One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr Pande unravelled the reason for it. '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 journey on the palkis [palanquins]. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja [worship] 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 this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh [the elephant-headed god 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 Vishwanath's seat.'
RE:LIES AGAINST EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:14 PM Permalink
Why did Aurangzeb Demolish the Kashi Vishvanath?
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 %u201Cliberated%u201D from Islamic %u201Coccupation%u201D: 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%u2019s agenda. Therefore, some authors have tried to %u201Cdo an Ayodhya%u201D 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 %u201Cpulling down a place of worship to construct a mosque is against the Shariat%u201D; claims to the contrary are all %u201Cchauvinist propaganda.%u201D Arun Shourie has confronted this claim with the information given in the official court chronicle, Maasiri Alamgiri, which records numerous orders for and reports of destructions of temples. Its entry for 2 September 1669 tells us: %u201CNews came to court that in accordance with the Emperor%u2019s command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras%u201D . 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: %u201CAurangzeb%u2019s 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.%u201D 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%u2019s 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: %u201Cthe 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 nexu
