Even dead for over 300 years, an Indian ruler still causes waves in the country’s politics. Aurangzeb Alamgir has become so central to India’s delicate political moment that his memory is causing sectarian violence (conflicts between different groups of a nation) across the country.
The sixth emperor of the famous Mughal dynasty is considered by many critics a tyrant who brutalized women, rocked Hindu temples, forced religious conversions and waged wars against Hindu and Sikhs rulers.
In a nation now almost entirely under the domain of Hindu nationalists, Aurangzeb’s “crimes” were used by right-wing politicians, turning it into the supreme Muslim villain whose memory needs to be erased.
Sectarian conflicts broke out in the western city of Nagpur last month, with Hindu-line nationalists asking for the demolition of the ex-ruler’s tomb.
Apparently stimulated by the recent retraction of a Bollywood movie about Aurangzeb’s violent achievements against a revered Hindu king, violence resulted in dozens of injuries and arrests, leading Nagpur’s authorities to impose a collect touch.
As tensions between the two communities continue to increase, many right -wing Hindus are using Aurangzeb’s name to highlight historical injustices against the country’s majority faith.
The Mughals ruled during an era of conquest, domination, and violent power struggles, but also an explosion of art and culture, as well as periods of deep religious syncretism – at least to Aurangzeb.
Founded by Babur in 1526, the Empire at its heyday covered an area that stretched from present -day Afghanistan in Central Asia to Bangladesh in the east, coming to an end in 1857 when the British overthrew the last emperor, Bahadur Shah II.
His best known leaders – Humayun, Akbar, Jahangi and Shah Jahan – were famous for promoting religious harmony and strongly influenced much of Indian culture, building iconic places such as Taj Mahal and the Red Fort of Delhi.
But among this more tolerant company, Aurangzeb is considered a kind of black sheep – a religious fanatic and complex character.
Aurangzeb “has evoked a mixture of admiration and aversion from the moment of his succession to the Mughal throne,” said Abhishek Kaicker, a southern Asia historian Persianato at UC Berkeley.
“He attracted a degree of revulsion by the way he came to the throne, imprisoning his father and killing his brothers… At the same time, he gained admiration and loyalty for his personal simplicity and piety, his unparalleled military power that led to the expansion of the Mughal kingdom, his political cunning, administrative efficiency and reputation of justice and impartiality.”
Born in 1618, son of Shah Jahan (famous for Taj Mahal) and his wife Mumtaz Mahal (for whom he was built), historians describe the young prince as a devoted and solemn figure, who showed early signs of leadership.
He has held several positions since he was 18, in all of whom established himself as a capable commander.
The glory of the Mughal Empire reached his heyday under his father, and Aurangzeb fought to control what was then the richest throne in the world.
Then, when Shah Jahan got sick in 1657, the stage was mounted to a bitter war of succession between Aurangzeb and his three brothers, in which he would eventually face his older brother Dara Shikoh, an advocate of a Hindu-Muslim syncretic culture.
Aurangzeb imprisoned his sick father in 1658 and defeated his brother the following year, before force him to parade chained in a dirty elephant through the streets of Delhi.
“The favorite and spoiled son of the most magnificent of the great Mughals was now dressed in a rude cloth -stained trip,” Jadunath Sarkar wrote in “A Brief Story of Aurangzib.”
“With a dark, dark -colored turban, as only the poorest use in their head. No necklace or jewelry adorning their person.”
At this time, Aurangzeb’s authority had reached extraordinary heights, and under its leadership the Mughal Empire reached its greater geographical extension.
He commanded a degree of respect and during the first half of his reign, ruled with iron hand, although with relative tolerance to the majority Hindu faith.
Until about 1679, there were no reports of temples being destroyed, nor any imposition of “jizya” or tax on non -Muslim subjects, according to Rezavi, professor of history at the Aligarh University of India. Aurangzeb behaved “just like his ancestors,” Rezavi said, explaining how some Hindus even held high positions in his government.
In 1680, however, everything changed when he adopted a form of religious intolerance that repercussions to this day.
The fanatical ruler downgraded his Hindu statesmen, turning friends into enemies, and starting a long, unpopular war in Deccan, which included the violent suppression of Marathas, a Hindu kingdom revered to this day by the right-wing politicians-including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Members of the Bharatiya Janata (BJP) party of Modi have been quick to point out the cruelties inflicted to the Hindus by Aurangzeb – forcing conversions, restoring Jizya and murdering non -Muslims.
He also warred against the Sikhs, performing the ninth guru of religion, Tegh Bahadur, an act that makes Aurangzeb an aversion figure among many Sikhs to this day.
This brutality was portrayed in the recently released movie “Chhaava”, which features Aurangzeb as a barbaric Islam who killed Sambhaji, son of the most famous king Maratha, Chhatrapati Shivaji.
“Chhaava inflamed people’s anger at Aurangzeb,” said Devendra Fadnavis, Maharashtra’s chief minister, where Nagpur is located.
Muslims claimed that members of the right -wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) group burned a sheet containing verses of their sacred Quran.
Yajendra Thakur, a member of the VHP group, denied the allegations, but reaffirmed her desire to have the tomb of Aurangzeb removed.
“The tomb of Aurangzeb should not be here,” he told CNN of Nagpur. “It should not be here for everything he did to Shambhaji Maharaj. Even our Muslim brothers should issue a statement saying that Aurangzeb’s tomb should not be in Nagpur.”
The prime minister, who openly bears his religion, has long been a member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing paramilitary organization that defends the Hindu Hegemony establishment in India.
It is argued that the hindus of the country were historically oppressed-first by the Mogols, then by the British colonizers who followed them.
Maharashtra district where he is buried, previously known as Aurangabad, was renamed in honor of Shivaji’s son in 2023.
The triumphs of his ancestors, the great king Akbar and Shah Jahan, were erased from the history books, said Rezavi, or are not taught in schools.
“They are trying to reverse the story and replace it with myths, something of their own imagination,” said Rezavi. “Aurangzeb is being used to demonize a community.”
Modi BJP denies using the name of Emperor Mogol to defame the Muslims of India. But their invocation of the ancient rulers of India is causing fear and anxiety among the religious minority today.
Although historians agree that he was a dark and complex figure, and do not dispute his atrocities, Rezavi said that it is necessary to recognize that he existed at a time when “India as a concept” did not exist.
“We are talking about a time when there was no constitution, there was no parliament, there was no democracy,” said Rezavi.
Kaicker apparently agrees. Such historical figures “deserve neither compliments nor guilt,” he said. “They need to be understood in the context of their own time, which is quite far from ours.”
In Nagpur, the demands for the removal of the tomb remained unanswered, with some members of the Hindu far right even discarding the demolition requests.
Local Muslim resident Asif Qreshi stated that his hometown has never seen violence like the one that unfolded last month, condemning the confrontations that convulsed the historically peaceful city.
