Latest / Aurangzeb: The Emperor Who Expanded and Broke the Mughal Empire — Fexingo History / Aurangzeb's Temple Destruction: Politics, Piety, and Historical Debate
Transcript
- Lucas: So, we've talked a lot about Aurangzeb's policies — jizya, music bans, legal reforms — but there's one aspect that's probably the most emotionally charged and historically contested: his destruction of Hindu temples. Luna: Yeah, that's something everyone seems to have an opinion on, but the actual facts get buried pretty quickly. Lucas: Exactly. So let's start with what we know from contemporary sources. The maasir i alamgiri, the official court chronicle, records several temple destructions under Aurangzeb's orders. The most famous are the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi in 1669 and the Kesava Deo temple in Mathura in 1670. Luna: What was the stated reason? Lucas: Aurangzeb's own letters — the ruqaat i alamgiri — frame it as an act of piety: destroying symbols of idolatry to uphold Islamic law. But the political context matters. The Mathura temple was associated with local rebellions. The governor of the region, Abdun Nabi, had been attacked by Hindu insurgents, and the temple was seen as a focal point of resistance. Luna: So it wasn't just random vandalism — it was targeted. Lucas: Right. And this pattern holds elsewhere. In 1679, after the Rathore rebellion in Marwar, Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of temples in Jodhpur and surrounding areas. But even then, it wasn't wholesale. Many temples were left standing, especially those that paid tribute or had powerful patrons. It was often more about punishing rebellion and asserting authority than erasing every non-Muslim shrine. Luna: Interesting. So how many temples are we actually talking about? Lucas: That's the tricky part. Estimates range wildly — from a few dozen to thousands, depending on who's counting and what they count. Modern historians like Richard Eaton have done the most careful work. He examined Persian and local sources and found evidence for about 80 temples being destroyed or desecrated during Aurangzeb's entire 49-year reign. That's not nothing, but it's far from the genocidal scale sometimes claimed. Luna: Eighty is still a lot, though. Lucas: It is. And each destruction had real impact on local communities. But we also have to remember that temple destruction was not unique to Aurangzeb — earlier Mughal emperors like Akbar and Jahangir occasionally ordered demolitions too, though less frequently. And Hindu kings also destroyed each other's temples. It was part of a political logic: attacking a rival's patron deities to demonstrate power. Luna: So Aurangzeb was continuing a pattern, but maybe intensifying it? Lucas: Yes, and linking it more explicitly to his personal piety and his Hanafi legal orthodoxy. The fatawa e alamgiri, his legal code, states that temples built after the Islamic conquest can be destroyed, while those that predate it might be tolerated. This distinction was used selectively. In practice, many ancient temples survived — like the Jagannath temple in Puri, which Aurangzeb actually granted land to. Luna: Wait, he gave land to a temple? That doesn't fit the iconoclast image. Lucas: Exactly. It's more complex than a simple narrative. Aurangzeb also issued farmans — royal decrees — protecting some temples and their priests, especially if they were politically useful. In the Deccan, for example, he confirmed land grants to several Hindu temples to secure the loyalty of local elites during his campaigns. Luna: So it was pragmatic as much as religious. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's what gets lost in modern debates. The destruction of temples was real and devastating, but it wasn't a uniform policy. It was one tool among many in Aurangzeb's political toolkit — along with patronage, alliances, and military force. The problem is, later historians, especially from the British colonial period and then in nationalist narratives, cherry-picked the worst examples to paint Aurangzeb as a fanatical bigot. Luna: So we need to hold both things at once: the destruction was real, but it was also politically motivated and not a simple religious war. Lucas: Yes. And the numbers matter. The claim that Aurangzeb destroyed 40,000 temples — which you sometimes hear — comes from a 17th-century European traveler's estimate, not from Mughal records. It's not credible. But neither is the apologetic view that nothing happened. The truth is somewhere in between, and it's messy. Luna: How did contemporaries react? Did Hindus see it as persecution? Lucas: It's hard to generalize. Some local rebellions explicitly cited temple destruction as a grievance, especially in Rajasthan. The Rathore and Maratha resistance often framed themselves as defenders of dharma. But other Hindu rulers, like the rulers of Amber and later Jaipur, remained loyal to the Mughals and even participated in campaigns. So reactions were mixed. Luna: And what about the temples that were destroyed — did they ever get rebuilt? Lucas: Some did, but not immediately. The Kashi Vishwanath temple was eventually rebuilt in the 18th century by the Maratha queen Ahilyabai Holkar. The Kesava Deo temple at Mathura was reconstructed in the 20th century. So physical destruction wasn't necessarily permanent, but the political symbolism lingered. Lucas: You know, this whole topic reminds me how important listener support is for keeping shows like this ad-free and independent. We spend hours digging through sources to get past the myths, and a couple of dollars a month at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo genuinely helps keep this going. Luna: Yeah, it's a small thing that makes a real difference for us. Lucas: So if you've gotten something out of these episodes — a new perspective, a clearer picture — that's the way to support it. Anyway, back to Aurangzeb's temple policy: one of the most debated aspects is whether his actions were a departure from Akbar's more inclusive approach. Luna: That's a big question. Akbar famously abolished jizya and patronized Hindu temples. Lucas: Right. And Aurangzeb reimposed jizya and destroyed temples. So on the surface, it looks like a reversal. But even Akbar's policy was not uniformly tolerant — he also ordered some temple demolitions when it suited him. The difference is one of degree and ideological framing. Aurangzeb's actions were more systematic and justified with religious language, but they weren't a complete break from Mughal tradition. Luna: So the empire didn't suddenly become a theocracy. Lucas: No. The Mughal state remained multi-ethnic and pragmatic. Aurangzeb employed Hindus in high positions — his chief minister for a time was a Hindu, and many Hindu mansabdars served throughout his reign. The destruction was real, but it was one policy among many, and it didn't define the entire administration. That's what makes it so complicated. Luna: And that complexity is exactly what we try to get at. Lucas: Exactly. So to wrap up: Aurangzeb's temple destructions were significant, but they need to be understood in their political and regional context. They were not a blanket policy, and the numbers are often exaggerated. Yet they remain a painful part of South Asian history, and their memory has been used to fuel communal divides. Our job is to try to see them clearly, not as propaganda for any side.