Divya Delhi:  All but the most ardent supporters are finding it tough to defend Aurangzeb, the last of the "great" Mughals. Chhaava ("Lion Cub"), the film about Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, has grossed over Rs 600 crore worldwide, proving that Aurangzeb has few fans and that Empress Mumtaz Mahal's sixth child had few redeeming qualities. Given the prominence of Maratha lore in western India, the film was expected to do well there. Balasaheb Thackeray and the Shiv Sena finally got Aurangabad renamed Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in 2023. However, Chhaava has clearly resonated with Indians nationwide, shocking industry leaders and politicians. Trade magazines also report that Chhaava is approaching Padmavat's global haul, which portrayed a loathed medieval Indian king, Alauddin Khilji. It also redeems Sambhaji, a Maratha ruler who had been shunned for his missteps and perceived shortcomings. This time, predictable attempts to rekindle Sambhaji's denigration have failed. Contemporary and later sources chronicle Sambhaji's cruel torture and murder by Aurangzeb for refusing to convert to Islam. However, 20th-century Indian historians portrayed a bleak picture of Shivaji's oldest son, downplaying even his horrific demise. In his last stand, Sambhaji overcame his early mistakes. The ‘Save Aurangzeb’ camp has tried a fresh strategy: focusing on Brahmin treachery in Sambhaji's inner circle and later chroniclers. One group disclosed his location to the Mughals, capturing him, while the other took over the narrative to destroy his image. Is promoting inter-caste enmity better than Aurangzeb's Muslim-Hindu animus? Even that is debatable. In addition to academic apologists, some social media pundits claim Aurangzeb had no enmity for Hindus. Historians like Audrey Trushke argue that Aurangzeb was a kinder person than he is portrayed since he did not demolish more temples or hire more Hindus than his predecessors.