NEW DELHI: Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on Monday said it is “unfortunate” that the government has to protect Aurangzeb’s grave, which is located in the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district.
Fadnavis’s remark came amid growing demand from a certain section to remove the Mughal emperor’s grave.
“It is unfortunate that the government has to take responsibility for the protection of Aurangzeb’s grave, despite his history of persecution. However, I assure you, if any attempt is made to glorify his legacy through ‘mahima mandan‘, it will not succeed,” Fadnavis said at an event that he attended to inaugurate a temple dedicated to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in the Thane district and lauded the Maratha king for fighting for ‘Swarajya‘ and the country.
“We are able to worship our gods freely today because of Shivaji Maharaj’s efforts. He fought for Swarajya, for God, for our country, and our religion,” Fadnavis was quoted as saying by news agency PTI.
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis pays tribute to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj after inaugurating the ‘Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Temple’ (Shaktipeeth) in Bhiwandi, Thane. (ANI)
Earlier, BJP’s Satara MP Udayanraje Bhosale, who is also the descendent of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, advocated for the removal of the Mughal king’s tomb situated in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
Responding to Bhosale’s request, Fadnavis clarified that despite sharing similar sentiments, actions must conform to legal procedures due to the site’s protected status, which was established during the previous Congress administration.
Fadnavis said, “We all also 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 put under ASI’s (Archaeological Survey of India) protection during the Congress regime some years back.”
What does the ASI rule say?
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) protects historical tombs under the AMASR Act, 1958, ensuring their preservation. If a tomb is declared a protected monument, no construction is allowed within 100 meters, and activities in the 200-meter regulated area need approval. The ASI oversees conservation and prevents alterations or damage.
Section 19(1) of the Act clearly states that no person, including government authorities, can destroy, remove, alter, or deface a protected monument without official permission.
Further strengthening these protections, the AMASR (Amendment) Act, 2010, imposes strict penalties and imprisonment for unauthorised construction, alteration, or destruction of a protected monument. This means that even a state government cannot make changes to an ASI-protected tomb.
Violating these rules leads to legal action, fines, or imprisonment. Unauthorized encroachments are removed, and restoration must maintain the tomb’s original character.
Who was Aurangzeb?
Aurangzeb was the sixth ruler of the Mughal Empire, reigning from 1658 to 1707. He was the son of Emperor Shah Jahan and is known for expanding the Mughal Empire to its greatest territorial extent, covering almost the entire Indian subcontinent.
Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb followed a more orthodox Islamic rule, enforcing religious policies that included the reintroduction of the jizya tax on non-Muslims and restrictions on certain cultural practices.
How was Aurangzeb linked to Sambhaji?
Aurangzeb and Sambhaji Maharaj were fierce adversaries in the late 17th century. Sambhaji, the son of Chhatrapati Shivaji, was the second ruler of the Maratha Empire, while Aurangzeb was the Mughal emperor who sought to crush the Marathas and expand Mughal rule in the Deccan. Their rivalry intensified after Sambhaji ascended the throne in 1681 and continued his father’s resistance against Mughal domination.
In 1689, Aurangzeb’s forces captured Sambhaji near Sangameshwar through treachery. He was brutally tortured for refusing to convert to Islam and executed in an inhumane manner.
His martyrdom made him a symbol of Maratha defiance, strengthening the Maratha resistance against Mughal rule. Sambhaji’s death fueled the eventual decline of Mughal power in the Deccan.