Standing with the law of the land

Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis is right to remind all rabble-rousers that the 18th-century grave of Mughal ruler Aurangzeb is protected under the law — the monument is under the Archaeological Survey of India — and the state is responsible for protecting it. This simply means that any attempt to deface the monument will attract penal action. This should, hopefully, put an end to mobilisations that have roiled Maharashtra for close to a month after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal demanded that the grave be shifted: Protests in Nagpur on March 17 turned violent and the tone and tenor of statements that preceded and followed the protests , suggested a situation rapidly spiralling out of control. The controversy featured in Maharashtra legislative assembly and a Samajwadi Party legislator was suspended from the House for speaking favourably about the Mughal ruler.

As a HT editorial from back then said, all history is part of our heritage and calls for dispassionate engagement. Aurangzeb’s complicated legacy is a speck in the grand sweep of India’s history. It should not demand so much of our time and energy. The preservation of the grave could also be interpreted as symbolic of India’s “tolerance and plurality”, as senior RSS leader Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi explained. Joshi’s words echo RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s earlier advice against activists raking up new temple-mosque disputes and that the only requirement is to live in harmony and abide by rules and laws. A few days ago, RSS leader Sunil Ambekar called out the violence and dismissed the controversy about Aurangzeb’s grave as irrelevant. It should remain so. To be sure, the RSS, the guiding light of the Sangh Parivar, is poised to celebrate its centenary this year and wants to be seen as an exemplar of India’s civilisational values, among them the peaceful co-existence of different faiths. Violence around issues such as the grave dispute, that too in the city where it is headquartered, threatens the narrative.

In addition, social unrest over divisive issues disrupts governance. The ruling Mahayuti’s massive mandate was an endorsement of its development agenda. It must stay focussed on its promises to expand the state’s economy, address the infrastructure deficit, find solutions for the farm crisis, and bridge the massive rural-urban disparities. Maharashtra’s political agenda can’t revolve around the memory of a divisive ruler from the past, and the government must uphold the law — always.