Historians have condemned the New Delhi Municipal Corporation’s decision to change the name of the road in Lutyens’ Delhi to APJ Abdul Kalam Road, to honour the former President. Historians see the move as an attempt to wipe out the legacy of the Mughal emperor. One of India’s foremost chroniclers R V Smith says the renaming the colonial-era roads was wrong. “Aurangzeb was not as cruel as depicted today. He was a ruler in despotic times. The bigger worry is that where will this end? Will Shahjahan Road’s name also be changed?

According to Smith, Aurangzeb Road had been part of Delhi’s heritage and changing its name would only lead to confusion. “It is also an insult to Dr.Kalam’s memory. A new road or museum or science centre should have been in his memory. What was the need to pick Aurangzeb Road?”

Well-known historian Sohail Hashmi says research shows that the image of Aurangzeb as an enemy of Hindus was created by the British to divide Hindus and Muslims. “Not only did he give grants to many temples, he even demolished a mosque as part of his campaign. Just by panting a signboard, you can’t change history.” According to Hashmi, the fight between Aurangzeb and Shivaji was not one between Hindus and Muslims. “All the main commanders of Aurangzeb were Hindus and the commander of Shivaji’s artillery was a Muslim. This was a fight between two feudals. The imperialists labeled Shivaji as a defender of Hindus and Aurangzeb as an enemy.”

INTACH Delhi’s convener AGK Menon is of the view that the name change was part of an unfortunate trend across India which is seen as an ‘attempt to rewrite history’. “Aurangzeb was a complex character. There are instances where he ordered the destruction of temples, but there are also instances where he gave grants to built temples. The focus on one aspect is wrong.” Menon says “the trend is being seen across India. It may not be illegal as elected representatives have the right, but it is morally reprehensible”.

NDMC may have passed the resolution to rename Aurangzeb road to APJ Kalam Marg but reply to the Home Ministry to a question in Parliament cites guidelines issued by the ministry in 1975 which disallows any change. “As per these guidelines, the changes of names of roads, not only create confusion for the post offices and public, but also deprive the people of a sense of history. Therefore, it was decided the names of existing roads should not be changed.” According to the guidelines only new roads or old ones that did not have a specific name can be named after eminent personalities—local, national or international—to honour them.

Journalist Kuldip Nayar, retired justice Rajinder Sachar, and High Court lawyer N D Pancholi described the NDMC decision as shocking. “The decision is totally illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against constitution ethos. It appears to be guided not by reason and law, but by narrow communal considerations. As per guidelines name of Aurangzeb Road cannot be changed and that a notice is sent to the NDMC.”

Between 1911 and 1931, when the British planned and inaugurated New Delhi, they were obviously not under pressure from members of the Mughal dynasty to honour their ancestors. Neither was there any pressure to strike some opportunistic alliance with a powerful family and its supporters. Yet, the British named the roads and parks of the new city after rulers from the Mughal dynasty. What was the reason? It is clear from the names of the British chose for roads, lanes, squares and gardens, they wanted the new city to reflect the history of Delhi. The names were an ode to the various rulers who contributed to Delhi’s history, geography, art and culture. So, without getting into the politics, region and religions of the rulers, the British chose Lodis, Tughlaqs, Mughals, and Hindus; Mongols, Pashtuns, Pathans and Rajput—almost everybody from our history—to give identity to Delhi’s landmarks.

The British were clearly broadminded in their approach. Though they had no love lost for Mughals—don’t forget they virtually ended the dynasty; killed Zafar’s son, exiled him to Burma and fought bitter wars with Aurangzeb that almost drove them out of India—they did not let politics come in the way of the plan for the new capital.

Those who are delighted that Aurangzeb has now been replace by Kalam on one of New Delhi’s main roads have, obviously, missed the point: New Delhi’s geography was inspired by history, not politics and bigotry. (IPA Service)