Let us begin by paraphrasing Jadunath Sarkar on the consequences of the State adopting unequal policies for different sections of the people in a diverse society.

Specifically, he speaks about Aurangzeb’s policies towards Muslims and Hindus during his long and troubled reign (1658-1707).

The settled principles of Islam ended up by making the Muslims a privileged class, nourished on State bounties, naturally prone to indolence in peacetime and unable to stand on their own legs in the arena of life. The vast sums spent by the State in maintaining pauper houses and in scattering alms were a direct premium on laziness. Wealth bred indolence and a love of ease; these soon led to vice and, finally, to poverty and ruin. At the same time, the treatment of the subject people prevented the full development of the resources of the State by them. When a class of men is publicly depressed and harassed by law and executive caprice alike, it merely contents itself with dragging on an animal existence.

Amid such conditions, the human hand and the human mind cannot perform at their best. When public offices are distributed in consideration of race or creed rather than merit, the affected populations are driven to conclude that they have no lot or part in such a State. The Islamic theocracy, when set up over a composite population, has the worst vices of oligarchy and of alien rule combined.

The greatness of a historian, and proof, if proof is even required, that history is a social science, is provided by the fact that the analyses and conclusions of a great historian will be applicable in a time and space-independent manner, across centuries and political systems, for the simple reason that basic sociological impulses govern the behaviour of people in any society, not their immediate temporal condition. In the specific case of Aurangzeb’s treatment of Muslims and Hindus, the mental barrenness among both these sections of the population became apparent even during the course of his long reign, towards the end mostly. The overall result was the creation of a chronic antagonism between the rulers and the ruled, which in the end breaks every State with a composite population. So it was in India in 1707. So it is becoming in India in 2026. Who are the rulers and who are the ruled in today’s India?

The matter of State-sponsored caste-based reservations in India has had a long and contentious history. Much of this background arose from the reservation of educational and employment opportunities for the........

© News18