From Aurangzeb Road to Aurangabad: Why the BJP isn't too keen on the renaming game

Much has been said about the renaming of Aurangzeb Road in Lutyens’ New Delhi to Abdul Kalam Road. And here is some more. Known in his lifetime as alamgir, ‘the conqueror of the world’, Aurangzeb is unlikely to turn in his grave in Khuldabad, some 30 odd kilometres from Aurangabad.  The Mughals had lost their empire, and even for the aulia-e-Hind, in that context, the loss of a road in Delhi, although a Mughal capital for a long time, should not cause him concern. Kalam presided over tract larger than Aurangzeb did, though the latter arguably had the farthest frontiers from his capital. However, it may take an indeterminate while before the new name enters popular usage. It is in official records, but there will be letters addressed to ‘Aurangzeb Road’, unless the post office and the courier companies refuse to deliver them unless it is to Abdul Kalam Road. [caption id=“attachment_2415486” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. Mayank Austen/Flickr[/caption] There is another point in the Mughal’s favour. He did not name the road, on which Venkaiah Naidu, Union minister lives. He says he was ‘shy’ – he may have meant ‘embarrassed’ – of it as an address. However, a city, which originally was a village, Khadki – that was later renamed by Malik Ambar’s son to Fatehabad – was renamed Aurangabad by Aurangzeb himself. Aurangzeb was then the governor of Deccan. Aurangzeb ruled over the Deccan from there. He did the unthinkable for any self-respecting Maharashtrian that idolises Chhatrapati Shivaji.  He put to death Shivaji’s son, Sambhaji. And that is why the Shiv Sena has been demanding that the city be renamed Sambhajinagar to perpetuate and honour his memory. Never mind that there has been no official name change, at least thus far, but the party’s mouthpiece Saamana’s publishes one of its editions from Sambhajinagar, not Aurangabad. So, why wasn’t Aurangabad singled out for renaming instead of the road, even though it has been the Shiv Sena’s demand since the late 1990s, when it led a government with the BJP in Maharashtra? Regardless of the inter-party, intra-coalition tensions between the two now, they continue to be partners, who need each other: BJP requires the Sena to remain in power, and the Sena needs the BJP to be able to wield power. The partnership had managed previously to secure approval for Bombay’s name change to be changed to Mumbai. It is likely that the BJP does not want to concede any ground to the Sena because they are both quarrelling, despite being partners. And while the BJP wants to carve out a stronger electoral turn for itself, the Sena wants to deny it just that. It is humiliating to be a junior partner in a state where it had led the coalition, from 1995 to 1999. In their game of one-upmanship, the Sena should have raised this issue, but its preoccupation was the meat ban. If, and this is a big ‘if’, such an idea had entered the minds of the authorities, it was possibly quashed to ensure that the Sena would not have a chance to gloat by taking credit for it, because Sambhajinagar is its own intellectual property. Oddly, however, the BJP has kept an arm’s length from the Abdul Kalam Road issue. Naidu has said that the idea did not come from “a Hindu, or an Indian, nor from the VHP or Bajrang Dal; but from a non-Bharatiya… He is a Muslim… Tarek Fatah, born in Pakistan and who is now settled in Canada and works as a journalist”. So, in all likelihood, Aurangabad will probably stay Aurangabad, and go on to make very little difference to anybody, Aurangzeb included. History will remain unchanged, as was the case with Mumbai where statues of British governors were unceremoniously removed and junked in what was Victoria Gardens – now Jeejamata Udyan. The past remains a past. Even if you try erasing it, some vestiges will pop up eventually. DNA had reported on the interesting opinion of a senior lawyer VP Patil, who was earlier a chief public prosecutor. He recalled how Justice Dinshaw Mullah’s statue remains in the Mumbai High Court though he was one of the seven judges on a bench that signed the order striking out Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the Roll of Barristers. The newspaper cited a coffee-book table on the history of the high court. For the record, I am not in favour of renaming anything, Aurangabad included.