Former vice-president Hamid Ansari’s comments on medieval rulers Mahmud of Ghazni and the Lodi dynasty have triggered a sharp political exchange, with the Bharatiya Janata Party accusing what it describes as the “Congress ecosystem” of reframing historical narratives in a manner it says undermines Hindu sentiments.The controversy followed the circulation of a video clip from an interview in which Ansari discussed how figures such as Ghazni and the Lodis are portrayed in history textbooks. In the clip, Ansari is heard saying that these rulers are often described as “Indian looters” despite, in his view, being treated as integral to subcontinental history, adding that “they didn’t come from outside.” The remarks were quickly seized upon by the BJP, which framed them as an attempt to legitimise or sanitise the actions of rulers associated with temple destruction and plunder.
BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla shared the clip on social media, accusing sections aligned with the Congress party of glorifying invaders who, according to him, persecuted Hindus and looted the region. He argued that such interpretations reflected a long-standing ideological approach to history that, in his words, “celebrates invaders while ignoring the suffering they inflicted.” The BJP has positioned the issue as part of a broader debate over how India’s past is taught and remembered.
Ansari, a former diplomat and scholar of West Asian affairs who served as vice-president from 2007 to 2017, has not issued a detailed public clarification on the specific controversy. His broader body of work and past speeches have often emphasised constitutional values, pluralism, and the complexity of historical identities, arguing against viewing history through a single communal lens.
Historians note that Mahmud of Ghazni, who ruled in the 11th century, conducted multiple military campaigns into the subcontinent from his base in Ghazni, in present-day Afghanistan, while the Lodi dynasty, of Afghan origin, ruled parts of northern India in the 15th and early 16th centuries until the defeat of Ibrahim Lodi by Babur in 1526. Scholarly debates have long examined whether such rulers should be viewed primarily as foreign invaders, regional powers who became embedded in local politics, or figures whose legacies combine both elements.
The BJP’s response reflects its broader push to reinterpret medieval history, particularly narratives involving Muslim rulers, arguing that older textbooks downplayed episodes of violence against Hindu institutions. Over the past decade, this debate has influenced curriculum revisions and public discourse, often becoming a flashpoint during election cycles or cultural controversies.
Opposition figures and commentators sympathetic to Ansari’s position argue that historical analysis should account for the fluid nature of identities in the medieval period, when modern concepts of nationhood did not exist. They contend that rulers who governed and settled in the subcontinent cannot be assessed solely through present-day nationalist frameworks and that history should be examined with academic nuance rather than political intent.
The Congress party itself has not formally endorsed Ansari’s remarks, but party leaders have criticised the BJP for what they describe as selective outrage and for weaponising history to polarise voters. They argue that debates over medieval rulers are being used to divert attention from contemporary governance issues.