Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday criticized the suspension of party leader Abu Azmi from the Maharashtra Assembly, arguing that the action undermines democratic principles and free speech. Yadav contended that punitive measures aimed at curbing free thought were a violation of fundamental rights.
In a post on X, Yadav questioned the ideological motivations behind the suspension and expressed concern over the suppression of free expression. “If the basis of suspension starts getting influenced by ideology, then what difference will remain between freedom of expression and slavery?” he wrote. He emphasized that the fearless wisdom of elected representatives should not be constrained by such actions. “If some people think that by ‘suspension’ one can put a rein on the tongue of truth, then this is the childishness of their negative thinking. Today’s free thinking says, we don’t want BJP,” Yadav added.
Earlier on Wednesday, Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar suspended Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Azmi for the remainder of the budget session following his controversial comments about Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Azmi had stated that Aurangzeb was not a “cruel administrator” and had “built many temples,” while adding that the conflict between Aurangzeb and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj was over state administration, not religious differences. Azmi later withdrew his remarks and expressed willingness to apologize if his statements had hurt sentiments.
Meanwhile, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath also reacted strongly to Azmi’s remarks, questioning his allegiance to Indian heritage and suggesting that he be expelled from the Samajwadi Party and sent to Uttar Pradesh for “treatment.” Yogi further criticized the Samajwadi Party’s stance on historical figures, accusing them of praising a figure like Aurangzeb, who he claims destroyed temples, while attacking the Maha Kumbh.
Azmi’s comments have ignited a political firestorm, with sharp divisions emerging between the Samajwadi Party and BJP over the interpretation of India’s history and the limits of free expression.