Intolerance of alternative views, lifestyles, and, in this case, a reading of history, has unfortunately become deeply ingrained in our society. The ‘Aurangzeb’ controversy once again brings this to the foreground. Before getting to it, a few general comments would be in order to outline the context. At the time of independence and the drafting and adoption of a new Constitution, the first generation of Congress and other leaders, Dr. BR Ambedkar most preeminently, argued for and instituted a liberal state which would protect and nurture a liberal society in which all kinds of views and lifestyles could proliferate. There would be a ‘unity in diversity.’ In the Nehruvian period, the foundations were laid and, despite setbacks, most notably manifested in the Emergency, progress was made in the right directions. Unfortunately, in the past decade or so, the current regime has made every effort to roll back these liberties. It is now the done thing to be ‘outraged’ at the drop of a hat. Any group or individual can now hit the street expressing its outrage and if it belongs to the right kind of political leaning, that is Hindu extremism, the regime will go out of its way to silence opinions and views not in consonance with this current of thought, if it can be called that. Lifestyle choices can similarly be attacked and either criminalised or marginalised. It is in this context that we have to see Maharashtra Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Azmi’s assessment of Aurangzeb and his reign and the swift, draconian, anti-democratic response to it, leading to his suspension from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.

Let’s get to the bottom of this. What Azmi had done was to praise Aurangzeb from the point of view of statecraft and defend him against the charges of being cruel and anti-Hindu. Many historians would, in fact, support the proposition that Aurangzeb’s actions were par for the course in his historical time. ‘I do not at all consider Aurangzeb a cruel ruler… The kings back then used to struggle for power and property, but it was not Hindus and Muslims.’ This is a very sapient reading of medieval Indian history. Even if it weren’t, this could at best have provoked a debate about the historical record, in which historians and others could have joined. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s threat to jail him for this itself is insupportable. It should be excoriated. In the current climate, we have to look to the judiciary. It is heartening that the Supreme Court slapped down the Gujarat police for registering cases against Congress leader and poet Imran Pratapgarhi for uploading a poem. The law-enforcement agencies were expected to understand freedom of speech and expression 75 years after freedom, it said.