Aurangazeb and Kashi temple

[Guest guest]

Why did Aurangzeb Demolish the Kashi Vishvanath

by Koenraad Elst

 

During the Ayodhya controversy, there were occasional

statements in the

Hindutva camp confirming (VHP) or denying (BJP) that

apart from Ram

Janmabhoomi, two other sacred sites should also be

"liberated" from

Islamic "occupation": Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura and

Kashi Vishvanath

in Varanasi. Though the Hindu business community in

central Varanasi has

made it clear that it refuses to suffer the inevitable

losses which would

accompany an agitation in their densely populated

neighbourhood, the

liberation of Kashi Vishvanath is still on the VHP's

agenda. Therefore,

some authors have tried to "do an Ayodhya" on Kashi,

viz. try to make

people believe that there never was a Hindu temple at

the disputed site.

 

Syed Shahabuddin asserts that Muslims cannot possibly

have destroyed any

Hindu temple, because "pulling down a place of worship

to construct a

mosque is against the Shariat"; claims to the contrary

are all "chauvinist

propaganda" (1); Arun Shourie has confronted this claim

with the

information given in the official court chronicle,

MaasiriAlamgiri, which

records numerous orders for and reports of destructions

of temples. Its

entry for 2 September 1669 tells us: "News came to court

that in

accordance with the Emperor's command his officers had

demolished the

temple of Vishvanath at Banaras".(2); Moreover, till

today, the old Kashi

Vishvanath temple wall is visible as a part of the walls

of the Gyanvapi

mosque which Aurangzeb had built at the site.

 

In the face of such direct testimony, it is wiser not to

challenge facts

headon. It is better to minimize or to justify them.

Thus, Percival Spear,

co-author (with Romila Thapar) of the prestigious

Penguin History of

India, writes: "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is

little more than a

hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the

erection of a mosque on

a temple site in Benares.(3); But a perusal of the same

Moghul chronicle

thoroughly refutes this reassuring assertion: Aurangzeb

had thousands of

temples destroyed. And other chronicles, diaries and

other documents

concerning Muslim rulers in India prove that the

practice was not a

personal idiosyncrasy of Aurangzeb's either.

 

Therefore, a more promising way of defusing the conflict

potential which

the mosque at the Kashi Vishvanath site carries, is to

justify the

replacement of the temple with a mosque. Maybe the

owners and users of the

temple had brought it on themselves? Maybe Islam can be

disentangled from

this act of destruction in favour of a purely secular

motive?

 

JNU historian Prof. K.N. Panikkar offers one way out:

"the destruction of

the temple at Banaras also had political motives. It

appears that a nexus

between the sufi rebels and the pandits of the temple

existed and it was

primarily to smash this nexus that Aurangzeb ordered

action against the

temple(4); The eminent historian quotes no source for

this strange

allegation. In those days, Pandits avoided to even talk

with Mlecchas, let

alone to concoct intrigues with them.

 

Other secularists have spread a more sophisticated

variation, now

regularly reproduced in the media: "Did Muslim rulers

destroy temples?

Some of them certainly did. Following the molestation of

a local princess

by some priests in a temple at Benaras, Aurangzeb

ordered the total

destruction of the temple and rebuilt it at a nearby

site. And this is the

only temple he is believed to have destroyed.(5) This

story is now

repeated ad nauseam, not only in the extremist Muslim

press and in the

secularist press but also in academic platforms by

"eminent historians".

It is repeated with approval by historian Gargi

Chakravartty, who also

reveals the source of this story.

 

She introduces the quotation as follows: "Much has been

said about

Aurangzeb's demolition order of Vishwanath temple at

Banaras. But

documentary evidence gives a new dimension to the whole

episode:" (6) What

follows is the theory launched by B.N. Pande, working

chairman of the

Gandhi Darshan Samiti and former Governor of Orissa:

 

"The story regarding demolition of Vishvanath temple is

that while

Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to

Bengal, the Hindu Rajas

in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a

day, their Ranis

may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay

their homage to Lord

Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. Army pickets were

posted on the five

mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made a journey on the

Palkis. They took

their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath

temple to pay their

homage. After offering Puja all the Ranis returned

except one, the

Maharani of Kutch.

