Aurangzeb’s Tomb Controversy: History, Politics, and Ideological Battles in Maharashtra

AHMED NOOR QURESHI

"History is an aggregate of half-truths, semi-truths, fables, myths, rumors, prejudices, personal narratives, gossip, and official prevarications. It is a canvas upon which thousands of artists throughout the ages have splashed their conceptions and interpretations of a day and an era." – Philip D. Jordan, American Historian (1903-1980).

History is often shaped by perspectives, biases, and political agendas, as reflected in the ongoing controversy over the tomb of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in Khuldabad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district, Maharashtra. The demand for its removal has intensified, with political and ideological groups debating its historical significance and contemporary relevance.

The political discourse in Maharashtra has long portrayed Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and his son, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, as heroic figures, while Muslim rulers, particularly Aurangzeb, are often depicted as villans. The controversy gained momentum when BJP leaders and right-wing groups called for the tomb’s removal. Satara MP Udayanraje Bhosale, a descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, has been vocal in advocating for its demolition. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has supported the sentiment but emphasized that any action must comply with legal provisions, as the site is protected under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

"We all want the same thing, but you need to do it within the framework of the law because it is a protected site. The site was placed under ASI's protection during the Congress regime some years back," Fadnavis stated.

The issue resurfaced following the release of the historical action film Chhaava, directed by Laxman Utekar. Based on the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, the film has reignited discussions about Maratha history and the brutal execution of Sambhaji by Aurangzeb. While the film highlights Sambhaji's valor and administrative skills, critics argue that it has been leveraged by right-wing groups to push a divisive anti-Muslim narrative. Right-wing historians often frame Sambhaji’s battle against Aurangzeb as a Hindu-Muslim conflict, with his torture and execution symbolizing the ultimate sacrifice for Hinduism. The film’s release at a time of heightened communal tensions has further fueled ideological debates.

The political ramifications of the controversy deepened when Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Azmi was suspended from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for praising Aurangzeb. Azmi had called the Mughal ruler a "great administrator" and argued that history had misrepresented him.

Young historian Indrajit Sawant from Kolhapur has made a  claim regarding Sambhaji Maharaj’s capture. Traditionally, it was believed that landlord Ganoji Shirke betrayed Sambhaji by revealing his whereabouts to the Mughal general. However, Sawant, citing the diary of French governor François Martin, asserts that a Brahmin clerk leaked the information leading to Sambhaji’s arrest. According to Sawant, Annaji Datto’s family, responsible for revenue collection in Sangameshwar and Vasmat, had ties to Mughal general Shaikh Nijam, who ultimately captured Sambhaji. These revelations challenge the long-held narrative of betrayal within the Maratha ranks.

Vishwas Patil, historian and  author of Sambhaji, said  Sambhaji’s execution was  purely a result of religious persecution, or was it driven by political motives.  He said the execution of Sambhaji was not  for refusing to convert to Islam, Patil suggests that Aurangzeb's primary goal was not religious conversion but the consolidation of political control over Maharashtra.

American historian Audrey Truschke, in his book  Aurangzeb the Man and  Myth. She said “The Mughal-Maratha conflict was shaped by a craving for raw power that demanded strategic, shifting alliances. Shivaji welcomed Muslims within his army; he had qazis (Muslim judges) on his payroll, and Muslims ranked among some of his top commanders. Mughal alliances and the imperial army were similarly diverse, and Aurangzeb sent a Hindu, Jai Singh, to besiege Shivaji at Purandar”

The controversy continues to evolve, sharply dividing Maharashtra’s political landscape. While the ruling BJP and its allies advocate for the tomb’s removal, opposition parties argue that the issue is being used to stir communal tensions ahead of the upcoming self-government elections. Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange has questioned why the tomb issue has been raised just before the elections.

The debate over history, heritage, and political narratives surrounding Aurangzeb’s tomb remains a flashpoint in Maharashtra’s political discourse, highlighting how historical interpretations are often shaped by contemporary political objectives.