Historian Richard Eaton answers two questions—one on the Islamic encounter with India, another on Aurangzeb
Richard Eaton, Historian,author of India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765
Historian Richard Eaton, author of India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765 and Temple Desecration and Muslim States in Medieval India, is one of the foremost authorities on India before 1800. In an e-mail response to Sunil Menon, he answers two questions—one on the Islamic encounter with India, another on Aurangzeb:
Q. Popular perceptions of Indo-Islamic history have been coloured ever since the colonial British recast it in a singularly negative light. Isn’t the idea of a ‘Thousand Year War’ a serious misreading of how Hinduism and Islam interacted?
As is well known, it was in the British colonial interest to portray their native subjects as “naturally” divided by religion, so as to project the Raj as serenely and impartially above the fray. It also served their interests to contrast their own claims of justice and efficiency to the alleged bigotry and despotism of their immediate predecessors, that is, the Mughals and “Muslim” dynasties generally. Later, it became routine for Indians to explain—and for Pakistanis to justify—the 1947 Partition by, among other things, projecting deep into the past the idea of homogenised and self-aware Muslim and Hindu communities that had “always” been in mutual conflict.
But such a notion reads history backwards, and is refuted by contemporary evidence dating from the Turkish conquest of north India in the twelfth century. Sanskrit inscriptions typically identified those from beyond the Khyber by their linguistic identity (i.e., “Turushka”) and not as Muslims, suggesting that they were not seen as posing any civilisational break with earlier Indian dynasties. To the contrary, preambles to Sanskrit inscriptions, as well as Mughal chronicles authored by Hindus and Muslims alike, seamlessly wove Indo-Muslim states into the fabric of India’s political past.
Q. What were the political circumstances that prompted Aurangzeb’s demolition of the old Vishweshwara temple?
Built by Akbar’s general Raja Man Singh, the Vishweshwara temple was patronised in Aurangzeb’s day by the Raja’s descendants, at least one of whom was suspected of having assisted the emperor’s arch-enemy Shivaji escape imperial detention several years before the temple’s demolition in 1669. It is also possible that zamindars in Benares who would later rebel against Mughal authority had helped the fugitive Maratha chieftain when he passed through that region en route to Maharashtra. Finally, in early 1669, the emperor ordered that temples in three Mughal cities be subject to demolition owing to reports that Brahmins in “established schools” were giving deviant teachings to both Hindus and Muslims. Of these cities, Benares was singled out as being of special concern.
In pre-colonial India it was customary to punish state servants who, having once submitted to state authority, rose up in rebellion. If those servants patronised a temple, or were even affiliated with one, not only would they be personally liable for punishment, but so would the temple. Such institutions were considered state property to be protected or even supported when their patrons were loyal, but liable for desecration should the latter revolt or commit infractions considered especially egregious.