 

"A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but

the Rani was to be

found nowhere. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he was

very much

enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the

Rani. Ultimately,

they found that the statue of Ganesh which was fixed in

the wall was a

moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a

flight of stairs that

led to the basement. To their horror, they found the

missing Rani

dishonoured and crying, deprived of all her ornaments.

The basement was

just beneath Lord Jagannath's seat. The Rajas expressed

their vociferous

protests. As the crime was heinous, the Rajas demanded

exemplary action.

Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been

despoiled, Lord

Vishvanath may be moved to some other place, the temple

be razed to the

ground and the Mahant be arrested and punished.(7);

 

The story is very bizarre, to say the least. First of

all, it has

Aurangzeb go to Bengal. Yet, in the extant histories of

his life and

works, no such journey to Bengal, or even any journey as

far east as

Varanasi, is recorded. Some of his generals were sent on

expeditions to

Bengal, but not Aurangzeb himself. There are fairly

complete chronicles of

his doings, day by day; could B.N. Pande or any of his

quoters give the

date or even the year of this remarkable episode?

 

Neither was Aurangzeb known to surround himself with

Hindu courtiers. And

did these Rajas take their wives along on military

expeditions? Or was it

some holiday picnic? How could the Mahant kidnap a Rani

who was there in

the company of other Ranis, as well as the appropriate

courtiers and

bodyguards? Why did he take such risk? Why did the

"Rajas" wait for

Aurangzeb to take "exemplary action": did they fear his

anger if they

punished the priests or destroyed the temple themselves?

And since when is

demolition the approved method of purifying a defiled

temple, an

eventuality for which the Shâstras have laid down due

ritual procedures?

 

One question which we can readily answer is, where did

B.N. Pande get this

story from? He himself writes: "Dr. Pattabhi

Sitaramayya, in his famous

book The Feathers and the Stones has narrated this fact

based on

documentary evidence.(8) So, we have to go one more step

back in time to

find this intriguing "documentary evidence". Let us turn

to this book, now

hard to find, to see what the documentary evidence is on

which this whole

wave of pro Aurangzeb rumours is based, but which no one

has cared to

reproduce or even just specify. This is what Gandhian

Congress leader

Pattabhi Sitaramayya wrote in his prison diary:

 

"There is a popular belief that Aurangazeb was a bigot

in religion. This,

however, is combated by a certain school. His bigotry is

illustrated by

one or two instances. The building of a mosque over the

site of the

original Kasi Visveswara Temple is one such. A like

mosque in Mathura is

another. The revival of Jazia is a third but of a

different order. A story

is told in extenuation of the first event.

 

"In the height of his glory, Aurangazeb like any foreign

king in a

country, had in his entourage a number of Hindu nobles.

They all set out

one day to see the sacred temple of Benares. Amongst

them was a Ranee of

Cutch. When the party returned after visiting the

Temple, the Ranee of

Cutch was missing. They searched for her in and out,

East, North, West and

South but no trace of her was noticeable. At last, a

more diligent search

revealed a Tah Khana or an underground storey of the

temple which to all

appearances had only two storeys. When the passage to it

was found barred,

they broke open the doors and found inside the pale

shadow of the Ranee

bereft of her jewellery.

 

"It turned out that the Mahants were in the habit of

pick ing out wealthy

and bejewelled pilgrims and in guiding them to see the

temple, decoying

them to the underground cellar and robbing them of their

jewellery. What

exactly would have happened to their life one did not

know. Anyhow in this

case, there was no time for mischief as the search was

diligent and

prompt. On discovering the wickedness of the priests,

Aurangazeb declared

that such a scene of robbery could not be the House of

God and ordered it

to be forthwith demolished. And the ruins were left

there.

 

"But the Ranee who was thus saved insisted on a Musjid

being built on the

ruined and to please her, one was subsequently built.

That is how a Musjid

has come to exist by the side of the Kasi Visweswar

temple which is no

temple in the real sense of the term but a humble

cottage in which the

marble Siva Linga is housed. Nothing is known about the

Mathura Temple.

