At Elora, Aurangzeb documented the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist temples in the following words:
Flora is the finest embodiment of the Artisan, well-crafted marvels.
Hindu and Jain synagogues were placed in tens of thousands in the Mughal Empire domain, of which not all but some remained till the end of Aurangzeb’s Reign.
To guarantee the security and welfare of Hindu religious institutions and their leader was one of the fundamental policy objectives of Aurangzeb’s reign. His directives to officials in order to safeguard their basic rights include protection of temples from unwanted intrusion, allotment of land to Hindu communities, and reserving specific stipend to Hindu spiritual figures.
Moreover, Aurangzeb in his early reign directed local Mughal officials to Ban ares by an imperial order (Furman) to never make interruption in the affairs of local temples. Aurangzeb, writing in February 1659, said he had well-versed that:
"Several people have, out of spite and rancor, harassed, the Hindu residents of Ban ares and nearby places, including a group of Brahmins who are in charge of ancient temples there."
The King then dictated his officials: "You must see that nobody unlawfully disturbs the Brahmin or other Hindus of the reign so that they might remain in their traditional place and pray for the of the Empire."
To ensure immediate land allotment, along with the right to collect revenue, was made applicable by Aurangzeb through a farm an (order) to the Manet Temple at Gamut in Assam in the ninth year of his rule.
Likewise, in 1680 at the bank of the Ganges in Ban ares lived an abstinent Hindu Bhogwat Gawain who should never be harassed upon the dictation of Aurangzeb. In order to construct houses for"virtuous Brahmins and saintly fakirs"the emperor ruler render an empty land on a Ghat in Ban ares, situated near a mosque, to Ramjivan Gawain.
To give support to the Balaji Temples, Aurangzeb granted eight villages and a substantial amount of tax-free land to Manet Balk Dis Nirvana of Chiara Coot in 1691. Furthermore, he presented rent-free land to Rang Baht, a Brahmin, son of Nev Baht, in 1698 in eastern Pradesh in Central India.
By the same token, Aurangzeb's policies toward Jain religious institutions also follow similar suit. To follow Akbar’s footprints, he allotted land at Sharon Jay, Gin, and Mount Abu for particular Jain communities which were their pilgrimage location in Gujarat in the late 1650s. A Jain monk, Lav Vijay, was not only granted a monastery (Oshawa) in early 1681 but also provided a resting house for comfort and relief in 1679.
In 1703, to prevent harassment of Gina Chandra Siri, a Jain religious scholar, Aurangzeb forbids the people from any such wrongdoing through dictation. Having said that, it is beyond the contradiction that we find the Jain works favoring the emperor ruler and describing him in words, such as:
"Aurangzeb Shah is a brave and powerful king."
According to Richard Eaton, a prominent figure pertaining to that subject maintained that during the regime of Aurangzeb the number of temples destruction has remained just over a dozen.
The question originates why Aurangzeb demolished some temples' out of tens of thousands?
A political motive was prevalent behind these temples' destruction between both Hindus and Muslims. In the sixth century, the Sanskrit Bihar Amrita in his writing warns:
The demolition of the king and his territory will be caused is a Shiva Lina image, or temple breaks apart, moves, sweats, cries, speaks, or otherwise acts with no obvious cause.
Having aware of political power stronghold on the religious arena in the earlier seventh century, Hindu kings brazenly targeted each other temples by plundering and tarnishing the image of Durga Ganesha, Vishnu, and many more. Hence, they sporadically demolished one another’s temples.
Furthermore, Sanskrit poetry was entitled to glorify and commemorate such actions by some Hindu kings. Aurangzeb, a Muslim ruler, assured that Hindu temples were always subjected to the lawful punishment of the state.
The Hindu-Muslim animosity has its root in history that can trace back to colonial-era and bigotry against Aurangzeb also prescribes the British strategy of divide and rule.
Thus, history is evident of the fact that Aurangzeb was not a destroyer of temples, but an overseer of the Hindu religious community.
You must be logged in to post a comment.