Despite being dead for more than 300 years, this Indian ruler is still making waves in the nation’s politics.

Aurangzeb Alamgir has become so central to India’s fraught political moment, his memory is leading to sectarian violence across the country.

The sixth emperor of the famed Mughal dynasty, he is considered by many detractors to be a tyrant who brutalized women, razed Hindu temples, forced religious conversions and waged wars against Hindu and Sikh rulers.

And in a nation now almost entirely under the grip of Hindu nationalists, Aurangzeb’s “crimes” have been seized upon by right-wing politicians, turning him into the ultimate Muslim villain whose memory needs to be erased.

Sectarian clashes erupted in the western city of Nagpur last month, with hardline Hindu nationalists calling for the demolition of his tomb, which is about 400 kilometers away.

Seemingly spurred on by a recent Bollywood movie’s portrayal of Aurangzeb’s violent conquests against a revered Hindu king, the violence led to dozens of injuries and arrests, prompting Nagpur authorities to impose a curfew.

As tensions between the two communities continue to mount, many right-wing Hindus are using Aurangzeb’s name to highlight historical injustices against the country’s majority faith.

And they are causing fears among India’s 200 million Muslims.

‘Admiration and aversion’

The Mughals ruled during an era that saw conquest, domination and violent power struggles but also an explosion of art and culture as well as periods of deep religious syncretism – at least until Aurangzeb.

Founded by Babur in 1526, the empire at its height covered an area that stretched from modern-day Afghanistan in central Asia to Bangladesh in the east, coming to an end in 1857 when the British overthrew the final emperor, Bahadur Shah II.

Its most well-known leaders – Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan – famously promoted religious harmony and heavily influenced much of Indian culture, building iconic sites such as the Taj Mahal and Delhi’s Red Fort.

But among this more tolerant company, Aurangzeb is considered something of a dark horse – a religious zealot and complex character.

Aurangzeb “evoked a mixture of admiration and aversion right from the moment of his succession to the Mughal throne,” said Abhishek Kaicker, a historian of Persianate South Asia at UC Berkeley.

“He attracted a degree of revulsion because of the way in which he came to the throne by imprisoning his father and killing his brothers… At the same time, he drew admiration and loyalty for his personal unostentatiousness and piety, his unrivaled military power that led to the expansion of the Mughal realm, his political acumen, administrative efficiency, and reputation for justice and impartiality.”

Born in 1618 to Shah Jahan (of Taj Mahal fame) and his wife Mumtaz Mahal (for whom it was built), historians describe the young prince as a devout, solemn figure, who showed early signs of leadership.

He held several appointments from the age of 18, in all of which he established himself as a capable commander. The glory of the Mughal empire reached its zenith under his father, and Aurangzeb’s scrambled for control of what was then the richest throne in the world

So when Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, the stage was set for a bitter war of succession between Aurangzeb and his three siblings in which he would eventually come face-to-face with his eldest brother, Dara Shikoh, a champion of a syncretic Hindu-Muslim culture.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his ailing father in 1658 and defeated his brother the year after, before forcibly parading him in chains on a filthy elephant on the streets of Delhi.

“The favorite and pampered son of the most magnificent of the Great Mughals was now clad in a travel-tainted dress of the coarsest cloth,” wrote Jadunath Sarkar in “A Short History of Aurangzib.”

“With a dark dingy-colored turban, such as only the poorest wear, on his head. No necklace or jewel adorning his person.”

Dara Shikoh was later murdered.

A sudden shift

By now, Aurangzeb’s authority had reached extraordinary heights, and under his leadership the Mughal empire reached its greatest geographical extent.

He commanded a degree of respect and for the first half of his reign, ruled with an iron fist, albeit with relative tolerance for the majority Hindu faith.

Until about 1679, there were no reports of temples being broken, nor any imposition of “jizya” or tax on non-Muslim subjects, according to Nadeem Rezavi, a professor of History at India’s Aligarh University. Aurangzeb behaved, “just like his forefathers,” Rezavi said, explaining how some Hindus even held high rank within his government.

In 1680 however, that all changed, as he embraced a form of religious intolerance that reverberates to this day.

The zealot ruler demoted his Hindu statesmen, turning friends into foes and launching a long and unpopular war in the Deccan, which included the violent suppression of the Marathas, a Hindu kingdom revered to this day by India’s right-wing politicians – including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Members of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been quick to point out the cruelties inflicted on Hindus by Aurangzeb – forcing conversions, reinstating the jizya, and murdering non-Muslims.

