Senseless Controversy Over Aurangzeb’s Tomb Sparks Unrest

It is unfortunate that violence has erupted in Nagpur and even more regrettable that it stems from a controversy over a ruler who lived more than three centuries ago. The debate over Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was wholly unwarranted, sparked unnecessarily by a Samajwadi Party MLA, who claimed that he was a great ruler. This statement, whether made out of conviction or for political mileage, provided just the kind of spark some groups needed to ignite a controversy. The reaction was swift and extreme. Demands were made for his dismissal from the Assembly, and eventually, he was suspended for the remainder of the session. However, this did not put the matter to rest. Soon, calls emerged for Aurangzeb’s tomb to be erased from public memory. The demand gained momentum when Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis lent his support to it.

In the heat of the moment, one crucial fact was ignored: Aurangzeb’s tomb is a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Both the central and state governments have a legal duty to preserve it. If the Maharashtra government was serious about removing the tomb, it should have followed due process by seeking its delisting from ASI’s list of protected sites. However, doing so would have invited widespread criticism, and rightly so. The idea of removing a centuries-old tomb is absurd and would have made Maharashtra a subject of ridicule. Regardless of the emotions he evokes, Aurangzeb remains a significant historical figure. His reign lasted 49 years, making him one of the longest-serving rulers of India. By 1700, India accounted for nearly 23 percent of the world’s GDP, and under his rule, the Mughal empire was territorially at its largest.

That said, Aurangzeb’s legacy is deeply polarising. He is often remembered for his religious intolerance, destruction of temples, and harsh policies against non-Muslims. At the same time, he was an astute administrator, a disciplined ruler, and a military strategist who expanded his empire significantly. The question is not whether he was a good or bad ruler—that is for historians to debate, not politicians or mobs. More importantly, history should not be judged by today’s standards but by those that existed in the era it belongs to. In a country as diverse as India, where history is deeply intertwined with identity and politics, it is imperative to approach the past with reason rather than emotion. The priority should be addressing present-day challenges rather than fighting over long-dead rulers. Instead of fuelling unnecessary controversies, political leaders should focus on governance, development, and social harmony. Meanwhile, the government must take strong action against those who took the law into their own hands in Nagpur. If offenders go unpunished, it will set a dangerous precedent where historical debates become an excuse for lawlessness.

Ensure workplace safety

It is better late than never. Maharashtra’s Minister for Women and Child Development, Aditi Tatkare, has rightly asserted that the government will ensure all private companies comply with the Vishakha Committee guidelines on workplace sexual harassment. While these committees are reportedly in place across government offices, many private firms have failed to implement them, despite clear directives. This lack of compliance, without any legitimate reason, is a matter of concern. The guidelines mandate that every company or office with ten or more employees establish an internal complaints committee where employees can report instances of sexual harassment. These committees serve a dual purpose: deterring potential offenders and ensuring timely action against perpetrators. The mere presence of a dedicated mechanism sends a strong message that harassment will not be tolerated. Furthermore, in cases involving serious offences like rape, these committees are duty-bound to escalate matters to the police, ensuring legal intervention.

Many companies may continue to ignore these directives unless strict penalties are imposed. Ensuring compliance should not be a one-time exercise but a continuous process, reinforced through regular checks and awareness programmes. The importance of swift action in cases of sexual harassment cannot be overstated. Delayed justice often discourages victims from coming forward. More than the severity of the punishment, it is the certainty of it that acts as an effective deterrent. A recent case reported in this newspaper exemplifies this principle.

On March 11, a woman was repeatedly prevented from entering a temple by a 42-year-old man, Haresh Mahadev Patel, who also made lewd comments and attempted to get physical with her. Upon receiving her complaint, the Raigad police swiftly arrested the accused. The case was presented before the court within two days. Patel admitted to sexually harassing the woman and pleaded for leniency, citing it as his first offence. The prosecution opposed his plea, and in less than a week, the judge sentenced him to seven days of imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. This case stands in stark contrast to the usual delays in the Indian judicial system, where cases often drag on for years due to systemic inefficiencies, procedural hurdles, and bureaucratic red tape. It proves that when the will to act exists, justice can indeed be delivered in a timely manner. More importantly, it reinforces the message that perpetrators will face consequences, making the workplace and society at large safer for women. Women who file baseless allegations should also be held accountable, ensuring that these committees function with integrity and fairness. The government’s renewed commitment to enforcing these guidelines should serve as a blueprint for other states. A workplace free from harassment is not just a legal obligation; it is a fundamental right.