​Past as a prelude: on the Nagpur riots and Aurangzeb 

There is ample empirical evidence that riots in India are often orchestrated by vested interests and are not spontaneous eruptions of social tensions. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute the violence in Nagpur, which left dozens injured, solely to rumour-mongering or impulsive reactions. For days since the Budget session began on March 3 in Maharashtra, the ruling right-wing parties have persistently invoked the legacy of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb as a political talking point. That a medieval ruler remains a recurring subject in contemporary political discourse not only highlights the misplaced priorities of governance but also raises suspicions that these controversies are being deliberately manufactured to distract from pressing livelihood issues. The evidence supports this view — Maharashtra, its rural regions in particular, is grappling with inflation, farmer suicides, and economic distress. Yet, instead of addressing these urgent concerns, the political machinery appears focused on stoking public discord through inflammatory rhetoric, manipulating communal loyalties for electoral gains. These tactics were evident during the recent Assembly election campaign, where prominent leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies repeatedly invoked Aurangzeb as a campaign issue. The intent behind this rhetoric was clear: a dog whistle designed to mobilise the majority community by casting Muslims as inheritors of a long-dead ruler’s legacy. Research indicates that riots are less likely to occur in societies where interfaith civic engagement is strong. The fact that riots erupted in Nagpur — a city with significant political and historical importance — stands as an indictment of the ruling establishment, which claims to represent all communities.

Also, the recent box office success of Chhaava, a film depicting the historical conflict between the Marathas under Chhatrapati Sambhaji and the Mughals under Aurangzeb, has fuelled the communal discourse. However, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s assertion that the film’s popularity triggered the unrest is a convenient deflection — one that absolves the government of responsibility for fostering an atmosphere of hostility through its recurring rhetoric. For Maharashtra to regain its stature as a leader in comprehensive development, its government must shift focus from divisive narratives to real socio-economic challenges. Civil society, too, must push back against communal forces attempting to exploit historical figures for cynical political ends. Only by resisting these polarising tactics can the State move towards genuine progress.