The contemporary debate surrounding Aurangzeb’s bigotry and religious fanaticism has intensified, with his issued “farmaans” (imperial orders) cited as evidence of his extremism and anti-Hindu stance. Numerous primary historical texts, including Mirat-i-Ahmadi, Mirat-i-Alam, Maasir-i-Alamgiri, Aurangzebnama, Futuhat-i-Alamgiri, Aurangzebachya Darbarche Akhbar, Ahkam-i-Alamgiri, Veer Vinod, Rathod ri Khyat, Mundiyad ri Khyat, and Jodhpur Rajya ri Khyat, offer insights into his religious policies, suggesting that, like his father Jahangir, Aurangzeb pursued an anti-Hindu and intolerant approach. This historical record is now being re-examined in modern political discourse, where Aurangzeb’s actions fuel contemporary narratives of communal division.
In 1644 AD, while serving as the governor of Gujarat, Aurangzeb issued an order mandating strict adherence to Quranic law in Ahmedabad, resulting in the demolition of twenty Hindu temples. During the Holi festival, the traditions of Holika Dahan and the lighting of lamps during Diwali in shops were prohibited. Furthermore, the creation of clay murtis of deities such as Lakshmi and Ganesh was banned, and the minting of coins bearing deity images was forbidden. These specific edicts are now central to arguments that Aurangzeb’s rule was marked by systemic religious persecution, a claim that resonates strongly in today’s polarized political climate.
However, the situation experienced a shift during the two tenures of Raja Jaswant Singh as the subahdar of Gujarat (March 1659-61 and July 1671-September 1672 AD). During these periods, Raja Jaswant Singh facilitated the repair of demolished Mandirs, permitted Hindus to worship their deities, and allowed the public celebration of Hindu festivals. He emerged as a proponent of Hindu revivalism, acting as a significant obstacle to Aurangzeb’s goal of establishing Islamic dominance. In one instance, Jaswant Singh launched a night attack on an Aurangzeb military unit in Kurad village, causing the Mughal army to retreat and allowing him to conduct looting and plundering. While Aurangzeb downplayed the incident, claiming it ultimately benefited the Mughals by preventing Jaswant Singh from staying and potentially undermining their Islamic ambitions, the incident highlighted the resistance Aurangzeb faced. The contrasting policies of Aurangzeb and Jaswant Singh are now being used to illustrate the historical struggle between religious imposition and resistance, a theme that remains pertinent in contemporary discussions.
Another incident from 1644 AD, while Aurangzeb was subahdar of Gujarat, involved the slaughter of a cow within the Chintamani Mandir, built by jeweller Satidas in Sahaspur, and its subsequent conversion into the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque. Despite the reliance of the Mughal state on Hindu bankers for financial support, particularly Johri Satidas, a prominent merchant and banker from Surat, Shah Jahan, upon learning of the incident, ordered the Mandirs restoration. However, due to the desecration caused by the cow slaughter and the defacement of deity statues, the Jains ceased worshipping in the Mandir, and for Hindus, it lost its sanctity. This incident reveals Aurangzeb’s demonstrably anti-Hindu sentiment, seemingly disregarding the potential loss of crucial Hindu banker support. Later, Aurangzeb attempted to regain Satidas’s support by granting him land in Pargana Shatrunjay, showcasing a policy of appeasement. This episode demonstrates how religious policies intersected with economic realities, a historical dynamic that is often invoked to understand the complexities of contemporary governance.
After ascending to the throne, Aurangzeb eliminated his brothers and swiftly implemented Islamic principles throughout the Mughal Empire. His forces attacked Kamrup, the ruler of Assam, and Roop Narayan, the zamindar of Cooch Behar, achieving victories that were followed by acts of religious fanaticism, including the demolition of Mandirs within the conquered territories and the removal of Mandir bells, which were then packed into trunks. Aurangzeb referred to Hindus as “kafirs” and his forces as the “Lashkar of Islam,” indicating a significant escalation of his extremist views. These pronouncements and actions are now being highlighted by those who argue that Aurangzeb’s rule was explicitly designed to impose a specific religious identity on the populace, a point of view that informs present-day debates on secularism and religious freedom.
In 1667 AD, Qazi Abul Muqaram reported to Aurangzeb that large gatherings of Hindus were occurring at the Kali Mandir in Barapulla, Delhi. Attempts by Mughal servants Aminuddin Shahmdar and Salar Saud Gazi Talwar to disperse the crowds were unsuccessful. In response, Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of all Mandirs in the area. A Brahmin who attempted to defend the Mandir killed a beldar and injured three others before being killed himself. His head was severed, and the Kali Mandir was demolished. In the same year, Aurangzeb banned the worship of Sheetla Mata and the Saptami Sheetla Mata, which was worshipped seven days after Holi. These actions, both direct and indirect, represent Aurangzeb’s systematic attacks on Hindu faith and traditions, including the destruction of their places of worship. This strategy aimed to undermine the mental fortitude of Hindus, weakening their resolve and potentially leading to conversion to Islam. The pattern of Mandir destruction and the suppression of Hindu religious practices is now being used to argue that Aurangzeb’s actions constituted a form of cultural genocide, a concept that is central to many contemporary discussions of historical injustice.
