Latest / Aurangzeb: The Emperor Who Expanded and Broke the Mughal Empire — Fexingo History / Aurangzeb's Hindu Captives: The Temple Destruction Debate
Transcript
- Lucas: Welcome back to Fexingo History. I'm Lucas, and with me is Luna. Today we're diving into one of the most charged aspects of Aurangzeb's reign: his destruction of Hindu temples. It's a topic that's been debated for centuries, often with more heat than light. Luna: Right, because it's become such a symbol of his rule. Lucas: Exactly. But when you look at the historical record, the picture is more complex than either his defenders or detractors would have you believe. Let's start with the most famous cases. In 1669, Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, one of the holiest sites for Shaivite Hindus. The Maasir-i-Alamgiri, his official court chronicle, records that 'the temple was destroyed and a mosque erected on its site.' That's the Gyanvapi Mosque, which still stands today. Luna: And a year later, the Kesava Deo temple in Mathura was also torn down. Lucas: Yes, the Kesava Deo temple, dedicated to Krishna, was demolished in 1670. The Maasir-i-Alamgiri again notes the construction of a mosque on the spot—today's Shahi Eidgah. These were clearly high-profile targets. But here's the thing: these weren't random acts of iconoclasm. They were politically calculated. In both cases, the temples were associated with communities that had rebelled or were seen as centers of resistance. Varanasi and Mathura were strongholds of the Jat and Maratha uprisings, which Aurangzeb was trying to crush. Luna: So it wasn't just about religion—it was about power. Lucas: Precisely. And that pattern holds across Aurangzeb's reign. The historian Richard Eaton has painstakingly documented every known instance of temple destruction under Mughal rule. Out of the thousands of temples that existed, he found evidence for only about 80 cases of destruction—and that's across the entire Mughal period, not just Aurangzeb. The vast majority were targeted because of their political or military significance, not out of simple piety. For example, when Aurangzeb campaigned in the Deccan, he ordered the destruction of temples that had been used as forts or supply depots by the Marathas. Luna: I've heard the figure 100,000 temples thrown around. That's a myth, then? Lucas: Completely. The number 100,000 appears in some later Hindu nationalist tracts, but it has no basis in contemporary evidence. Even the most hostile European accounts, like Niccolao Manucci's Storia do Mogor, which is often critical of Aurangzeb, doesn't claim anything close to that. Manucci describes the destruction of temples in the context of rebellion, not as a general policy. He writes that Aurangzeb 'ordered the demolition of all the temples of the Hindus'—but that's an exaggeration born from the few examples he witnessed. Lucas: And even those orders were often not fully carried out. Take the Somnath temple in Gujarat. It had been famously sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024, but it was rebuilt. Aurangzeb did order its destruction in 1665, but local sources suggest the temple was only partially damaged and continued to function. The idea that he systematically wiped out every Hindu temple simply doesn't match the evidence. Luna: What about temples that survived? I'm thinking of the great temples in Rajasthan, for example. Lucas: Ah, that's a key point. Aurangzeb's temple destruction was highly selective. He left alone the temples of Rajput kingdoms that remained loyal to the Mughals, like those of Amber and Marwar. The famous Jagdish Temple in Udaipur, built by Maharana Jagat Singh I, was untouched. Why? Because the Rajputs were powerful allies, and Aurangzeb couldn't afford to alienate them. So the policy was: destroy temples in rebellious territories, but spare those of loyal vassals. It was statecraft, not theology. Luna: But didn't he also impose the jizya tax on non-Muslims? That seems like a religious policy. Lucas: It does, and we've covered the jizya in a past episode. But even that had political dimensions. The jizya was reimposed in 1679, right after the Rajput rebellion in Marwar. It was a way to assert authority and raise revenue during costly Deccan wars. And it was applied unevenly—many poor Hindus were exempted, and some high-ranking Hindus in the administration never paid it. So again, it was less about pure religious zeal and more about control. Lucas: But we can't ignore the ideological side. Aurangzeb saw himself as a pious Sunni ruler, and he did issue orders to prohibit 'innovations' and enforce Sharia. The destruction of temples was part of that worldview—but it was a selective tool, not a genocidal campaign. The real tragedy is that these acts, combined with the jizya and the long wars, created a narrative of oppression that later historians, both colonial and nationalist, seized on. Luna: So the modern image of Aurangzeb as a temple-destroying fanatic is largely a construction? Lucas: Largely, yes. It was convenient for British historians to paint him as a bigot to justify their own rule. And later, Hindu nationalists used the same image to argue that Muslims were always oppressors. The reality is messier. Aurangzeb was a complex figure—a capable administrator, a ruthless politician, and a devout Muslim who used religion as a tool of state. The temple destruction happened, but it was limited, strategic, and often reversed by his successors. Luna: What did his successors do? Did they rebuild temples? Lucas: Some did. After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, his son Bahadur Shah I reversed many of his policies. He abolished the jizya and allowed the reconstruction of some temples. But by then, the empire was fragmenting. The Marathas, who had been fighting for decades, began to assert control over large parts of India. They rebuilt the Kashi Vishwanath temple in a new location. So the legacy of Aurangzeb's iconoclasm is not just destruction, but a cycle of rebuilding and conflict that continued long after. Luna: It's interesting how a single ruler's actions can ripple through centuries. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's why it's so important to get the history right. The temple destruction under Aurangzeb is a real historical fact, but it's also been weaponized. By understanding the context—the rebellions, the politics, the limited scale—we can see it for what it was: a brutal but calculated policy, not a religious crusade. And that nuance matters, especially today. Luna: Well said. Thanks for shedding light on this, Lucas. Lucas: Thank you, Luna. And to our listeners, if you want to dig deeper, check out Richard Eaton's book 'Temple Desecration and Muslim States in Medieval India'—it's a meticulous study that separates fact from fiction. Until next time.