Latest / Aurangzeb: The Emperor Who Expanded and Broke the Mughal Empire — Fexingo History / Aurangzeb's Hindu Temples: Destruction and Patronage
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about Aurangzeb's wars, his taxes, his religious policies — but one thing that always comes up in popular memory is temples. He's known as the temple destroyer, the guy who smashed Hindu idols from Varanasi to Mathura. But the actual story is much more complicated, and I think it tells us a lot about how he ruled. Luna: Wait, are you saying he didn't destroy temples? Lucas: Oh, he definitely did. But it wasn't indiscriminate, and it wasn't always religious. Let's start with the most famous case: the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi. According to the maasir i alamgiri, Aurangzeb ordered its destruction in 1669, and a mosque was built on the site. That much is true. The temple was a major center of Hindu pilgrimage, and destroying it sent a clear message. Luna: A message to whom, exactly? Lucas: To his political rivals — both Hindu and Muslim. Remember, 1669 was right after the Maratha rebellion under Shivaji had gained momentum. By targeting temples in holy cities, Aurangzeb was asserting his authority as a Muslim emperor. But here's the twist: he also gave land grants and tax exemptions to other temples, especially in Maharashtra and Rajasthan, where he needed the support of local chieftains. Luna: So it was political, not just religious? Lucas: Exactly. The maasir i alamgiri records that in 1670, he ordered the destruction of the Kesava Deo temple in Mathura, another major site. But contemporaneous accounts from the Venetian traveler Niccolao Manucci say that Aurangzeb also donated money to Brahmins and allowed Hindu temples to function in areas where it was expedient. Manucci actually lived in the Mughal court for years, and he wrote that Aurangzeb's policy was 'to destroy the temples of those who rebel, but to protect those of the obedient.' That's a pretty frank summary. Luna: So it's more like a tool of coercion, not a religious crusade. Lucas: Right. And that fits with what we know about his other policies. He reimposed jizya, but also employed Hindu generals — we covered that in episode 163. He destroyed temples, but also patronized Hindu scholars in his court. The pattern is consistent: Aurangzeb was a pragmatist who used religion when it served his political ends. But that doesn't mean the destruction wasn't real or traumatic. The Kashi Vishwanath demolition in particular became a rallying cry for Hindu resistance. Luna: How did people at the time react? I mean, beyond the obvious anger. Lucas: That's a great question. We have records from Maratha chronicles, like the Bakhar texts, that describe the fall of temples with great emotion. But also, there's evidence that some Hindu rulers saw it as a challenge to their authority. The Rajput king of Mewar, for instance, refused to pay tribute after the temple destructions. And on the other side, some Muslim clerics praised Aurangzeb as a defender of Islam. So the act itself became a political football. Luna: What about the Somnath temple? That one gets mentioned a lot. Lucas: Somnath is a different story. That temple was famously destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024, long before the Mughals. By Aurangzeb's time, the temple had been rebuilt but wasn't as prominent. There's no evidence that Aurangzeb ordered its destruction, though later Hindu nationalist narratives often lump it in with his other demolitions. It's important to separate what we know from historical sources from what becomes legend. Luna: So how many temples did he actually destroy? Is there a number? Lucas: Scholars have tried to count, but it's tricky. The maasir i alamgiri explicitly mentions a few dozen over his reign, but local records suggest more. Richard Eaton, a historian who's studied this, argues that temple destruction under Aurangzeb was part of a wider pattern of using religious symbols to assert sovereignty — it happened under other Mughal emperors too, just less famously. But the scale under Aurangzeb was larger, especially in the Deccan during his long wars. Luna: And what about the temples he didn't destroy? You mentioned patronage. Lucas: Yes, and this is the part that often gets overlooked. In Maharashtra, for example, Aurangzeb granted revenue-free lands to the temple of Mahadeo in Verul, near Aurangabad. In Rajasthan, he allowed Rajput rulers to maintain their own temples. The logic was simple: if you're a loyal vassal, your gods are safe. Even the jizya could be exempted for Hindu officials who served the empire. So it's not a simple story of religious persecution. Luna: But the destruction is what people remember. Why do you think that is? Lucas: Partly because it's dramatic, and partly because it fits a narrative. In the 19th century, British historians like James Mill used Aurangzeb as an example of 'Muslim fanaticism' to justify colonial rule. Later, Hindu nationalists picked up that same image to argue that Muslims were always oppressors. The nuance gets lost. But if you look at the actual evidence, Aurangzeb's temple policy was as much about politics as religion. Luna: It sounds like the real story is more about power than faith. Lucas: Exactly. And that brings us to a broader point: we tend to project modern ideas of religious identity onto the past. Aurangzeb didn't think of himself as a 'Muslim ruler' in the way we might imagine. He was the emperor of Hindustan, and his legitimacy came from balancing different forces. Temple destruction was one tool in his toolbox, but it wasn't his only one. And understanding that helps us see him as a complex figure, not just a villain. Luna: I think a lot of listeners would appreciate that kind of balanced view. It's easy to fall into caricatures. Lucas: Absolutely. And speaking of keeping things balanced — you know, this show exists because of listeners like you who support it. A couple of dollars a month is genuinely what keeps these going — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, if you've gotten something out of them. It helps us stay independent and dig into these stories without any outside pressure. Luna: Yeah, it really does make a difference. We're glad to have you along on this journey. Lucas: So back to temples — one final thought. The question of whether Aurangzeb's policy was religious or political is maybe too modern. For him, religion and politics were inseparable. The Mughal state was Islamic, but it ruled a majority Hindu population. Every act had multiple meanings. And that tension is what makes studying him so fascinating. Luna: So the next time someone says 'Aurangzeb destroyed all temples,' we know better. Lucas: Exactly. History is never that simple. Thanks for coming along on this one.