Aurangzeb, Sambhaji, and Other Misremembered Lessons from History
Films like Chhaava have highlighted the valour of Sambhaji and the tyranny of Aurangzeb; the final word in that film, however, is less concerned with history and more with the ideology of the country’s current rulers.
Earlier this year, volunteers associated with the far-right Vishwa Hindu Parishad [VHP] staged a protest in Nagpur, Maharashtra, leading a movement to relocate the grave of a Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Nearly three centuries ago, Aurangzeb built an empire that spanned four million square kilometers, which is 800,000 square kilometers more than present-day India. Annual revenues in his empire were equivalent to one-fourth of all contemporary world states combined, and ten times that of France.
In today’s India, however, even as millions in today’s sleep hungry, some individuals own private fortunes far exceeding that of this Mughal emperor. The most astonishing fact is that the emperor, whose grave is now a matter of controversy, had a burial that cost only 14 rupees and 10 annas—funded, according to legend, from income he earned by sewing caps and copying the Quran. At his own wish—and unlike his predecessors—no mausoleum was built over his grave. It is a plain, open grave on level ground, devoid of gold, jewels, or ornamentation. His mother’s tomb, on the other hand, is one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Taj Mahal, which draws more tourists to India than any other monument.
It’s truly worth pondering: why does such an unassuming and barely visible grave pose such a threat to the Sangh Parivar?
This opposition to Aurangzeb’s grave intensified around the release of Chhaava (2025), which portrays the Maratha king Sambhaji as a Hindu nationalist figure who fought valiantly against a “foreign” Muslim emperor Aurangzeb.
The effort to frame Maratha kings Shivaji and Sambhaji as nationalist heroes began during the waning years of British rule, in the context of the Indian nationalist movement. In 1894, 214 years after Shivaji’s death, the nationalist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak initiated the “Ganpati and Shivaji Festival.” Its primary aim was to present a native hero against British rule and to use that figure to send a political message to the people and colonial authorities. As a result, even though Tilak was a staunch Hindu leader, he had the support of many, including Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who defended him in court during a 1909 sedition case.
When Tilak died in 1920, Kazi Nazrul Islam wrote a passionate editorial in Dainik Nabajug, which angered the British authorities. He wrote: “Tilak is no more!’ Our motherland's valiant son… Tilak is no more!” Tilak’s “Shivaji” was essentially a symbol of anti-British nationalism.
Chhaava’s objective is to portray Aurangzeb as a cruel, deceitful, vengeful tyrant, a portrayal lacking historical documentation. Conversely, Sambhaji’s darker sides are wholly concealed, presenting him instead as a patriotic hero. The film’s core aim, it seems, is to provoke hatred against India’s Muslim minority. It also aims to obscure the reality that, among medieval Indian rulers, there was little Hindu-Muslim conflict. For instance, one of the key Mughal generals fighting against Shivaji was a Hindu, Jai Singh. On the other hand, Shivaji’s own chief generals included Daulat Khan, Siddi Hilal, Siddi Ibrahim, Darya Sarang, and his chief advisor was Qazi Haidar, all of them Muslims.
Contemporary historians did not portray Sambhaji positively, as one can gleam from the writings of Jadunath Sarkar, particularly in the Collected Works of Jadunath Sarkar, edited by Nikhilesh Guha and Rajnarayan Pal (Kolkata, 2012). M.S. Golwarkar in Bunch of Thoughts (1966) did not consider Sambhaji a virtuous Hindu ruler either. Sambhaji was known for licentious and caste-defying sexual behavior, he claimed.
While imprisoned in Panhala, Sambhaji escaped and sought refuge with Mughal general Diler Khan, fighting against his father from Bhupalgarh under Mughal command. Initially, Shivaji wasn’t a respected king among Maratha chieftains; it was Emperor Aurangzeb’s invitation to court and his conferral of the “King” title that elevated Shivaji’s status. Especially during Aurangzeb’s tenure as subahdar of the Deccan, Maratha rulers gained prominence. Neither Shivaji nor Sambhaji were peers of the Mughal emperor, rather regional feudatories, and even their royal titles were granted by Aurangzeb.
