The plan renews a long-standing debate over how historical figures should be remembered in modern India
Mohammad bin Ismail | Clarion India
NEW DELHI – The political scene in Maharashtra has been thrown into turmoil following a proposal to rename the city of Khuldabad, located near Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, to Ratnapur. The announcement, made by Maharashtra’s Social Justice Minister Sanjay Shirsat, has ignited intense reactions and renewed a long-standing debate over how historical figures should be remembered in modern India.
Khuldabad is home to the tomb of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The tomb, situated about 25 kilometres from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, has now become a focal point in the ongoing political discourse. Shirsat’s proposal to rename the town Ratnapur has intensified the controversy surrounding the historical figure.
At a recent press conference, Shirsat described Aurangzeb as a “cruel emperor,” questioning the place of his tomb in Maharashtra. “There is no place in Maharashtra for the grave of the cruel emperor Aurangzeb who tortured and killed Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj,” he said. The mention of Maratha king Sambhaji, a figure seen as a martyr by many, has added fuel to the flames of the historical tensions between the Mughal and Maratha empires.
Shirsat also reaffirmed his proposal to restore Khuldabad’s original name, Ratnapur. “Earlier, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar was called Khadki, which was later changed to Aurangabad. Similarly, the old name of Khuldabad was Ratnapur, and we believe it should be restored to honour our history,” he said.
The announcement has garnered a mix of support and criticism. Members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and right-wing organisations have largely supported the move, arguing that Aurangzeb’s legacy should not be celebrated in a state that fought against the Mughal rule. On the other hand, opposition leaders and historians have condemned the plan as an attempt to rewrite history for political purposes.
Dr. Ameer Sultani, a renowned historian, argued, “This is not about preserving history or heritage. It’s about driving political wedges between communities and distorting the complexities of the past.”
The debate is part of a broader trend in the country, where discussions about renaming cities and monuments linked to Mughal and Islamic legacies have become more common. Supporters of these renaming efforts often frame them as necessary to emphasise India’s pre-colonial past and highlight the achievements of Hindu rulers.
Khuldabad, while significant for its association with Aurangzeb, is also home to the graves of other prominent figures, such as his son Azam Shah and Nizam Asaf Jah. However, Shirsat’s call to rename the town signals a desire to shift the narrative towards what he views as a more suitable historical legacy.
The minister’s remarks also extended to a broader plan to remove the suffix “Bad” from the names of places associated with Aurangzeb, such as Aurangabad and Khuldabad. “We are in the process of changing the names of all such places. We will remove the word ‘Bad’ from all such names,” Shirsat declared.
This proposal fits into the larger agenda of the Maharashtra government, which aims to restore names reflecting regional and cultural heritage. Critics, however, see this as an attempt to erase parts of India’s diverse history, particularly the Mughal era.
Alongside the renaming, Shirsat suggested the creation of a historical monument in Khuldabad dedicated to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and his son Sambhaji. The monument would celebrate the Maratha resistance against Mughal rule, which many in Maharashtra view as a symbol of regional pride. “This monument will showcase the history of our great Maratha rulers, who fought against the tyranny of Aurangzeb and his empire,” Shirsat said.
For Maratha supporters, this represents an opportunity to elevate the historical importance of figures like Shivaji and Sambhaji. However, for others, this emphasis on Maratha heroes may overshadow the contributions of other communities and rulers in shaping India’s history.
The controversy surrounding the renaming of Khuldabad raises broader questions about how India should reconcile its diverse and complex past with the demands of modern identity. Historian Anjali Gupta remarked, “We cannot erase history by changing place names. History is a multi-faceted story, and to reduce it to a simple narrative is to ignore the richness of India’s past.”
