For centuries, paan occupied a central place in social, cultural and ceremonial life across the Indian subcontinent, serving as a symbol of hospitality, refinement and elite status.

Yet by the early 20th century, the practice had been increasingly recast by colonial authorities as an unsanitary habit, reflecting broader changes in social norms under British rule.Historical paintings, travel accounts and literary sources suggest that paan was once deeply embedded in the etiquette of royal courts and elite households.

Its consumption was associated not merely with personal enjoyment but with rituals of hospitality, conversation and social interaction.Among the visual records illustrating this tradition is an 18th-century portrait attributed to artist Dip Chand depicting an East India Company official, believed to be William Fullerton.

Alongside symbols of elite leisure such as a hookah, attendants and richly decorated furnishings, the painting prominently features a paandaan, or betel box, a spittoon and containers likely holding ingredients used in preparing paan.The arrangement of these objects indicates that paan consumption formed part of accepted courtly etiquette.

The inclusion of a spittoon within the composition also reflects how the physical aspects of chewing paan were accommodated within established norms of decorum.Similar motifs appear in depictions of British official David Ochterlony at the Mughal court in Delhi. In these works, paan-related objects occupy the same visual space as performances, carpets and hookahs, emphasizing their place within a broader culture of leisure and refinement.

Other paintings from the Mughal and regional courts similarly portray paan as an integral component of social life. In scenes of aristocratic gatherings, paan paraphernalia appear alongside writing instruments, floral arrangements and ceremonial objects, suggesting that hospitality, intellectual exchange and sensory pleasure were closely intertwined.Historical evidence also links paan to romance and personal relationships.

A 16th-century Mughal illustration from the Tuti-nama manuscript tradition includes prepared paan within a scene depicting anticipation of a romantic encounter. Classical Indian texts such as the Kamasutra similarly identify the offering of paan as part of courtship rituals and intimate social interactions.

European visitors to India frequently encountered these customs and recorded their observations. In the early 17th century, English diplomat Thomas Roe described receiving paan directly from Mughal Emperor Jahangir’s personal betel box, interpreting the gesture as a mark of exceptional honor and favor.

By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, however, European descriptions increasingly shifted from participation and curiosity toward documentation and classification.British writer and illustrator James Forbes, for example, recorded detailed observations of the betel plant and areca nut while also describing the social customs surrounding paan consumption.

He noted that many Indians carried paan much as Europeans carried tobacco and observed that it was routinely offered to guests as a sign of hospitality.Forbes also described the preparation of ceremonial paan, which combined sliced areca nut, cardamom and lime folded within a betel leaf and often secured with a clove.

According to his account, the offering of paan at the conclusion of a visit sometimes functioned as a subtle signal that social proceedings were drawing to a close.As colonial rule expanded, representations of paan increasingly reflected a desire to catalogue Indian customs through an ethnographic lens. Rather than appearing within scenes of social interaction and courtly exchange, paan began to be depicted as an isolated cultural practice.

Works such as Charles D’Oyly’s portrayal of a high-status Indian chewing paan focus attention on the individual and the associated objects rather than on the social environment in which the practice traditionally occurred. Images of paan vendors similarly emphasized occupation and commerce rather than hospitality or ceremonial exchange.

This shift reflected a broader colonial tendency to classify and document Indian society through categories that often detached customs from their historical and cultural contexts.The history of paan itself reveals extensive cultural connections across South and Southeast Asia.

The term “paan” is derived from the Sanskrit word parṇa, meaning leaf, while another Sanskrit term, tāmbūla, entered Persian and Arabic usage through centuries of cultural exchange.The areca nut, commonly known as supari, also carries linguistic traces of regional adaptation and trade.

Various forms of the word appeared across South Asia, while European colonial powers adopted local terminology as they encountered the practice.Paan was cultivated and consumed across a vast geographic region. Historical sources indicate that it carried distinct meanings in different societies, ranging from expressions of apology in the Malay world to digestive and medicinal uses in Sri Lanka.

Classical Indian texts recommended betel consumption after meals and associated it with various therapeutic benefits.Despite this rich cultural history, colonial attitudes increasingly focused on questions of sanitation and bodily discipline. As British administrative institutions expanded during the 19th century, new standards of hygiene and public conduct reshaped perceptions of practices that had long been socially accepted.

The decline of princely courts also weakened patronage networks that had supported the production of ornate paandaans and spittoons. Meanwhile, colonial offices and administrative spaces left little room for customs associated with public chewing and spitting.

As a result, the material culture surrounding paan gradually disappeared from many formal public settings. Although consumption continued in homes and informal environments, its visibility declined within spaces governed by colonial standards of propriety.English novelist and essayist E.M. Forster observed this transformation in a 1923 essay, contrasting the curiosity shown by early European visitors with the disdain later exhibited by many Anglo-Indians.

