Did Mughals destroy thousands of temples?

The question of the destruction of temples during the Mughal period (1526-1857) is one of the most controversial problems in Indian historiography. While some historical data and current bills report instances of temple demolition, the size and motives behind those acts continue to be debated. This analysis examines archaeological evidence, Mughal court histories, and regional histories to provide a nuanced understanding of this complex historical phenomenon.

Several outstanding examples of temple destruction under Mughal rule are well attested in ancient records:

• Kashi Vishwanath Temple (1669 AD): Aurangzeb’s orders led to the demolition of the original Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, and the construction of the Gyanvapi Mosque using the temple’s material. His trusted court historian Saqi Mustaid Khan recorded this event in Maasir-e-Alamgiri.
• Keshav Dev Temple (Mathura, 1670 AD): The birthplace of Lord Krishna was demolished on the orders of Aurangzeb, with the Katra Mosque built on its foundations. European traveller Jean-Baptiste Tavernier documented the ruins of the temple complex.
• Somnath Temple (multiple examples): Although Mahmud Ghaznavi’s 1026 AD invasion predates the Mughals, the temple suffered continuous damage during Mughal rule before its final destruction under Aurangzeb.

The method of destruction of Hindu religious sites varied considerably among the various Mughal rulers:

• Babur and Humayun (1526-1556): Limited evidence of systematic destruction, although Babur’s memoirs mention demolition of temples in conquered areas such as Chanderi.
• Akbar (1556-1605): Adopted a policy of religious tolerance, even granting land and budget for temple construction. The Govind Dev temple in Vrindavan was built under his patronage.
• Jahangir (1605-1627): Generally tolerated Akbar’s rule, although there were some incidents of destruction of temples during naval expeditions to Rajputana.
• Shah Jahan (1628-1658): Destroyed many temples in Kashmir and ordered the demolition of newly built temples in Banaras (1632).
• Aurangzeb (1658-1707): The most documented case of temple destruction, with mention of demolishing at least a dozen major temples and converting many into mosques.

Historical analysis shows that there were several elements motivating Mughal policies towards temples:

• Military approach: Temples were often the focus during the suppression of rebellions, as seen in the destruction of the temples of Orchha (1635) following the riot of Jujhar Singh.
• Financial elements: Rich temple complexes represented great monetary resources. The Jagannath temple in Puri was repeatedly attacked for its accumulated wealth.
• Ideological concerns: some destruction was associated with the Islamic garrison’s position on polytheistic places of worship in conquered regions.
• Diplomatic calculations: temple protection was sometimes used to loosen alliances, as in the case of Akbar’s aid to Jain pilgrimage sites.

Estimates of destroyed temples vary widely:

• Conservative estimates based on Mughal court records advocate the demolition of several dozen primary temples.
• Widespread claims of hundreds destroyed rely heavily on 19th-century colonial loans and later reconstructions.
• Archaeological evidence indicates styles of reuse of temple material in mosque construction at many sites in North India.

The impact of Mughal policies varied by region:

• North India: saw the most documented instances of destruction, especially in the Gangetic plain.
• Rajputana: many major temples survived due to local resistance and diplomatic arrangements.
• South India: remained largely outside direct Mughal control, preserving temple complexes.
• Bengal: temple building flourished under local Hindu rulers despite Mughal hegemony.

Different sources provide conflicting perspectives:

• Mughal court chronicles such as the Akbarnama and the Ma’asir-i-Alamgiri describe both the destruction and preservation of temples.
• European Travellers (Tavernier, Bernier) describe seeing temple ruins at several sites.
• Hindu devotional literature from the Middle East regularly laments the loss of temples while others celebrate the surviving ones.

Modern scholarship remains divided:

• Nationalist historians emphasize systematic destruction as a form of spiritual persecution.
• Revisionist scholars argue that most destruction was politically motivated and limited to precise contexts.
• Archaeologists have seen evidence of continued worship at every destruction and at many sites.

Historical records confirm that Mughal rulers damaged many fine Hindu temples, especially during military campaigns and during the reign of Aurangzeb. However, claims of “thousands” destroyed lack systematic evidence. The truth appears to be more complex – involving periods of destruction and preservation according to ruler and political situation. This nuanced expertise moves beyond polarised debates and facilitates a more evidence-based assessment of India’s architectural and spiritual history. Surviving temple data and archaeological remains provide valuable insights into this controversial issue of India’s past.