Duryodhanization

by Nishant Uppal

  V

  SOME VAGUE INDUCTIVE

  REASONING AND GENERALIZATIONS

  In the previous chapters, I’ve discussed several factors that lead to Duryodhanization. Duryodhana’s entire life is an evidence of the role of genetic inheritance in Duryodhanization: his actions and behaviours exhibit clear links with the negative personality dispositions of his ancestors. Clearly, literature review shows that Duryodhana took after his forefathers, and his subsequent Duryodhanization is a natural corollary of his genes.

  Another factor causing Duryodhanization is the manner in which Duryodhana is presented in the epic. While the text provides dharmic justifications for the Pandavas’ apparently evil actions and behaviours, no such justification is given for those of Duryodhana. This bias in favour of the Pandavas presents them as heroes who need a villain in order to engage the text’s readers.

  There exist several historical and contemporary academic debates centered on the Pandavas’ evil behaviour. While some scholars are in favour of and defend their actions, others reproach and criticize them. In general, however, these debates largely come out in support of the Pandavas. Surprisingly, there are no academic debates about Duryodhana’s behaviours, and nearly all discourses present Duryodhana’s negative actions as justifications for the Pandavas’ similar, retaliatory ones.

  The theories regarding the development of a villain that are laid out in the introduction of this book—namely, genetic inheritance, parochialism, ethnocentrism, orientalism, and the Pygmalion approach—all apply to Duryodhana’s characterization. However, can these findings be generalized?

  In this chapter, I explore the possibility of generalizing the proposition of this book. Here, I present the Duryodhanization of three notorious historical figures, chosen at random to avoid controversies. These figures are Dhana Nanda, the last ruler of the Nanda dynasty, Aurangzeb, from the lineage of the Mughals in India, and Adolf Hitler, who needs no introduction. All three of them are widely acknowledged to be historical villains and, in my opinion, raise the least debate over their villainy.

  Dhana Nanda

  The Nandas, who usurped the throne of the Shishunaga dynasty, were of low-caste origin. Some sources state that the founder of the dynasty, Mahapadma, was the son of a Shudra mother; others say that he was born of the union of a barber with a courtesan. Curiously enough, the Nandas were one of the biggest dynasties of northern India belonging to a non-Kshatriya caste, until the arrival of the Rajput dynasties, a thousand years later. As elaborated later, there also appears to have been a strange reversal of roles during this era, as the religious teachers of this period were of Kshatriya origin and some of the kings were Brahmins.

  The Nandas are sometimes described as the first empire builders of India. They inherited the large kingdom of Magadha and wished to extend it to even more distant frontiers. To this purpose, Mahapadma Nanda built a vast army, comprising 20,000 cavalry, 2,00,000 infantry, 2000 chariots and 3000 elephants. But the Nandas never had the opportunity to use this army against the Greeks, since Alexander’s campaign terminated in Punjab. The army was later inherited by Mahapadma Nanda’s son, Dhana Nanda. Not much is known or has been written about Dhana Nanda’s mother, other than the fact that she was a low-caste woman called Shunda.

  Dhana Nanda is said to have been addicted to hoarding treasure, amassing riches to the amount of eighty kotis (small godowns). He even buried some of the treasures he had acquired in a rock that lay in the bed of Ganges. Levying taxes on skins, gums, trees and stones, amongst other common items, he amassed further riches, which he hid similarly. Professor Nilakanta Sastri points out an interesting reference to the ‘very famous’ Nandas ‘victorious in war, who having accumulated treasure first in beautiful Pataliputra hid it in the waters of the Ganges.’1 Land taxes also became a substantial source of revenue for the treasury. The land was fertile, yielding rich harvests, and the tax could therefore be quite high. The Nandas adopted a methodical system of tax collection by making use of regularly appointed officials as part of their administrative system. The treasury was continually replenished, the wealth of the Nandas increasing. The Nandas also built canals and laid out irrigation projects, which made it seem possible to build an imperial structure based on an essentially agrarian economy. But further development by the Nandas was cut short by Chandragupta Maurya, the young adventurer who usurped the Nanda throne in 321 BC It was under the Mauryas, therefore, that this imperial idea found expression.

