Modi’s Uzbek Honor: A Reflection of India’s Complicated History

Asaduddin Owaisi, president of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), has taken a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s diplomatic endeavors. This time, it’s over the PM’s conferment with Uzbekistan’s highest state honor, the Order of “Oliy Darajali Dustlik”. Owaisi’s comment about Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, being from Uzbekistan is not entirely inaccurate, but it’s a clever dig at the BJP’s selective use of history.

The Modi government has sought to distance itself from India’s Islamic heritage, particularly when referencing Babur. The Sangh Parivar and its affiliates have long criticized the Mughal period as an era of “Islamic invasion” and have attempted to rewrite Indian history to emphasize Hindu contributions. However, when it suits their diplomatic interests, they’re quick to claim a connection to these very same cultures.

Uzbekistan’s recognition of Modi reflects the country’s desire to strengthen ties with India in a rapidly changing global landscape. The Central Asian nation has been actively courting Indian investment and cooperation, particularly in the energy sector. In return, Modi has promised increased economic cooperation and support for the Global South.

This development raises questions about the BJP’s stance on secularism and its implications for India’s relationships with its Muslim-majority neighbors. If Uzbekistan can confer an honor upon a Hindu nationalist leader who has been critical of Islamic heritage, what does this say about the BJP’s vision for India?

The incident also highlights the double standards employed by Indian politicians when it comes to historical references. They are quick to invoke Babur as a symbol of “Islamic aggression” but fail to acknowledge his contributions to Indian culture and architecture. This selective use of history has significant implications for India’s present.

For decades, the Sangh Parivar has sought to rewrite history to emphasize Hindu dominance and suppress Islamic contributions. The fact that Uzbekistan, a country with its own complex history of cultural exchange, is now honoring Modi raises questions about the BJP’s commitment to secularism. The impact on India’s Muslim community cannot be overstated.

The BJP’s reactions to this development will be telling. Will they continue to use Babur as a symbol of “Islamic aggression” or acknowledge the complexities of Indian history? The answers to these questions will reveal much about their vision for India and its place in the world.

One thing is certain: Modi’s Uzbek honor is not just a recognition of his individual accomplishments but also a reflection of India’s complicated history. As Owaisi pointed out, it’s time for the Sangh Parivar to reflect on its own selective use of history and the implications for India’s future. The next few months will be crucial in determining how this development shapes India’s relationships with its Muslim-majority neighbors and its stance on secularism.