top of page

By:

Rajeev Puri

24 October 2024 at 5:11:37 am

Before Sholay, there was Mera Gaon Mera Desh

When the comedian and television host Kapil Sharma recently welcomed the veteran screenwriter Salim Khan onto his show, he made a striking claim. India, he joked, has a national bird and a national animal; it ought also to have a national film. That film, he suggested, would surely be Sholay. Few would quarrel with the sentiment. Released in 1975 and directed by Ramesh Sippy,  Sholay  has long been treated as the Everest of Hindi popular cinema -quoted endlessly, revisited by generations and...

Before Sholay, there was Mera Gaon Mera Desh

When the comedian and television host Kapil Sharma recently welcomed the veteran screenwriter Salim Khan onto his show, he made a striking claim. India, he joked, has a national bird and a national animal; it ought also to have a national film. That film, he suggested, would surely be Sholay. Few would quarrel with the sentiment. Released in 1975 and directed by Ramesh Sippy,  Sholay  has long been treated as the Everest of Hindi popular cinema -quoted endlessly, revisited by generations and dissected by critics. In 2025, the film marked its 50th anniversary, and the release of a digitally restored, uncut version introduced the classic to a new generation of viewers who discovered that its mixture of revenge drama, western pastiche and buddy comedy remains curiously durable. The film’s influences have been debated almost as much as its dialogues – from scenes taken by the Spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone, particularly ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ (1968) or to the narrative architecture of ‘Seven Samurai’ (1954) by Akira Kurosawa. Others note echoes of earlier Hindi films about bandits and frontier justice, such as ‘Khotey Sikke’ (1973) starring Feroz Khan. Yet, rewatching ‘Mera Gaon Mera Desh,’ directed by Raj Khosla, one cannot help noticing how many of the narrative bones of  Sholay  appear to have been assembled there first. Released in 1971,  Mera Gaon Mera Desh  was a major hit at the box office, notable for holding its own in a year dominated by the near-hysterical popularity of Rajesh Khanna. The thematic framework of the two films is strikingly similar. In  Sholay , the retired policeman Thakur Baldev Singh recruits two petty criminals - Jai and Veeru - to help him avenge the terror inflicted upon his village by the bandit Gabbar Singh. In  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , the set-up is not very different. A retired soldier, Jaswant Singh, seeks to protect his village from a ruthless dacoit and enlists the help of a small-time crook named Ajit. Even the villain’s name seems to echo across the two films. In Khosla’s drama, the marauding bandit played by Vinod Khanna is scene-stealing performance is called Jabbar Singh. In  Sholay , the outlaw who would become one of Indian cinema’s most memorable antagonists was Gabbar Singh. There is an additional irony in the casting. In  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , the retired soldier Jaswant Singh is played by Jayant - the real-life father of Amjad Khan, who would later immortalise Gabbar Singh in  Sholay . The connective tissue between the two films becomes even clearer in the presence of Dharmendra. In Khosla’s film he plays Ajit, a charming rogue who gradually redeems himself while defending the village. Four years later, Dharmendra returned in  Sholay  as Veeru, a similarly exuberant petty criminal whose courage and irrepressible humour make him one half of Hindi cinema’s most beloved buddy duo alongside Amitabh Bachchan as Jai. Certain visual motifs also appear to have travelled intact. In Khosla’s film, Ajit finds himself bound in ropes in the bandit’s den during a dramatic musical sequence. A similar image appears in  Sholay , where Veeru is tied up before Gabbar Singh while Basanti performs the now famous song ‘Jab Tak Hai Jaan.’ Other echoes are subtler but just as suggestive. Ajit’s pursuit of the village belle Anju, played by Asha Parekh, anticipates Veeru’s boisterous attempts to woo Basanti, portrayed by Hema Malini. Scenes in which Ajit teaches Anju to shoot recall the flirtatious gun-training sequence between Veeru and Basanti that became one of  Sholay ’s most cherished moments. Even the famous coin motif has a precedent. Ajit frequently tosses a coin to make decisions - a flourish that would later appear in  Sholay , where Jai’s coin toss becomes a running gag. Perhaps most intriguingly, the endings of the two films converge in their original form. In  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , the villain is ultimately killed by the hero. The uncut version of  Sholay  reportedly ended in a similar fashion, with Gabbar Singh meeting his death at the hands of Thakur Baldev Singh. However, censors altered the climax before the film’s 1975 release, requiring that Gabbar be handed over to the police instead. All this does not diminish  Sholay . Rather, it highlights the alchemy through which cinema evolves. The scriptwriting duo Salim–Javed took familiar ingredients and expanded them into a grander narrative populated by unforgettable characters and stylised action. On the 55 th  anniversary of  Mera Gaon Mera Desh , Raj Khosla’s rugged western deserves a renewed glance as the sturdy foundation on which a legend called  Sholay  was built. (The author is a political commentator and a global affairs observer. Views personal.)