  The accumulation of an enormous amount of wealth, to which all our authorities bear witness, probably implies a good deal of financial extortion. It is not surprising that Dhana Nanda, a contemporary of Alexander, was detested by his subjects.

  Dhana Nanda, the king whose court the famous teacher and philosopher Kautilya came to, was known not only to be baseborn but was also a miser. Quintus Curtius Rufus reports that Porus, who defeated Alexander, wrote to him that the Nanda king ‘was not merely a man originally of no distinction, but even of the very meanest condition. His father was in fact a barber.’2 His father, Mahapadma Nanda, became the lover of the queen of the country, assassinated the king, and while acting as a guardian to the royal children, put to death. Dhana Nanda inherited this Machiavellian trait of his father and went to considerable lengths to achieve his immoral ends.

  On top of his ignoble origins, Dhana Nanda was also hated by his subjects for his avarice. He is said to have committed innumerable crimes—using his power to extort money from the poor and killing thousands in the process. He was not only manipulative and Machiavellian in his approach, but also possessed criminal tendencies that resulted in psychopathic behavior. The arrogant king also insulted the scholar Kautilya, who had come to Pataliputra to share his knowledge, ordering him to leave a feast after he had started eating. Clearly, Dhana Nanda was arrogant and narcissistic, believing himself to be superior than everyone else. The incensed Kautilya vowed not to tie his forelock knot again until he had destroyed the Nanda dynasty, root and branch.

  While genetic inheritance appears to play a role in Dhana Nanda’s actions and behaviours, it alone does not provide sufficient explanation for his historical characterization. The Arthashastra, the earliest complete work of Indian history, was written by Kautilya, who was insulted in the court of Dhana Nanda and swore to destroy the Nanda dynasty. There is no other written account available that explores the Nanda dynasty as comprehensively as the Arthashastra, and it is expected that Kautilya in his work would emphasize the shortcomings of the dynasty. Further, nearly no available text describes Dhana Nanda in a positive manner. Therefore, we need to reevaluate whether the texts that we have available, those that Duryodhanize Dhana Nanda, are completely conclusive.

  Aurangzeb

  Aurangzeb, the third son of the fifth Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan and his Shia Irani wife Mumtaz Mahal, came to occupy the throne after a long and bitter war of succession. The controversy surrounding Aurangzeb, therefore, is not just limited to the actual years of his reign. Aurangzeb is generally considered to be the last powerful Mughal Emperor—his successors failed to hold the empire together, and it soon broke up into smaller regional kingdoms.

  The father

  A brief study of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb’s illustrious predecessor, is helpful in developing a better understanding of Aurangzeb himself—some of the son’s infamous negative dispositions can also be found in the father.

  Shah Jahan, the third son of his father, Emperor Jahangir, became the ruler of the Mughal dynasty after winning an extremely bloody war of succession, in which all his brothers, nephews and male first cousins were put to death (Rizvi, 1987:120).3 To say the least, Shah Jahan was an extremely ambitious man in all his endeavours.

  During his rule, Shah Jahan occasionally used the prevailing Islamic sentiment for political advantage. For instance, during the Bundela Rajput rebellion that occurred in the early part of his reign, Shah Jahan ordered the destruction of the colossal Orcha temple and its idols. Ironically, the Orcha temple w
as built by one of Jahangir’s most loyal mansabdars, Raja Vir Singh Dev. A mosque was constructed on the Orcha temple’s site and some rebel Bundelas were forcefully converted to Islam. In addition, as Sri Ram Sharma (1962: 86-87)4 mentions, in the sacred Hindu city of Benaras, Shah Jahan demolished a few temples by enforcing Shariah restrictions. Shah Jahan thus clearly departed from previous Mughal practices, and set new precedents for further acts of religious violence. He was constantly anxious that the majority Hindu population would overthrow the Mughal dynasty, and his violent actions thus underline his psychopathic and neurotic personality traits.

  Shah Jahan, best known to students of Indian history for his unmatched patronage of exquisite architecture, had an equally powerful but less-remembered desire to expand the frontiers of the Mughal Empire. He undertook massive military expeditions to the north and the south. The Mughal scheme to conquer their Timurid ancestral regions in the Uzbek-controlled parts of Central Asia proved to be an expensive failure in terms of both personnel and financial resources—a cost that can be attributed to Shah Jahan’s personal and narcissistic ambitions.

