Dossier

“Temples were attacked only for loot and politics, never because of religion.”

Misleading
The fact

Wealth and politics were real motives, as historians have shown, but the chroniclers who served the conquerors described temple destruction in religious terms, and Aurangzeb’s order of April 1669 was a general order against temples and their schools, not a search for treasure.

The proof

  1. Maasir-i-Alamgiri: in April 1669 Aurangzeb ordered governors to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels; in September 1669 the temple of Vishwanath at Kashi was reported demolished; in January 1670 the Keshava Rai temple at Mathura.
  2. The Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in Delhi records on its gate that it was built from the materials of 27 temples.
  3. Eaton himself lists about 80 temple desecrations he considers well attested, from 1192 onward.

01The claim

The modern argument runs that temples were political objects. A royal temple stood for a king’s power, so a conqueror who broke it was breaking his enemy’s sovereignty, and a rich temple was simply where the gold was. On this view faith had little or nothing to do with it, and anyone who speaks of religious motive is reading modern politics backward.

02What is right in it

Part of this is true and should be granted. Mahmud of Ghazni took enormous wealth from Somnath, Mathura and Kangra. Temples were often hit when a kingdom was conquered and often left alone in lands that were already loyal. Eaton also shows that Hindu kings sometimes carried off the temple images of rivals as trophies. A historian who ignores money and power is not telling the whole story either.

03What the chroniclers wrote

The chroniclers who wrote for the conquerors did not describe these acts as accounting. Al-Utbi’s Tarikh-i-Yamini presents Mahmud’s campaigns as war against idolaters. The Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, whose name means the might of Islam, records the 27 temples in its fabric. Saqi Mustaid Khan’s Maasir-i-Alamgiri, the official history of Aurangzeb’s reign, reports the 1669 order against the temples and schools of the infidels throughout the empire, then the fall of Vishwanath at Kashi and of the Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, whose images were taken to Agra and buried under the steps of a mosque. These are the conquerors’ own words.

04Holding the whole picture

The honest conclusion is that motives were mixed: plunder, politics and faith, in different measure at different times. Erasing the religious motive, when the chroniclers themselves proclaimed it, is not history. Neither is blaming anyone alive today for what a sultan or emperor did centuries ago. Name the act, the year and the source. At Kashi today the Gyanvapi mosque stands on the plinth of the old Vishwanath temple, and Ahilyabai Holkar’s temple of 1780 stands beside it. That is the record, plainly read.

05What to read

Read the Maasir-i-Alamgiri in Jadunath Sarkar’s translation (1947), Eaton’s essay and Thapar’s Somanatha for the political reading, and Sita Ram Goel’s two volumes Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them (1990–91) for a long list drawn from the chronicles. Then compare them, source by source. Where the political reading and the chronicles agree, you are on firm ground; where they part, go back to the chronicler’s own words, read in a careful translation, before you decide.

Read on