The controversy surrounding Maharashtra Samajwadi Party leader Abu Azmi’s remarks glorifying Mughal ruler Aurangzeb has escalated further, drawing sharp criticism from political leaders across party lines. The situation took a significant turn when Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath weighed in, demanding that the Samajwadi Party expel Azmi and send him to Uttar Pradesh. Adityanath’s strong remarks added fuel to the fire, as he accused the Maharashtra MLA of insulting India’s historical legacy by praising Aurangzeb while disregarding the contributions of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. He questioned, “A person who feels ashamed of the legacy of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj but considers Aurangzeb his hero—does he even have the right to live in India?” Adityanath also targeted the Samajwadi Party, asking why it had not yet disowned Azmi, implying that inaction on their part indicated silent approval of his remarks.
Azmi had recently stirred controversy by stating that India had flourished under the rule of Aurangzeb, describing the 17th-century ruler as a great administrator who not only expanded the empire but also built temples. While he later retracted his remarks following widespread outrage, the damage had already been done. Leaders from the BJP and other parties launched a scathing attack, accusing him of attempting to whitewash Aurangzeb’s historical record of cruelty, oppression, and religious intolerance. They pointed out that Aurangzeb was responsible for numerous atrocities against Hindus, including the destruction of temples and forced conversions, making him a deeply controversial figure in Indian history.
During his speech in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, Adityanath lambasted the Samajwadi Party for its silence on the issue, calling it an example of the party’s ideological contradictions. “On one hand, you criticize the Kumbh Mela and other Hindu traditions, and on the other, you glorify Aurangzeb—a ruthless, fanatical ruler who destroyed temples and attempted to suppress India’s faith. What is stopping you from taking action against this leader?” the UP Chief Minister asked. He challenged the Samajwadi Party leadership to either make Azmi clarify his remarks in a public forum or send him to Uttar Pradesh, where, according to Adityanath, people knew how to respond to such individuals.
In an effort to underline Aurangzeb’s historical misdeeds, Adityanath cited an incident from Mughal history, highlighting how Aurangzeb had imprisoned his own father, Shah Jahan, in Agra Fort, depriving him of basic necessities such as water and medical care. Adityanath went a step further, referencing historical accounts that claim Shah Jahan, despite being a Mughal emperor, lamented that a Hindu son would have treated him with more respect and dignity than Aurangzeb did. “Even Shah Jahan believed that a Hindu son is better than Aurangzeb because a Hindu cares for his elderly parents, performs their last rites with devotion, and offers water for their souls,” Adityanath stated. He further argued that no civilized Muslim today names their son Aurangzeb, as people understand that one’s deeds define their legacy and that Aurangzeb’s actions have left a lasting stain on his name.
As the controversy continued to escalate, the Maharashtra Assembly took decisive action against Azmi. He was suspended from the House until the conclusion of the ongoing Budget Session. The motion for his suspension was initiated by Maharashtra Minister Chandrakant Patil and received support from Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who strongly condemned Azmi’s statements. Shinde called Azmi a "traitor" and declared that someone who insulted the legacy of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and his son, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, had no right to sit in the Assembly. Shinde reminded the House that Aurangzeb was not only responsible for the persecution of Hindus but also inflicted cruelty on people of other faiths. He insisted that Sambhaji Maharaj’s bravery and Aurangzeb’s tyranny were well-documented and should not be distorted for political narratives.
Speaking in support of the motion, Chandrakant Patil emphasized that Azmi’s comments were unbecoming of an elected representative and that his glorification of Aurangzeb amounted to an insult to the democratic institution of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. Following the decision, Azmi released a video statement expressing his discontent with the suspension, arguing that it was imposed despite his retraction. He maintained that his remarks had been misinterpreted and insisted that he had merely cited information that historians and scholars had previously documented. However, his clarification did little to pacify the backlash, as political opponents continued to demand stronger action against him.
The controversy has gained additional traction due to its timing, coinciding with the release of Chaava, a historical film starring Vicky Kaushal that depicts the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj and his resistance against Aurangzeb. The film sheds light on the events leading up to Sambhaji’s brutal execution at the hands of Aurangzeb’s forces, a chapter in history that remains deeply significant for Maratha pride and regional politics. With the film’s release sparking renewed discussions about Sambhaji Maharaj’s legacy and Aurangzeb’s rule, Azmi’s comments have only served to amplify emotions on both sides of the debate.
As political temperatures rise, the incident has once again highlighted the deeply polarized views on historical figures in India and their impact on contemporary politics. While Azmi’s suspension has been welcomed by BJP leaders and pro-Maratha factions, it has also ignited debates on freedom of speech and political accountability. With elections looming in several states, the controversy is unlikely to fade anytime soon, as parties continue to leverage historical narratives to galvanize public sentiment and consolidate their support bases.
