From Aurangzeb to Colonial Policy: Temple Desecration and Popular Perception

This dissertation looks at temple desecration during the Mughal period, particularly under Aurangzeb, and during the colonial era. It emphasizes political, economic, and administrative contexts rather than focusing only on religion. The study argues that temple desecration should not be seen just as an act of religious hostility. It must be understood through various interconnected factors like power, sovereignty, urban changes, and regional politics. The first section examines temple desecration under the Mughals, especially during Aurangzeb’s reign, with a focus on Mathura, Banaras, and the Deccan. It shows that the destruction of temples in these areas was influenced by religion, political assertion, administrative strategies, and the economic role of temples. The study also highlights that the Mughal state, including Aurangzeb, provided support and land grants to various temples while many temples continued to operate during his time. This reflects the complicated, dual nature of Aurangzeb’s policies rather than a simple, one-sided story. The second section addresses temple destruction during the colonial period, especially after 1857, a topic that has often been overlooked. It examines how the British impacted temples through urban planning policies, land acquisition, administrative changes, and municipal improvement projects. Unlike the more direct actions related to certain medieval conflicts, colonial interventions often happened through bureaucratic means and the language of clearance and development. The final section explores popular perceptions and collective memory of these events today. It studies how local communities remember temple desecration and how modern media, such as television, cinema, and social media, have shaped and amplified selective historical narratives. The dissertation concludes that temple desecration was a complex historical occurrence influenced by political authority, administrative processes, economic interests, geography, and regional conditions, rather than religion alone.