Forster described paan as a social ritual that facilitated interaction and hospitality, praising the skill involved in its preparation and presentation.By then, however, paan had largely ceased to function as a visible symbol of elite sociability in the way it had during the Mughal and early colonial periods.Paintings from the late 18th and early 19th centuries provide a record of that transition.

They show how an object once associated with honor, refinement and hospitality gradually became redefined through colonial frameworks that emphasized classification, regulation and hygiene. In the process, a practice deeply woven into the social fabric of South Asian life was increasingly reduced to a cultural curiosity rather than understood as part of a sophisticated tradition of etiquette and human interaction.

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

History is often told in a way that glorifies certain figures while ignoring their flaws. One such figure is Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who is sometimes passionately defended by sections of the Muslim community.

However, even Muslim scholars and historians have criticized him for his harsh policies, which played a significant role in the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Aurangzeb’s Path to Power: A Brutal Struggle

Aurangzeb’s rise to the throne was marked by bloodshed. He killed his own brother, Dara Shikoh, and imprisoned his father, Shah Jahan, to take power.

This kind of ruthless behavior wasn’t unique to Aurangzeb—many Mughal and Ottoman rulers followed the “Takht Ya Taboot” (Throne or Coffin) philosophy, where they eliminated even their own family members to secure their rule.

However, from an Islamic perspective, this raises serious ethical concerns, as justice and righteousness are central to Islamic teachings.

The Sharifs of Mecca Rejected Aurangzeb’s Rule

After overthrowing Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb sought religious legitimacy from the Sharifs of Mecca, who were descendants of the Prophet Muhammad and custodians of Islam’s holiest sites.

However, they refused to endorse him, citing Islamic principles that prohibit unjustly overthrowing a rightful ruler. This rejection suggests that even in his time, Aurangzeb’s rule was seen as problematic by respected Islamic authorities.

Muslim Scholars Criticized Aurangzeb’s Policies

Many well-known Muslim scholars and historians have pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid and intolerant approach weakened the Mughal Empire rather than strengthening Islam.

Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703–1762), a prominent Islamic scholar admired Aurangzeb for his piety and commitment to Islamic governance but criticized his excessive military campaigns, neglect of administration, and failure to train his successors. He also pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid policies, including alienation of Hindus and Rajputs, weakened the empire. Shah Waliullah believed that while Aurangzeb upheld religious values, his lack of political flexibility and strategic governance contributed to the Mughal Empire’s decline after his death.

Syed Murtaza Husain (Student of Shibli Nomani) In Tarikh-e-Aurangzeb, he argued that Aurangzeb’s oppressive policies did more harm than good. His intolerance created divisions, leading to unrest and weakening the empire.

Ghulam Husain Khan (1727–1792) In Siyar-ul-Mutakhkhirin, Ghulam Husain Khan noted that Aurangzeb’s extreme religious policies alienated both Hindus and many Muslims. He linked this intolerance to instability and rebellion.

Maulana Shibli Nomani (1857–1914) A scholar who generally supported Islamic governance, Shibli Nomani still criticized Aurangzeb’s excessive conservatism. He argued that the emperor’s strict policies backfired, speeding up the empire’s decline.

Sufi Scholars Opposed Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies

Aurangzeb considered himself a devout follower of Sufism, but many respected Sufi scholars opposed his harsh and rigid rule.

Shaykh Muhammad Masum Sirhindi (d. 1668, Naqshbandi Sufi) Initially, he supported Aurangzeb but later criticized his authoritarian approach. He advised Aurangzeb to rule with justice instead of religious extremism, but his warnings were ignored.

Hazrat Shah Kalimullah Jahanabadi (1650–1729, Chishti Sufi) A key figure in the Chishti Sufi tradition, he emphasized love and tolerance over rigid religious laws. He openly disagreed with Aurangzeb’s extreme policies and promoted coexistence instead.

Lessons for Today’s Muslims and Hindus

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

Aurangzeb’s legacy is not a model of Islamic strength but a reminder of how intolerance and authoritarianism can lead to the downfall of even the most powerful empires.

For Muslims, true strength lies in justice, wisdom, and coexistence—not in defending rulers whose legacy is marked by division and controversy. It is more important to uphold Islamic values of patience, knowledge, and tolerance.

For Hindus, the rich history of Indian civilization should be a source of pride. India has endured and thrived for thousands of years because of its resilience, inclusivity, and wisdom. However, it is crucial not to let history be used to divide society further.

By taking a balanced view of the past, both Muslims and Hindus can work toward unity and mutual respect. Instead of clinging to divisive narratives, we should focus on building a future of understanding and harmony.