Few issues in Indian history evoke stronger emotions than the destruction of temples during the medieval period. Yet the more one studies the evidence, the more one realises that the history of temples in medieval India cannot be separated from politics.
The central problem lies in the way temples are viewed today. Modern Indians regard temples primarily as places of worship. In medieval India, however, temples were much more than that. They were centres of wealth, major landholders, repositories of royal donations, employers of large numbers of people, and symbols of dynastic legitimacy. A royal temple was often inseparable from the authority of the ruler who patronised it. To attack such a temple was therefore not merely a religious act; it was often a political statement.
This insight lies at the heart of the work of historians such as Mohammad Habib, D N Jha, Richard Eaton, Irfan Habib, and Tarapada Mukherjee whose scholarship has done much to move the discussion beyond modern polemics.
Hindu rulers raided temples too
Take the case of Mahmud of Ghazni. Historian Mohammad Habib has argued that the Ghaznavid ruler governed a militarised state in Afghanistan and eastern Iran that depended upon a large professional army. Such armies required money, and Indian temples held enormous quantities of accumulated wealth.
D N Jha adds another important dimension to the debate by drawing attention to the question of agency. Historical memory often focuses exclusively on the conqueror while overlooking the role of local actors. Yet medieval invasions rarely succeeded through military force alone. They depended upon local allies, rival chiefs, political informants and factions willing to cooperate with invading powers for their own reasons. The stories of Somnath temple to Buddhist monasteries of eastern India, such as Nalanda, Vikramashila and Odantapuri, therefore cannot be understood simply as a confrontation between an external invader and a passive society.
Perhaps the most significant contribution to the debate comes from Richard Eaton’s demonstration that temple desecration was not unique to Muslim rulers. Long before the arrival of the Turks, Indian kings frequently targeted temples associated with rival dynasties. Pallavas carried away Chalukyan images. Rashtrakutas seized sacred icons from conquered territories. Cholas transported images from defeated kingdoms to their own capitals as trophies of victory. Temples represented sovereignty and attacking them symbolised the transfer of power.
None of this justifies temple destruction, but it does place it within a wider historical context. The logic was often political rather than purely theological.
The Delhi Sultanate illustrates this pattern clearly. The available evidence suggests that temple destruction was neither universal nor random. It occurred primarily on military frontiers where new states were being established and rival ruling houses displaced. Temples associated with defeated dynasties were particularly vulnerable because they embodied the legitimacy of those dynasties. Temples lacking such political significance were often left untouched.
The same rulers who destroyed certain temples also patronised saints and sought legitimacy through religious institutions rooted in the Indian landscape.
Mughals and temples
The Mughal period further demonstrates this. Under Akbar, imperial policy moved decisively towards accommodation and integration. Documentary evidence from the Braj region, studied by Irfan Habib and Tarapada Mukherjee, shows that Akbar granted land to temples, protected temple properties and incorporated major religious institutions into the imperial system. The celebrated temples of Vrindavan flourished under Mughal patronage.
This support was not merely a matter of personal tolerance; it was also politically sensible. Temples commanded wealth, influence and social authority. By patronising them, Akbar strengthened his relationship with Rajput rulers, merchant groups and local elites.
Jahangir and Shah Jahan broadly continued these policies, although both rulers also sanctioned the destruction of temples associated with political rebellion.
No ruler better illustrates this complexity than Aurangzeb. There is no denying that some of the most famous temple demolitions in Indian history occurred during his reign. The destruction of the Keshav Rai temple at Mathura in 1670 and the Vishwanath temple at Banaras in 1669 remains an undeniable fact. Yet these actions cannot be understood outside their political context.
The Mathura region had become deeply troubled by unrest, including the Jat and Satnami uprisings. The destruction of the Keshav Rai temple followed closely upon these disturbances and formed part of a broader attempt to reassert imperial authority in a politically volatile region.
Similarly, in Rajasthan, temples associated with the Rathore kingdom of Marwar became targets only after the rebellion that followed the death of Jaswant Singh. So long as the Rathores remained loyal allies of the Mughal state, their religious establishments remained undisturbed. Conflict appeared when questions of sovereignty and succession brought the region into open confrontation with the empire.
The Banaras case is equally revealing. Earlier Mughal rulers had extended protection to the city’s temples, and Aurangzeb himself initially confirmed grants to several religious establishments. The crisis arose when influential circles associated with the Vishwanath temple were suspected of involvement with political elements linked to Dara Shukoh and other opponents of the emperor.
None of this means that religion played no role in Aurangzeb’s policies. Unlike Akbar, he consciously projected himself as a ruler guided by Islamic legal principles and often framed his actions in religious language. Yet the overall pattern suggests that political calculations remained central. Temples associated with rebellion, sedition or rival centres of authority were vulnerable. Many others continued to receive protection and patronage.
The broader lesson is that medieval Indian rulers did not view temples simply as places of worship. They viewed them as institutions of power. Temples accumulated wealth, controlled land, commanded loyalties and symbolised political legitimacy. These reasons contributed to making them objects of patronage or targets of conquest.
Neither Akbar (right) nor Aurangzeb was acting out of tolerance or bigotry alone when dealing with temples. (Photos: Wikimedia Commons) 
Share