  The mother

  In the Mughal dynasty, marriages were often based on political motives. The Mughals strengthened their position in different regions by forming political alliances through marriage. Mughal women worked behind the scenes in marriage negotiations, guiding emperors and princes towards the most beneficial political unions and welcoming new wives into the complex culture of the women’s apartments. For instance, Nur Jahan, Jahangir’s last wife, married off her niece, Mumtaz Mahal, to Shah Jahan, and Ladli Begum (her daughter from another marriage) to Shahryar Mirza, the other son of Jahangir, in order to strengthen her own position.5

  Arjumand Bano Begum, later known as Mumtaz Mahal, was the daughter of Asaf Khan, wazir to Emperor Jahangir and Nur Jahan’s brother. During the early years of Shah Jahan’s reign, his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal exerted some pressure in political matters. Even before the accession of Shah Jahan to the throne of Delhi, she had cheerfully followed him in his wanderings and exile, patiently bearing the pains and rigours of life in the forests of Telingaha, Bengal, Mewar and the Deccan. According to J.N. Chaudhary, ‘In 1628 AD when Shahjahan ascended the throne [Mumtaz Mahal] occupied the premier position in the harem and the emperor usually consulted her about private as well as state affairs.’6 She was entrusted with the royal seal. After state documents had been finalized, they were sent to the imperial harem, where Mumtaz would imprint the seal on them. This enabled her to get an insight into the current affairs of the empire, in which she took an active interest.

  After Shah Jahan’s coronation, Mumtaz Mahal was given powers equivalent to those that her aunt, Nur Jahan, had enjoyed as Jahangir’s wife, and far greater personal resources. She may not have had the personal ambition or degree of control over her husband that Nur Jahan had had, but Shah Jahan was perfectly content for her to play an important part in his decision-making.

  Indeed, her role grew rapidly, and foreign ambassadors were heard to observe with disdain that public business ‘slept until it was referred to her’, while the emperor himself was ‘governed and wound up at her pleasure’. In an unprecedented division of Muslim sovereignty, even coins were minted in the queen’s name, and in an echo of the administrative influence of Nur Jahan and queen Guljar Maryam-Zamani before her, Mumtaz Mahal now began issuing royal edicts in her own name.7 This increase in power could be attributed to Mumtaz’s own political shrewdness—Shah Jahan was clearly smitten by her and she could have used this to manipulate him to her own advantage. This suggests that she likely had some Machiavellian traits, which she deployed to access control and power over political matters.

  The son

  There is historical evidence to suggest that there were significant similarities between Aurangzeb’s behaviour and actions and those of his parents. For example, Aurangzeb’s forceful and bloody succession to the throne, in which he, like his father, resorted to killing several of his siblings. The two-year-long succession war between Shah Jahan’s four sons has received close attention from various scholars (e.g. Richards, 1993:151-153, Misra, 1993)8 and has usually been interpreted as an ideological contest. Shah Jahan’s eldest son, Dara Shukoh and Aurangzeb are portrayed as being representatives of opposing theology. The other two princes, Shuja and Murad, are accorded relatively insignificant roles.

  The heir apparent, Dara Shukoh, who was his father’s favourite son, lacked Aurangzeb’s formidable military talent. As a result, Shah Jahan had to reluctantly acknowledge that the gifted Aurangzeb was the Mughal Empire’s best general; he usually sent Aurangzeb on military expeditions or appointed him to governorships of politically unstable provinces. Such demanding experiences enhanced Aurangzeb’s military prowess as well as his reputation as a leader of warriors, all of which further accentuated his narcissism.

  Aurangzeb also inherited his brilliant, ruthless and shrewd generalship skills from his father. In his 1935 monograph on Aurangzeb, Faruki9 points out that only Aurangzeb, by winning victories over the formidable Uzbeks, could have kept the Mughal military prestige intact. Mughal southern expansion was not entirely successful but commendable. Although Shah Jahan’s father-in-law, wazir Asaf Khan, had failed to annex the premier Deccan state of Bijapur, Aurangzeb forcefully absorbed the smaller Nizam Shahi kingdom of Ahmadnagar into the Mughal Empire in 1632. Aurangzeb seems to have inherited Shah Jahan’s powerful urge to annex the remaining Deccan kingdoms. To assert his superiority, as well as his control over his territories, Aurangzeb did not hesitate in committing atrocities against the residents of the conquered regions, suggesting that he inherited his father’s narcissistic and psychopathic disposition.