He also waged war on the Sikhs, executing the religion’s ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur, an act makes Aurangzeb a figure of loathing among many Sikhs to this day.

This brutality was on display in the recently released film “Chhaava,” which depicts Aurangzeb as a barbaric Islamist who killed Sambhaji, the son of the most famous Maratha king, Chhatrapati Shivaji.

“Chhaava has ignited people’s anger against Aurangzeb,” said Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, where Nagpur is located.

Muslims alleged members of the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) burned a sheet bearing verses from their holy Quran.

Yajendra Thakur, a member of the VHP group, denied the allegations but restated his desire to have Aurangzeb’s tomb removed.

‘Neither praise nor blame’

Modi’s invocation of the man who led India before him is no surprise.

The prime minister, who wears his religion on his sleeve, has been a long-time member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing paramilitary organization that advocates the establishment of Hindu hegemony within India. It argues the country’s Hindus have been historically oppressed – first by the Mughals, then by the British colonizers who followed.

And many of them want every trace of this history gone.

The Maharashtra district where he is buried, once known as Aurangabad, was renamed after Shivaji’s son in 2023. The triumphs of his forefathers, the great king Akbar and Shah Jahan, have been written out of history textbooks, Rezavi said, or not taught in schools.

“They are trying to revert history and replace it with myth, something of their own imagination,” Rezavi said. “Aurangzeb is being used to demonize a community.”

Modi’s BJP denies using the Mughal emperor’s name to defame India’s Muslims. But his invocation of India’s former rulers is causing fear and anxiety among the religious minority today.

While historians agree that he was a dark, complex figure, and don’t contest his atrocities, Rezavi said it is necessary to recognize that he existed at a time when “India as a concept” didn’t exist.

“We are talking about a time when there was no constitution, there was no parliament, there was no democracy,” Rezavi said.

Kaicker seemingly agrees. Such historical figures “deserve neither praise nor blame,” he said.

“They have to be understood in the context of their own time, which is quite distant from our own.”

Back in Nagpur, demands for the tomb’s removal have gone unanswered, with some members of the Hindu far right even dismissing the calls for demolition.

Local Muslim resident Asif Qureshi said his hometown has never seen violence like that which unfolded last month, condemning the clashes that convulsed the historically peaceful city.

“This is a stain on our city’s history,” he said.

If the idea of robots taking on humans in a road race conjures dystopian images of android athletic supremacy, then fear not, for now at least.

More than 20 two-legged robots competed in the world’s first humanoid half-marathon in China on Saturday, and – though technologically impressive – they were far from outrunning their human masters over the long distance.

Teams from several companies and universities took part in the race, a showcase of China’s advances on humanoid technology as it plays catch-up with the US, which still boasts the more sophisticated models.

And the chief of the winning team said their robot – though bested by the humans in this particular race – was a match for similar models from the West, at a time when the race to perfect humanoid technology is hotting up.

Coming in a variety of shapes and sizes, the robots jogged through Beijing’s southeastern Yizhuang district, home to many of the capital’s tech firms.

Over the past few months, videos of China’s humanoid robots performing bike rides, roundhouse kicks and side flips have blown up the internet, often amplified by state media as a key potential driver of economic growth.

In a 2023 policy document, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology identified the humanoid robotics industry as a “new frontier in technological competition,” setting a 2025 target for mass production and secure supply chains for core components.

Fears have mounted in recent years about how artificial intelligence – and robots – may one day outsmart humans.

And while AI models are fast gaining ground, sparking concern for everything from security to the future of work, Saturday’s race suggested that humans still at least have the upper hand when it comes to running.

The robots were pitted against 12,000 human contestants, running side by side with them in a fenced-off lane.

After setting off from a country park, participating robots had to overcome slight slopes and a winding 21-kilometer (13-mile) circuit before they could reach the finish line, according to state-run outlet Beijing Daily.

Just as human runners needed to replenish themselves with water, robot contestants were allowed to get new batteries during the race. Companies were also allowed to swap their androids with substitutes when they could no longer compete, though each substitution came with a 10-minute penalty.

The first robot across the finish line, Tiangong Ultra – created by the Beijing Humanoid Robot Innovation Center – finished the route in two hours and 40 minutes. That’s nearly two hours short of the human world record of 56:42, held by Ugandan runner Jacob Kiplimo. The winner of the men’s race on Saturday finished in 1 hour and 2 minutes.

Tang Jian, chief technology officer for the robotics innovation center, said Tiangong Ultra’s performance was aided by long legs and an algorithm allowing it to imitate how humans run a marathon.