In 1669, Aurangzeb issued an order to demolish the Govardhan Nath ji Mandir in Gokul. Mandir pujari Gosain, in response, relocated the Nath ji murti to Jodhpur, where Raja Jaswant Singh provided it with sanctuary. Subsequently, the murti was established in the Sihad village of Mewar, which is now widely known as the Nathdwara Mandir. This incident, alongside others, demonstrates that, much like the Marathas, Rajput Raja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur stood as a formidable obstacle to Mughal supremacy. Aurangzeb held Raja Jaswant Singh in such regard that he refrained from entering his kingdom during his lifetime. However, Aurangzeb persisted with his temple and gurukul destruction campaign in Delhi, Agra, and their surrounding regions. The flight of deities and the defence offered by Rajput rulers are now used to portray acts of Hindu resistance, which are framed as historical precedents for contemporary assertions of cultural and religious identity.
In 1669 AD, Aurangzeb issued a decree to close all Hindu schools and gurukuls, ordered the demolition of Mandirs, and discontinued the Hindu education system. Mandirs in Thatta, Multan, Banaras, and Mathura were systematically demolished, schools were shut down, and Vedic texts, Hindu literature, and books on rational sciences were destroyed. These gurukuls and Brahmin-led institutions were central to Hindu education. By dismantling this system, Aurangzeb sought to dismantle the Indian knowledge system, thereby facilitating the subjugation of Hindus by Muslims. Large numbers of Hindu teachers were dismissed from their positions, and many were killed, leading to a decline in Hindu literacy rates and a corresponding increase in the Muslim educated class. To further erase the historical presence of Hindus, Aurangzeb initiated a campaign to rename prominent Hindu sites. Mathura was renamed Islamabad, and Banaras was renamed Mohammadabad, effectively attempting to erase Hindu historical memory and prevent future claims to these areas. The destruction of educational institutions and the renaming of cities are now seen as attempts to erase cultural memory, a practice that is often compared to modern forms of cultural suppression.
In 1669 AD, Aurangzeb implemented stringent measures to control Banaras, a city of profound religious significance to Hindus, considered a place of moksha (liberation). He initiated a campaign of Mandir destruction, the killing of Hindu scholars, and the renaming of Hindu landmarks with Muslim names. In 1683 AD, under Aurangzeb’s orders, Diwan Rafiul Amin demolished the Bindu Madhav temple and erected a mosque. Aurangzeb’s officials actively participated in these acts of destruction, with those who successfully demolished Hindu places of worship receiving rewards, promotions, and prestigious titles. For example, Hussain Ali Khan, who destroyed 175 temples in Chittor, was honoured with the title “Alamgir” by Aurangzeb in the Delhi Durbar. The systematic destruction and reward of Mandir destruction is used to illustrate the state-sponsored destruction of Hindu culture and religion and, therefore, lends itself to conversations regarding state-sponsored terrorism.
Aurangzeb effectively transformed Mandir destruction into a state-sanctioned policy, encouraging Muslims to view it as a virtuous act and a primary objective. He ordered the desecration of Hindu murtis, sometimes burying them, to establish a lasting legacy as a staunch supporter and defender of Islam. This period was marked by systematic efforts to dismantle Hindu culture and civilisation, contradicting claims that Aurangzeb was a protector of Hindus or a builder of Mandirs. His reign was characterised by actions aimed at the deliberate and forceful erosion of Sanatan Dharma. This narrative directly confronts attempts to portray Aurangzeb as anything other than a religiously driven ruler, a point that is crucial in the present debate.
Aurangzeb, driven by his ambition to establish Dar-ul-Islam (a land governed by Islamic law), appointed Jaswant Singh as the subedar (governor) of Kabul. He issued a farmaan (royal decree) ordering Jaswant Singh to systematically destroy all Hindu Mandirs within the Marwar region. However, Jaswant Singh, a Rajput ruler known for his pragmatism and understanding of regional dynamics, vehemently objected to this directive. He pointedly reminded the Mughal officials that during the reign of Sawai Jai Singh, a period of relative peace and stability, no temples had been subjected to demolition. Furthermore, he issued a stark warning: should any temple in Marwar be harmed, he would retaliate by ordering the destruction of all mosques within the region. Jaswant Singh’s resolute stance and the threat of widespread destruction of mosques deeply alarmed the Mughal officials. Confronted with the potential for escalating religious conflict and the destabilisation of a strategically important region, they ultimately chose to withdraw the farmaan, effectively rescinding Aurangzeb’s order. This act of resistance is now used to showcase that there were Hindus that would fight against the rulers’ religious oppressions, and is a strong part of the modern cultural dialogue.
As gleaned from historical accounts, Aurangzeb’s psyche reveals a complex interplay of religious zeal and authoritarian control. His relentless pursuit of Islamic dominance suggests deep-seated insecurity, masked by rigid piety. The systematic destruction of Hindu temples and educational institutions points to a fear-driven intolerance, aimed at consolidating power. Despite strategic pragmatism, his religious ideology prevailed. Resistance, notably from Raja Jaswant Singh, highlighted the limits of his extremism. His actions, like renaming cities and emphasizing his forces as “Lashkar of Islam,” betray a desire for a lasting, religiously defined legacy, potentially fueled by paranoia and a need for absolute control. Aurangzeb’s legacy is one of cultural destruction and religious animosity, ultimately weakening the Mughal Empire through his divisive policies. These historical actions are used in the modern political stage to drive arguments about the dangers of divisive religious policy.
