The Hypocrisy and Distorted History in Bollywood’s “Chhava” and the Aurangzeb Debate
Bollywood has long been a battleground for historical narratives, where myth and propaganda often masquerade as history. The recent controversy surrounding movies like Chhava—which focuses on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj—and the renewed Aurangzeb debate in the media highlights a disturbing trend: a selective portrayal of history that serves political and ideological interests rather than historical accuracy.
In India, history has always been a tool of political convenience, manipulated to fit contemporary narratives. The way figures like Sambhaji Maharaj and Aurangzeb are portrayed today speaks volumes about the double standards at play. On one hand, some Hindu historical figures are glorified beyond their documented achievements, turning them into near-mythical figures of infallible bravery and morality. On the other hand, Muslim rulers, particularly Aurangzeb, are demonized in a simplistic, one-dimensional manner that ignores historical complexity. This selective approach does not serve the cause of historical truth; it merely deepens the ideological divides in society.
The Case of “Chhava”: Over-Glorification at the Cost of Facts
Chhava, which is set to portray the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, is already facing scrutiny for its potential distortions of history. The film, much like many Bollywood “historicals,” risks falling into the trap of over-glorification, presenting a heavily sanitized or exaggerated version of the Maratha king’s life to fit the dominant nationalist sentiment.
Sambhaji Maharaj was undoubtedly a formidable warrior and a competent ruler, but the legend surrounding him often eclipses the more complex realities of his reign. For instance, while it is true that he fought against Aurangzeb and was executed in brutal fashion, his governance was not without flaws. His strained relations with his own ministers and the internal challenges he faced are rarely mentioned in public discourse. Similarly, his alleged literary genius and policy-making brilliance are often overstated, with little historical evidence to support such claims.
The problem with Chhava is not that it tells the story of a Maratha hero—it is that it may do so by distorting facts, omitting nuances, and reinforcing a lopsided narrative. Movies like Tanhaji have already set a precedent, where artistic liberty is used as a justification for completely rewriting history to align with contemporary political sentiments.
The glorification of Hindu rulers in Indian cinema is not inherently problematic. What is problematic is the dishonest portrayal of history, where complex figures are turned into one-dimensional heroes while their adversaries are reduced to outright villains. If Chhava follows this pattern, it will be yet another exercise in historical manipulation rather than an attempt at objective storytelling.
Aurangzeb: The Convenient Villain of Indian History
On the other side of the spectrum, we have the demonization of Aurangzeb. There is no doubt that Aurangzeb’s reign was marked by religious intolerance, oppressive taxation, and brutal military campaigns. However, to paint him as a one-dimensional tyrant while ignoring the nuances of his rule is intellectually dishonest.
The recent media discourse surrounding Aurangzeb has turned him into an all-purpose villain, with little regard for historical accuracy. Many political figures and media outlets cite his temple demolitions and jizya tax policies as evidence of his outright hatred for Hindus while conveniently ignoring that Hindu kings, including some Rajput rulers, were among his top generals and administrators. His policies were often driven as much by political pragmatism as by religious ideology.
It is worth noting that Aurangzeb’s predecessors, including Akbar and Shah Jahan, also engaged in temple demolitions, but they are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Furthermore, while Aurangzeb reimposed the jizya tax, he also made key economic and administrative reforms that shaped the Mughal Empire’s governance structure for years to come. None of this is meant to absolve him of his oppressive rule, but historical analysis should be balanced rather than selective.
The problem with the current media discourse is that it uses Aurangzeb as a symbol of everything that is wrong with India’s past while ignoring the equally authoritarian actions of Hindu rulers. If Aurangzeb’s temple demolitions are to be condemned, then so should the destruction of Buddhist and Jain sites under certain Hindu rulers. But such an honest discussion is unwelcome because it disrupts the politically convenient narrative of a “Hindu golden age” versus “Muslim oppression.”
The Double Standards in Historical Narratives
The contrast in the way figures like Sambhaji Maharaj and Aurangzeb are treated reveals the deep hypocrisy in India’s historical storytelling. When a Hindu ruler wages war, it is seen as an act of heroic resistance; when a Muslim ruler does the same, it is portrayed as religious tyranny. This selective interpretation of history serves only to fuel communal tensions and distort the real past.
For example, the Rajputs who allied with the Mughals are often condemned as “traitors” in nationalist narratives, while Marathas who cooperated with the British are conveniently left out of discussions. Similarly, Hindu rulers who engaged in aggressive expansionist wars are celebrated, but Muslim rulers who did the same are branded as oppressors.
If the objective is to seek historical truth, then all figures must be judged by the same yardstick. We cannot call Shivaji a “strategic genius” for using guerilla tactics while condemning Aurangzeb for doing the same in his military campaigns. We cannot glorify the Marathas as liberators while ignoring their caste-based social hierarchy and oppressive taxation policies.
The Role of Bollywood in Reinforcing These Myths
Bollywood has an enormous influence on public perception, and its increasing reliance on jingoistic historical narratives is a dangerous trend. Films like Tanhaji, Padmaavat, and potentially Chhava are not merely entertainment; they shape how millions perceive their history. The industry’s shift toward nationalist storytelling ensures that history is seen not as a subject of study but as a source of political validation.
If Bollywood truly wants to make historical films, it should strive for accuracy and nuance rather than simplistic hero-villain storytelling. Instead of making Aurangzeb a cartoonish villain, why not explore the internal contradictions of his rule? Instead of portraying Sambhaji Maharaj as a flawless warrior, why not acknowledge the real challenges he faced? A more honest portrayal of history would enrich public understanding rather than deepen ideological divides.
The Need for a More Honest Historical Discourse
India’s history is complex, and it does not lend itself to simplistic narratives of good versus evil. If we want a mature, informed society, we must move beyond these politically motivated distortions. This means acknowledging that Hindu rulers were not always noble heroes and that Muslim rulers were not always tyrannical oppressors. It means accepting that history is shaped by political, economic, and social forces rather than religious binaries.
Unfortunately, as long as movies like Chhava and media debates on Aurangzeb continue to promote one-sided narratives, this honesty will remain elusive. Until then, history in India will remain not as a pursuit of truth but as a battlefield of political convenience.