Case Against SP Leader Abu Azmi For Calling Aurangzeb A 'Good Administrator'

Following the backlash, Azmi defended his remarks, stating that Aurangzeb had also destroyed mosques along with temples.

Azmi maintained that he had not made any remarks against "Hindu brothers."

Source : PTI

The Maharashtra Police have registered a case against Samajwadi Party leader Abu Azmi over his remarks on Mughal ruler Aurangzeb. The Samajwadi Party MLA had stated during a media interaction in the Marine Drive area that Aurangzeb was a good administrator. 

The case has been filed at Wagle Estate Police Station under BNS sections 299, 302, 356(1), and 356(2), following a complaint by Shiv Sena MP Naresh Mhaske.

On Monday, Mhaske arrived at Wagle Estate Police Station to file a complaint against him. Speaking to the media, Mhaske asserted that Abu Azmi has "no right to stay in India."

"A sedition case should be filed against Abu Azmi. He has no right to stay in India. Aurangzeb, who destroyed thousands of Hindu temples, tortured women, and brutally tortured Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, was against the country. He looted our nation. Our leader, Eknath Shinde, has already demanded this morning that a sedition case be filed against him. Today, we have come here to file that case," Mhaske told reporters.

Abu Azmi Defends His Remarks on Aurangzeb

Following the backlash, Azmi defended his remarks, stating that Aurangzeb had also destroyed mosques along with temples. He claimed that the Mughal emperor’s administration included 34% Hindus, and many of his advisors were Hindus. He urged people not to give the issue a communal angle.

"If Aurangzeb destroyed temples, he also destroyed mosques. Had he been against Hindus, 34% of his administration would not have been Hindu, and his advisors would not have been Hindus. It is true that India was a golden sparrow during his rule. There is no need to give this a Hindu-Muslim angle," Azmi told ANI.

Azmi further stated that historical power struggles among kings were not religious in nature and maintained that he had not made any remarks against "Hindu brothers."