“I don’t want to boast but I think no other robotics firms in the West have matched Tiangong’s sporting achievements,” Tang said, according to the Reuters news agency, adding that the robot switched batteries just three times during the race.

The 1.8-meter robot came across a few challenges during the race, which involved the multiple battery changes. It also needed a helper to run alongside it with his hands hovering around his back, in case of a fall.

Most of the robots required this kind of support, with a few tied to a leash. Some were led by a remote control.

Amateur human contestants running in the other lane had no difficulty keeping up, with the curious among them taking out their phones to capture the robotic encounters as they raced along.

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by “biological sex” under the country’s equality law – excluding transgender women – in a case that is expected to impact accommodations for trans women in bathrooms, hospital wards, sports clubs and more.

The court ruling on Wednesday is limited to defining the term “woman” within the country’s Equality Act 2010, meaning trans women are no longer protected from discrimination as women, although they remain protected from discrimination in other forms.

But in practice, the impacts of the ruling are likely to be wider than the court suggested. The UK’s equalities regulator has said it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces following the decision.

The ruling has also energized the polarized debate surrounding transgender rights.

Judges said the ruling should not be seen as the victory of one side over another. But trans rights advocacy groups have called that “an insult” and condemned the court decision as exclusionary, contradictory and concerning for the trans and non-binary communities.

The group of women’s rights campaigners that brought the case, For Women Scotland, popped champagne corks outside the court and said it was grateful for a decision that recognized the need for protections based on biological differences.

Here’s what the ruling means in practice:

Implications for equalities law and single-sex spaces

The head of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said Thursday that it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces by this summer.

Those spaces will likely include women-only bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, hostels, prisons, sports clubs, domestic violence women’s shelters and more.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said in an interview with the BBC on Thursday that “the ruling is enormously consequential,” and it brings “clarity” that “single-sex services like changing rooms, must be based on biological sex.”

Falkner said that trans people can advocate for neutral third spaces, such as unisex toilets or changing rooms, given that “the law is quite clear” that they “should not be using that single-sex facility.”

Falkner also said the UK’s National Health Service must update its guidance on single-sex medical wards to be based on biological sex. Current NHS policy is that trans people should be accommodated according to the way they dress, their names and their pronouns.

The ruling will also have implications for policing and prisons. The British Transport Police said in a statement that it would adopt an interim position that “any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.”

Meanwhile, many businesses and organizations have said they are reviewing the ruling and not yet making any changes. British media report that the EHRC has been inundated with questions from businesses and public bodies regarding what the ruling means for schools, office buildings and women’s charities.

Trans people remain protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic under the equality legislation. The law also protects against discrimination by perception, which is when someone thinks you are the opposite sex.

Impacts on women’s sports

The Supreme Court decision will impact women’s sports, but exactly how is unclear given that new guidance is in the works and many sports bodies and grassroots sports organizations already have their own policies in place.

Faulkner echoed the stance of World Athletics, telling the BBC that trans women cannot take part in women’s sports.

Guidance on transgender inclusion has already been published by all the sports councils covering England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as UK Sport, which supports high-performance athletes. But it’s not yet clear how that guidance will be updated.

“We are now considering what the ruling means for grassroots sports and clubs,” a Sport England spokesperson said in a statement.

What it means for transgender people

The trans community is “absolutely devastated, because this is clear that but there is no upside to this. We have been basically stripped of the right to exist within UK society,” said jane fae, one of the directors of the advocacy group TransActual UK.

Under that act, trans women could obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) for legal recognition of their female gender. But following the Supreme Court Ruling, those certificates appear to be only relevant in terms of deaths, marriages and pensions.

While the UK equalities watchdog talked of “clarity,” trans rights campaigners have said the Supreme Court Ruling raised more questions than answers, especially when it comes to the utility of gender recognition certificates and enforcement of “women’s spaces.”

TransActual has criticized the court for not providing a clear definition of the terms “women’s spaces” or “biological sex.” The ruling says a biological woman is someone “who was at birth of the female sex,” but it’s unclear how intersex people fit into the ruling or what accommodations should be made for trans women who have female anatomy parts (like breasts).

Culture war divisions

Although the court said it was not its place to rule on public arguments on the meaning of gender or sex, the decision has taken aim at a central argument of trans activists and progressive groups — that trans women are women.

And in doing so, it has ignited fears of broader “culture wars,” divisive policies and new restrictions in the UK.