 

"This story of the Benares Musjid was given in a rare

manuscript in

Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla

who had read it

in the Ms. and who though he promised to look it up and

give the Ms. to a

friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without

fulfilling his

promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we

are told, against

Aurangazeb persists.(9)

 

So now, we finally know where the story comes from: an

unnamed mullah

friend of an unnamed acquaintance of Sitaram ayya's knew

of a manuscript,

the details of which he took with him in his grave. This

is the "document"

on which secularist journalists and historians base

their "evidence" of

Aurangzeb's fair and secularist disposition, overruling

the evidence of

archaeology and the cold print of the MaasiriAlamgiri,

to "explode the

myth" of Islamic iconoclasm spread by the "chauvinist"

Hindutva

propagandists.(10) Now you just try to imagine what the

secularists and

their mouthpieces in Western academe would say if Hindus

offered evidence

of this quality.

 

©Koenraad Elst , 1999

[vullaganti_india 0]

bull shit

[Kali_Upasaka 1]

Talking about Kashi temple, did any one wonder why Rani Ahilya Bayi Holkar ( who constructed the present temple) did not demolish the mosque and construct the temple in its original place? The Mahrattas were ruling Kashi at that time. The nominal King was the King of Kashi who was a Hindu.

 

It is because she was a devout Hindu who went by the Sasthras. The Sasthras lay down clearly where a temple can be constructed. Once a mosque is constructed in a place, it becomes polluted and no temple can be constructed in that place. That is the reason why the temple was constructed in a nearby site.

 

BTW the Mahrattas constructed the Annapurna temple also. Though the rulers were Mahrattas, the real power was with the Peshvas who were Brahmins.

 

Rani Ahilya Bayi Holkar also constructed a new temple at Somnath.

[Durgaputra 1]

Indian communist historians and their western masters agreeing on doing in Indians- surprised ? This has been what they specialise in since 1935. JNU is a hotbed of these fifth columnists and their so called intelligencia.

[angelic_devil 0]

crap no hindu queen will ever say demolish temple n build a mosque .

[Kali_Upasaka 1]

Aurangazeb also destroyed the ancient Bindu Madhav temple which was the highest spot in Kasi and constructed a mosque in its place. But then the temples of Banares have been destroyed by all Muslim invaders. This article gives a brief history of Banares.

 

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/concepts/kasi.asp

 

We find in history instances where a particular Muslim ruler patronized a temple and then later destroyed it.

 

A lot of research has been done about this. Many of these are not known outside the academic circles.

 

The main cause of the destruction of the temple was not religion but the wealth accumulated by the temples. It is the legendary wealth of the Somanath and Bajreswari temples which led to Muslim marauders coming from Afghanistan.

 

The local Muslim rulers also had another reason. Temples were the meeting place of the people. When a group of people hostile to the ruler gathered, they could plot against the ruler. This could be called political reason.

 

It is a combination of religious, economic and political factors.

 

In the case of Aurangzeb, he inherited a bankrupt state. Shahjahan had spent huge amount of money in constructing monuments. Aurangzeb also stripped most of the gold covering of Delhi and Agra forts.

 

Again Aurangzeb got the most popular Sufi saint of that time murdered because he thought he could lead an uprising.

 

Aurangzeb had killed his brothers, imprisoned his father to ascend the throne.

 

It is our country's misfortune that Dara Shikoh the brother of Aurangzeb who was Shahjahan's favorite son , and the heir apparent did not become the ruler. Dara Shikoh completed his translation of fifty-two Upanishads in 1657, two years before he was executed.

 

http://www.boloji.com/perspective/327.htm

[Kali_Upasaka 1]

The story on the web site is from M.A. Sherring's book about Banares. Historians and reserch scholars do a lot of research, many of them motivated by the urge to prove something. Political motivations also. They get their work published. But that does not mean it is an incontrovertible fact.

 

I saw a book recently in which the author has tried to prove that Durga is a Vaishnavite deity who evolved from Radha. He has based it on one single sculpture in south India. Interesting read. That is what I would say.

 

Again we have books which claim that Tamilians conquered Polynesia and how Hinduism was the religion of the Aztecs and Incas. Theories abound.

 

Like Erich Von Daniken's books.

 

These are theories. That is all.

[vullaganti_india 0]

If places can be polluted like that, no temple remains for us on our mother land.