Latest / Aurangzeb: The Emperor Who Expanded and Broke the Mughal Empire — Fexingo History / Aurangzeb's Temple Destruction: Politics, Piety, and Propaganda
Transcript
- Lucas: If you've been stepping into history with us episode by episode, you know we've spent a lot of time on Aurangzeb's wars and policies. But there's one aspect of his reign that's still fiercely debated today: the destruction of Hindu temples. Luna: You mean the idea that Aurangzeb was a zealot who smashed temples wherever he went? Lucas: Exactly. That image is powerful in modern India, but the reality is far more complicated. Aurangzeb did order the demolition of some major temples, but he also patronized many others. The question is: why? Luna: So it wasn't just random religious fury? Lucas: Not at all. Let's look at the most famous example: the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi. In 1669, Aurangzeb ordered its destruction, and a mosque was built on the site. The contemporary chronicle maasir i alamgiri says it was because 'the chief Hindu temple was a place of pilgrimage for the infidels.' But here's the thing — Varanasi was also a center of a rebellion led by local zamindars who had allied with the Marathas. Luna: So the temple might have been a political target, not just a religious one. Lucas: Precisely. The same goes for the Kesava Deo Temple in Mathura, destroyed in 1670. That temple was associated with the Jat rebellion, which was a serious threat. Aurangzeb's response was brutal — he destroyed the temple and built a mosque there too. But he wasn't targeting all temples. In fact, we have records of him granting land and money to temples in other parts of the empire, like the Somanath Temple in Gujarat, which he allowed to be rebuilt. Luna: Wait — he funded the rebuilding of a temple? That doesn't fit the zealot image at all. Lucas: It doesn't. But it fits a pattern: Aurangzeb was a pragmatist. He destroyed temples that were symbols of political opposition, but he also maintained the Mughal tradition of patronizing Hindu religious institutions when it served his interests. The French traveler François Bernier noted that Aurangzeb was 'but little of a bigot' and that his actions were often motivated by statecraft. And Niccolao Manucci, who served in the Mughal army, wrote that Aurangzeb 'destroyed some temples, but he also gave rich presents to the Brahmans.' Luna: Why do we remember him as such a religious fanatic, then? Lucas: Part of it comes from later colonial and nationalist narratives. The British, in particular, used Aurangzeb's temple destructions to paint Muslim rulers as oppressive, which helped justify their own rule. And in the 20th century, Hindu nationalists picked up that narrative to stoke communal tensions. When you actually dig into the sources, the picture is murkier. Luna: And that makes for better history. Lucas: Exactly. If today was actually useful to you, the way these stay ad-free is listener support — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, just a small way to keep these deep dives going. Lucas: So let's go back to Aurangzeb's religious policy. He also reinstated the jizya tax on non-Muslims in 1679, which his great-grandfather Akbar had abolished. But even that wasn't uniformly enforced — we have records of exemptions for certain groups, like Hindu nobles in his service. Luna: So it was more about appearances and control than pure theology? Lucas: That's a good way to put it. Aurangzeb was trying to position himself as a pious Muslim ruler, especially after his controversial seizure of the throne. But he also needed the support of Hindu princes and zamindars to keep the empire running. So his policies were a constant balancing act. Luna: What about the fatawa e alamgiri, his legal code? That was supposed to be strictly Islamic, right? Lucas: The fatawa e alamgiri was a massive compilation of Hanafi jurisprudence, and it did reinforce Islamic law in the empire. But it also included provisions for non-Muslims, like the protection of their places of worship — as long as they weren't newly built. So even within that framework, there was room for pragmatism. Luna: It sounds like Aurangzeb was trying to have it both ways — be a good Muslim and a good emperor. Lucas: And he often succeeded. But the temple destructions, even if politically motivated, left a lasting scar. The mosque built on the Kashi Vishwanath site, known as Gyanvapi, is still a flashpoint today. So the legacy of those actions is very much alive. Luna: It's a good reminder that history is never black and white. Lucas: Especially when it comes to Aurangzeb. He was a complex figure — ruthless, pious, pragmatic, and ultimately, a product of his time.