What If Aurangzeb Had Lost the War of Succession?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

What If Aurangzeb Had Lost the War of Succession

Counterfactual history, though generally disdained by scholars, can be valuable in exploring alternate historical outcomes by respecting historical evidence as stressed by historian Niall Ferguson.

While the question of what might have happened had Aurangzeb lost the ‘War of Succession’ (1658-59) may seem asinine, contemplating an alternate outcome is fascinating as it doubtless would have altered the trajectory of Indian history. Aurangzeb’s triumph over his elder brother Dara Shikoh in the decisive battles of Dharmat, Samugarh, and Deorai paved the way for his 49-year reign, marked by territorial expansion and religious orthodoxy.

Aurangzeb’s military prowess was undeniable. His victories were not the result of mere luck, but of superior generalship, tactical expertise, and an ability to remain calm under pressure. His defeat of not only Dara but also his other brothers, Shah Shuja and Murad Baksh, set the stage for his reign, which historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar describes as bringing the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent. In his monumental five-volume ‘History of Aurangzib’ (1912-24), Sarkar notes how Aurangzeb’s empire stretched from Ghazni to Chittagong and Kashmir to the Karnatak—an expanse unmatched by any Indian state prior to British rule.

Yet, the cost of this expansion was immense and the socio-religious tensions it fostered left lasting scars on the subcontinent. Had Dara Shikoh won, the ethos of the empire would have been fundamentally different. Known for his deep intellectual curiosity and his commitment to fostering religious inclusivity, his translation of the Upanishads, the ancient Hindu philosophical texts, from Sanskrit into Persian in Sirr-e-Akbar (‘The Greatest Mystery’), aimed to reconcile the mystical elements of Hinduism with Islam. He boldly asserted that the Upanishads held the key to understanding the esoteric aspects of the Quran, a view that placed him at odds with the more orthodox Islamic factions of the Mughal court.

Dara’s deep respect for Hindu culture and close relationships with Rajput rulers set him apart from Aurangzeb, who later alienated the Rajputs with his aggressive policies. It is conceivable that the Rajput revolt of 1679, which saw Durgadas Rathore rise against Aurangzeb after the Mughal emperor attempted to annex Marwar, would never have occurred under Dara’s rule.

Beyond the Rajput rebellion, the protracted Mughal-Maratha war in the Deccan (1681-1707), which bled the empire of its wealth and resources, could also have been avoided. Aurangzeb’s execution of Chhatrapati Sambhaji in 1689 incited widespread resistance among the Marathas, turning the Deccan into a quagmire that drained Mughal coffers and military might. Sarkar, in his comparison of this conflict to Napoleon’s Peninsular War, remarked that “the Deccani ulcer killed Aurangzeb.” A more diplomatically inclined Dara might have sought a peaceful resolution to the Deccan problem, sparing the empire from this debilitating war.

The execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1675 solidified Sikh resistance, with Guru Gobind Singh transforming the Sikhs into a militant community through the founding of the Khalsa in 1699. Dara’s more inclusive policies might have prevented this radicalization, preserving the Sikhs as a spiritual movement rather than a military force.

The Jat rebellion in Agra, led by Churaman and later his nephew Badan Singh, was another consequence of Aurangzeb’s oppressive rule. The Jats, emboldened by the emperor’s preoccupation with other fronts, rose in defiance, destabilizing Mughal authority in northern India.

While François Bernier, the 17th-century French physician and traveller, dismissed Dara as politically naïve, Sarkar was critical of Dara’s limitations as a ruler of men. Nonetheless, had he triumphed, he would have left behind his vision for a pluralistic India. Aurangzeb’s orthodox reign, by contrast, left the empire weakened by internal strife, setting the stage for its eventual decline.

Comments

bottom of page