori fication of historical figures is all very well, but when the treatment of Hindus by Mahommedans is overcoloured to the extent of whitewash ing Muslim intolerance in Mughal days, the exaggeration sticks in my throat. Not simply because it is cloyingly sweet and devoid of all artisticsanity but because it is definitely dangerous. A picture like "Humayun" is more like a plea for Pakistan. That is what a Muslim Leaguer,who saw "Humayun" with me,' said. "I don't see why Hindus are afraid of Pakistan! As conquerors we dealt handsomely by them — we were so tolerant. Babur was forgiveness itself, and Humayun, he lost his kingdom for the love of his Hindu sister." In this strain he waxed eloquent over the benevolence of the benign Mughal rule for Hindus, and seemed to hint, ever so indirectly, that the restoration of Muslim Rule in India would be nothing short of a God-send for Hindus. It is true many of us would prefer Muslim Rule to British Rule any day of the year. But the greatest Indian problem, Hindu-Muslim Unity, is without a doubt being overclouded by pictures like "Humayun." Illiterate Indian masses are taking into their head wrong notions from these make-believe extravaganzas. Solution of the Hindu-Muslim Problem (and the threat of Pakistan) does not lie in pulling wool over the eyes of the masses, but in making them face the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The reality, however hideous, must not be dimmed; but such films distort the whole perspective and arc throwing a colourful veil over the vital issues of today that must be faced boldly and fearlessly. It is not by glossing over historical truth that Hindu-Muslim unity could be brought about. Mahommedans must know that they are mostly converts from Hinduism, and the theory of a separate nation does not hold water because of their being converts, with Hindu blood still flowing in their veins. Had Mohammedan rulers been truly tolerant towards Hindus, all this large-scale conversion could not have come about. Except for Akbar who was in truth the most broad-minded ruler ever, and not to that extent Jehangir who did not want to change Akbar's religious policy, other Muslim rulers from the days of Sultanate to the last flicker of Mughal power were fanatically intolerant. Mehboob's "Humayun", for this reason, is as far from the truth as any trashy scatter-brained historical by any sixth-rate Indian director. Babur was not what Mehboob has portrayed him. In his 'Memoirs' time and again vou find Hindus being mentioned in high disdain as "Heathens", "Infidels" and "Pagans." After victory over Rana Sanga he says "I directed a tower of the skulls of the Infidels to be constructed." In his firman issued after that, he proclaimed himself Ghazi (victor over Infidels) "who has dashed down the standard of idols, by dispersing the enemies of Mussalmans." To say that he adopted a Hindu Rajput lady as his daughter and behaved with divine forbearance towards Raja of Chanderi is the most fanatic fib. The man who built towers of Hindu heads could never be of this character. In "Tuzaki-Baburi" he states how in order to conform strictly to the Muslim law he excluded Muslims from paying stamp duties, thus confining the tax to Hindus alone. He thus not only maintained but increased the Sultanate distinction between his Hindu and Muslim subjects in the matter ol their financial burdens. One of his officers, Hindu Beg, is said to have converted a Hindu temple at Sambhal into a mosque. In "Tarikh-iBaburi" it is mentioned that his Sadr, Shaikh Zain, demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi when he occu 1 1 a*. a' ' • f \ « rf " ' * * a * -v * -a I**" That is Niloufer, a new comer, in "Tadbir" a picture of Jayant Desai. They all come stretching their legs in dancing style. pied, the very same Chanderi which Mehboob has depicted otherwise. By Babur's orders, Mir Baqi destroyed the temple at Ayudhya commemorating Rama's birth place, and built a mosque in its place in 1528-29. He destroyed fain idols at Urva near Gwalior, as he states in his 'Memoirs'. There is no reason to believe that he used any measures to relax the harshness of the religious policy which he found prevailing. Then why should Mehboob's "Humayun" present an absolutely untrue and unreal picture of the times? As for Babur's son, Humayun, he had not any opportunity of developing any religious outlook of his own. He followed the path of least resis tance and the system already in vogue. His religious view-point is well illustrated by his behaviour when he set out against Bahadur Shah. He would not attack him (a Mohammedan) as long as he was busy against the Rana of Chitor, besieging Chitor Fort. He sacrificed his own chances of an easy success against Bahadur Shah rather than not earn religious merit of helping the defeat of an infidel. He considered attacking Bahadur Shah then as assistance ot an infidel and hin 49 t 1 1