Hindu revered figure Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj denigrated, his brutal execution by Islamic tyrant Aurangzeb mocked
Malad, Maharashtra, India 
26 March, 2025
Case Summary
In Malwani, Mumbai, Maharashtra, police arrested a man named Wajid for posting an objectionable remark on social media about Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. The accused, identified as 50-year-old Wajid Hazrat Momin, had shared a post stating, "Pata nahi kis tarah maara tha Aurangzeb ne, ki dard ki awaaz aaj tak ho rahi hai," which translates to, "Don’t know how Aurangzeb killed him, that the sound of pain is still echoing today." This derogatory remark mocking Sambhaji Maharaj triggered widespread outrage, particularly among Hindus, who condemned the insult to the revered leader. Following multiple complaints, Malwani police took swift action and detained Wajid. According to the police, the post was deemed offensive as it hurt religious sentiments and threatened communal harmony. A case was registered under relevant sections of the Penal Code, and Wajid was taken into custody for interrogation. Authorities also investigated whether he acted alone or had external backing. The incident occurred in Malwani, Malad, a locality previously in the spotlight for sensitive communal issues. To prevent any unrest, additional security forces were deployed, and the police urged residents to refrain from believing in rumours and to maintain peace.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category- Hate speech against Hindus. The first sub-category selected within this is- Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially, the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual, however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category. The second sub-category relevant in this case is- Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimizing the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. This case qualifies as a hate crime because it involves hate speech that targets a specific community by mocking historical persecution. The social media post referenced the brutal execution of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj by the Islamic tyrant Aurangzeb in a manner that was insensitive and brutal. Sambhaji Maharaj was tortured and executed for refusing to convert to Islam, making him a symbol of resistance and sacrifice in Indian history. By making a dismissive remark about his suffering, the accused mocked a deeply painful event for Hindus. The motive behind this was surely to provoke outrage and discord and hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. Such statements not only disrespect historical figures but also contribute to communal tensions by trivialising acts of past oppression. Furthermore, by denying or mocking a well-documented instance of religious persecution, the post played into a larger pattern of historical distortion, which can fuel division and resentment. Wajid Hazrat Momin, through his derogatory post, was not only mocking the brutal execution of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj but also downplaying and ridiculing the large-scale persecution of Hindus under Aurangzeb’s rule. Sambhaji Maharaj was a prominent Hindu leader who resisted Aurangzeb’s expansionist and oppressive policies, and his execution was part of the broader campaign of religious persecution carried out by the Mughal emperor. Aurangzeb’s reign witnessed forced conversions, destruction of temples, jizya taxes on non-Muslims, and violent suppression of Hindu resistance. By making light of Sambhaji Maharaj’s suffering and glorifying Aurangzeb’s cruelty, the accused was effectively dismissing and ridiculing the immense suffering that Hindus endured under Islamic rule. Such statements not only trivialise historical atrocities but also reflect an attempt to justify or celebrate past acts of religious persecution. This aligns with the pattern seen in cases where historical genocides or systematic oppression are denied, minimised, or mocked to fuel contemporary hostility against the affected community. Consequently, this incident also falls under the category of 'Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution', as it reflects an attempt to demean Hindu suffering and validate past acts of religious tyranny.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