Toward the end of Sambhaji’s reign, his troops frequently deserted him. When the Portuguese cut off supplies, they torched villages and alienated Maratha landlords, according to The Marathas, 1600-1818 by Steward Gordon. His army regularly committed war crimes, including mass killings and rapes. During the 1665 Treaty of Purandar, Shivaji sent the then nine-year-old Sambhaji as a hostage to Mughal commander Raja Jai Singh of Amber. According to the treaty, Shivaji was acknowledged as a Mughal mansabdar. In 1666, both father and son were invited to Aurangzeb’s court in Agra. When negotiations stalled, they were placed under house arrest, although their movement remained relatively free. A few months later, they escaped. Despite frequent agitation from Shivaji and Sambhaji, Aurangzeb never executed them, even when he had ample opportunity. Karl Marx commented in his Chronicles of Indian History that Aurangzeb behaved like an “ass” when Shivaji visited.
Today, among Hindu nationalists, it is only the accounts of Sambhaji’s death that serve as a source of inspiration. Everything else is shaped by their communal mindset.
Today, among Hindu nationalists, it is only the accounts of Sambhaji’s death that serve as a source of inspiration. Everything else is shaped by their communal mindset.
Certainly, my intentions are not to absolve Aurangzeb of his flaws. The main allegations against Aurangzeb include imposing the jizya tax on Hindus, destroying temples, and killing Hindus. All of which is, to certain extents, true. The claim of mass Hindu killing specifically does not hold up. To maintain power, Aurangzeb did not distinguish between Hindus and Muslims, both were punished in war or under the rulings of Qazis. While he has been accused of destroying temples, he was also accused of demolishing mosques. He was a despot, of course, like many kings and emperors of the time.
Haraprasad Shastri once said, as quoted in Collected Works of Haraprasad Shastri Volume IV, that if Aurangzeb had truly been anti-Hindu, his image would have been widely reflected in contemporary literature and folklore. In fact, the person most responsible for said portrayal of Aurangzeb is Lieutenant Colonel James Tod, author of Rajasthan, the supposed history of Maratha valour. His work was neither strict history nor fiction. Although he was born a century after Sambhaji’s death and served in British intelligence during the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1818–1819), which ended Shivaji’s Maratha state, Tod created a new kind of ‘history’ of Rajasthan glorifying Shivaji and vilifying Aurangzeb. This enabled a narrative shift that portrayed British and Muslim rulers as equivalent oppressors, overshadowing 150 years of colonial exploitation. Bengali writers, like Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, British Hindu civilians who dared not criticize their British overlords, adopted Tod’s history to elevate the Marathas as national heroes. Swami Vivekananda remarked, “Two-thirds of Bengal’s modern nationalist ideas are taken from this book (Tod’s Rajasthan).” Ironically, the very Marathas who once turned Bengal into a hell of plunder and rape were glorified as heroes by Bengali authors.
Hindu nationalists often cite Aurangzeb’s ban on Holi festivals, yet neglect to mention that he also banned Muharram and Eid festivities. They mention temple destruction but ignore the many temples he built and endowed. Historian Richard Eaton, in his essay “Temple Destruction and the Indo-Muslim State”, debunks the myth of Aurangzeb’s temple demolition, stating that Hindu kings themselves had special departments for destroying enemy temples during wars.
The latter generation of India’s Muslim rulers were not outsiders to India: They were born here, raised here, and experienced their joys and sorrows, life and death in this land. Most of them never even left the geographical boundaries of the country. Even though the Ottoman Emperor Suleiman extended a hand of friendship to Aurangzeb, he did not respond positively. When Aurangzeb was asked for help in campaigns against Christians, he refused. Concerned about India’s trade, he denied the British East India Company free access to commerce and repeatedly made them pay excessive taxes and fines.
Films like Chhaava may instead celebrate the valour of Shambhaji; the final word in that film, however, is less concerned with history or Shambhaji life, and more about the ideology of the country’s current rulers.
***
Mozid Mahmud is a poet and novelist based in Bangladesh. He is the author of Memorial Club (Gaudy Boy, USA, 2025). He can be reached on X: @mozid_mahmud
