Historical figures, especially monarchs, do not fit nicely into contemporary political compartments. Arguments over whether a particular king was ‘secular’ or ‘communal’, a benign ruler or a tyrant, must remain academic. Making one’s own reading of the complex personality of an 18th century king as the basis for taking on political rivals will only lead to needless conflicts. In Karnataka, the attempt by groups to rally around the twin images of
Tipu Sultan as tyrant and freedom fighter has led to communal tension and the unnecessary loss of two lives. An inexplicable decision by the Karnataka government to celebrate the birth anniversary of the erstwhile ruler of Mysore for the first time this year set off protests by right-wing groups, which have been questioning for some time the narrative that Tipu was a great king and warrior. The State government will have to introspect whether kings, whose legacy will inevitably be a mixed bag of ruthless conquests and whimsical benevolence, need to be feted in official functions. A protest at Madikeri in Kodagu district against the government organising Tipu’s anniversary celebrations led to violence. An elderly Vishwa Hindu Parishad functionary died, and a 23-year-old Muslim man succumbed to a bullet injury. The police claim the VHP man suffered a fall while fleeing violence, while his supporters say he was hit by a stone. The State government has blamed the BJP and groups allied to it for the violence.
It is fairly clear that the use of history to further political agendas leads to communal divisions. Eminent playwright
Girish Karnad’s remark that the international airport at Bengaluru, named after the city’s 16th-century founder, Kempegowda, could have been named after Tipu Sultan provided fodder to Tipu’s detractors as well as to groups looking to assert themselves in Karnataka. Although Mr. Karnad has clarified he was merely making an observation about the suitability of Tipu’s name for the airport, as it is situated
at the sultan’s birthplace, his critics are unlikely to be placated. History shows rulers governed by the order that prevailed in their times, one that involved the persecution of enemies and the plunder of conquered territories. Kings can be judged either by the quality of their administration and the reforms, if any, they brought in, or by their conduct and conquests. Just as such kings will have descendants vouching for their good governance and personalities, there will be descendants of their victims testifying to their ruthlessness and intolerance. It is unacceptable for this divided legacy to be used to divide people.