On gendered bathrooms, for example, “the UK has had a much more laissez-faire attitude… what we seem likely to be about to see is the sort of imposition of an American style, ‘this is how loos should be,’ sort of thing,” fae said. “It’s Trump-ian.”

Following the ruling, JK Rowling, who financially backed the case, posted on social media: “I love it when a plan comes together.” The author and women’s rights campaigner has been previously criticized for anti-trans comments.

Other campaigners celebrated outside the court, singing “women’s rights are human rights” and holding up signs reading “Fact is not hate: only women get pregnant.”

But the backlash has been swift. Other women’s rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations have condemned the ruling and said it rolls back protections provided by the Equality Act.

“Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms,” said Scottish feminist organization Engender.

Stonewall, an LGBTQ+ rights charity, said that it shared “the deep concern at the widespread implications” of the court ruling. “It will be incredibly worrying for the trans community and all of us who support them,” it said in a statement, also highlighting that trans people are still protected against discrimination.

A coalition of pro-trans organizations and unions has called for a protest in London on Saturday, saying that the ruling “represents the culmination of the concerted transphobic campaigning we have seen in recent years.”

What it means for British politics

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far been silent on the ruling. But a UK government spokesperson said single-sex spaces “will always be protected by this government.”

“We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs,” the spokesperson said.

Starmer and the Labour Party have long struggled with how to address issues of sex and gender. The Supreme Court Decision means the prime minister can avoid wading into the divisive debate and point to the court’s language.

Meanwhile, the opposition Conservative Party has attacked him for past statements that trans women are women and calling for inclusivity in the debate.

“Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either,” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said in reaction to the court ruling which see called “a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious.”

Badenoch has also called for a review of equality acts and the Gender Recognition Act “to ensure that they are there to prevent discrimination, not for social engineering.”

The government’s next challenge will be wrestling with how to ensure public bodies, businesses and organizations implement the changes surrounding single-sex spaces.

The death toll from a boat fire and capsizing in Congo earlier this week rose to 148 with more than 100 people still missing, officials said Friday. About 500 passengers were on board.

The wooden boat capsized Tuesday after catching fire on the Congo River in the country’s northwest, leaving at least 148 people dead and dozens missing, officials said.

The catastrophe began when a fire started as a woman was cooking on board the vessel, Compétent Loyoko, the river commissioner, told The Associated Press. Several passengers, including women and children, died after jumping into the water without being able to swim.

Dozens were saved, with many of the survivors badly burned. The search for the missing included rescue teams supported by the Red Cross and provincial authorities.

The motorized wooden boat caught fire near the town of Mbandaka, Loyoko said. The boat, HB Kongolo, had left the port of Matankumu for the Bolomba territory.

“The death toll among the 500 passengers on board was extremely high,” said Sen. Jean-Paul Boketsu Bofili of Equateur province Friday. “As we speak, more than 150 survivors suffering from third-degree burns are without humanitarian assistance.”

Deadly boat accidents are common in the central African country, where late-night travels and overcrowded vessels are often blamed. Authorities have struggled to enforce maritime regulations.

Congo’s rivers are a major means of transport for its more than 100 million people, especially in remote areas where infrastructure is poor or nonexistent. Hundreds have been killed in boat accidents in recent years as more people abandon the few available roads for wooden vessels packed with passengers and their goods.

“Our magnificent Congo River and the lakes our country abounds in have become huge cemeteries for the Congolese people. This is unacceptable,” said Bofili.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a brief Easter ceasefire in his war with Ukraine, saying “all hostilities” will pause for a two-day period.

There has been no immediate response from Ukraine, but if Kyiv accepts it will be the first pause in the conflict since Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion.

Russian fighting will halt between 6 p.m. Moscow time on Saturday (11 a.m. ET) and midnight on Monday (5 p.m. Sunday ET), Putin said.

“We assume that the Ukrainian side will follow our example,” he added.

The truce will help Russia determine how sincere Kyiv is about wanting to reach a ceasefire, Putin said.

The announcement comes at a pivotal time for the war. On the ground, Russia continues to make gains, claiming the capture of another settlement in the Kursk border region while US-led peace efforts are stuttering.

On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the US was ready to “move on” from efforts to bring peace to Ukraine within days if there were no tangible signs of progress.

Ukraine has previously been skeptical about such temporary pauses in conflict, having rejected a temporary ceasefire in January 2023 believing that Russia had ulterior motives in calling for a stop to the fighting, such as using the pause to bring in more troops.

This is a developing story and will be updated.