  Aurangzeb is often blamed for his religious rigidity and intolerance, and scholars have noted his use of religion for political gain. For example, Athar Ali (1968:97)10 provides details of the most important religion based ruling Aurangzeb used: he declared that Gods bestowed more powers to him in comparison to all others he had the right to rule even while his father was still alive, demonstrating his narcissism.

  Aurangzeb’s decision in April 1679 to impose the hated poll tax, known as the Jizyah, on the empire’s non-Muslim subjects is usually seen by historians as just one of a series of anti-Hindu measures. It is also regarded as a regressive step, which brought the Akbari tradition of religious tolerance in the Mughal Empire to an end. The re-imposition of the Jizyah some hundred years after its abolition by Akbar seems to suggest that Aurangzeb was trying to mirror the Delhi Sultanate. The Jizyah increased the social distinction between Hindus and Muslims; the former felt discriminated by the Mughal Empire and some violently protested against the state authorities. Saiyid Abbas Ali Rizvi (1987: 183) thinks that Aurangzeb might have believed that Hindu affluence was the cause of local rebellions. As such, the imposition of the Jizyah could be considered an appropriate measure taken to curb the outbreak of revolts by restricting Hindu financial resources. This analysis, which may explain some revolts, fails to account for the majority of rebellions, which were sparked by over-taxation in the first place.

  Hallisey (1977)11 is justified, then, in saying that Aurangzeb’s real fault was not his religious, but rather his personal inflexibility. While Aurangzeb is largely perceived to be a Mughal Duryodhana, there is some historical evidence that justifies his villainous behavior. For example, Aurangzeb is generally criticized by many historians for using religion as a rallying call during the succession war, but Rizvi (1987:132)12 disputes this claim, insisting that both Murad and Shuja abused religious sentiment as a political tool far more than Aurangzeb did. In such a competitive climate, Aurangzeb had to appeal to the Muslim religious establishment without alienating the Hindu Rajput mansabdars.

  Although primarily an architectural historian, Catherine B. Asher is extremely well versed in Mughal history—she is among the few historians to tackle, without prejudice, the highly controversial topic of temple demolition during Aurangzeb’s reign. Her work
primarily discusses the demolition of the Keshava Deva temple in Mathura, which Aurangzeb destroyed in retaliation against the Mathura Jat rebellion. Not only were several thousand Mughal troops and imperial faujdars killed during the rebellion, the Jats also destroyed the tomb of Aurangzeb’s great-grandfather, Akbar, and burnt his remains. For this reason, Asher (1992:253-259)13 argues that Aurangzeb tore down Hindu temples only in response to large-scale anti-state activities, thus exhibiting his neurotic and psychopathic traits. Aurangzeb also may have viewed temples as the planning grounds for many revolts, further making them the target of his violence.

  Historians often associate Aurangzeb with the destruction of a great number of temples. The compiler of the British colonial censuses, William Crooke (1972:112-113)14 believes that while some temples were indeed cruelly leveled, many myths were created to enhance the sacredness of some temples. Myths suggest that Aurangzeb failed to knock down many of these sacred temples, and his troops were defeated by the supernatural powers of the Hindu deities.

  While Aurangzeb was resented by his subjects for re-imposition of the Jizyah tax, there is practically no historical evidence available that explains how the collections under this tax were used. We do not know, then, whether the funds accumulated under the Jizyah were ever put to any specific infrastructural or developmental use at all. Under Aurangzeb’s reign, censors were appointed to enforce a strict moral code, and laws were issued against prostitution, gambling, drinking and narcotics. Whether we call such impositions anti-religion (to limited sectors in society) or not, surely this overly moralistic attitude and intolerance highlight Aurangzeb’s psychopathic and narcissistic personality along with his Machiavellian traits.