‘It’s a myth that Muslim rulers destroyed thousands of temples’

Richard Eaton
Richard Eaton, Historian Photo: Ishan Tankha

Richard Eaton is the Wikipedia, the Google and, many would argue, the last word on medieval and Islamic history in India. His bibliography is too vast to list, but the vast repertoire includes Islamic History As Global History, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204­-1760 and Social History of the Deccan, 1300­-1761: Eight Indian Lives. After the destruction of the Babri Masjid and a myriad speculative conversations around how many temples Muslim rulers had destroyed in India, Eaton decided to count. That became a book titled Temple Desecration and Muslim States in Medieval India. In other words, he is the best myth-buster there is and that’s precisely what he did to the audiences at THiNK. Eaton explains why it’s crucial today for us to get our history right. Especially on the period he writes about.


You are now working on a magnum-opus history of medieval India, often construed as ‘the Muslim period’. Can you explain why the descriptor ‘Muslim period’ doesn’t work for you?
The book I’m working on now is called The Lion and the Lotus. The lion represents Persia and the Lotus, India. It’s the story of two intersecting megapolises — Persian and Sanskrit. The idea is to escape the trap of looking at this period as the endless and dreary chapter of Hindu-Muslim interaction, if not conflict, which is the conventional and historically wrong approach.

Can you explain why this is historically wrong?
Because religion is anachronistic. Contemporary evidence does not support the assumption that religion was the primary sign or indicator of cultural identity. That is a back projection from the 19th and 20th centuries, which is not justified by the evidence. For example, a word that was typically used to describe rulers who came from beyond the Khyber Pass was not ‘musalmaan’ but rather Turushka or Turk. An ethnic, not religious, identity. What’s fascinating is that the early Turkish rulers, the Ghaznavids, began as foreigners and conquerors; over time, they were behaving more and more like Rajput dynasties. Like Mahmud of Ghazni, for instance. He took the basic credo of Islam — “There is no god but Allah” — translated that into Sanskrit and put it down on the coinage to be freely minted in north-western India. It was an attempt to take Arabic words and structure them into Sanskrit vocabulary. This is a history of assimilation and not imposition. In Vijayanagar in the Deccan, you will find that most of the government buildings were built with arches and domes. You think you are inside a mosque but you are not. Vijayanagar had Hindu kings. This means that the aesthetic vision of Iran has seeped into India so much now that it’s accepted as normal.

What about the masses in this period from 1000 to 1800 AD, who were Hindu?
Okay, let’s talk about ordinary people. You find that languages like Telugu, Bengali, Kannada and Marathi have absorbed a huge amount of Persian vocabulary for everyday concerns. Take another example from the Vijayanagar empire in the south. I talk about south India because that’s where Islam did not have as long a penetration as in the north. The Vijayanagar kings had these long audience halls described as hundred-column and thousand-column palaces — hazaarsatoon. A concept that goes all the way back to Persepolis where you literally do have a hundred columns. You take the floor plan of Persepolis, Iran, in the 4th century BC, which is pre-Islamic, and place it side by side with the floor plan of a palace at Vijayanagar. It’s exactly the same. Neither was built by Muslims. Persepolis was built by Zoroastrians in the 3rd or 4th century BC. And Vijayanagar was built by Hindus in the 14th century AD. Neither has anything to do with religion, but both have everything to do with power. It’s like the present day spread of Coca Cola or Tuborg beer. It’s aspirational but not religious. And it all happens over a period of time.

Which is why you also don’t like the use of the word ‘conversions’ for this period? You say conversions suggest a pancake-like flip, which is not how Islam spread. What do you mean by that?
I hate the use of the word ‘conversions’. When I was studying the growth of Islam in Punjab, I came across a fascinating text on the Sial community. It traces their history from the 14th to the 19th century. If you look at the names of these people, you will find that the percentage of Arabic names increased gradually between the 14th and 19th centuries. In the early 14th century, they had no Arabic names. By the late 14th century, 5 percent had Arabic names. It’s not until the late 19th century that 100 percent had Arabic names. So, the identification with Islam is a gradual process because the name you give your child reflects your ethos and the cultural context in which you live. The same holds true when you look at the name assigned to god. In the 16th century, the words Muslims in Bengal used for god were Prabhu or Niranjan etc — Sanskrit or Bengali words. It’s not until the 19th century that the word Allah is used. In both Punjab and Bengal, the process of Islamisation is a gradual one. That’s why the word ‘conversion’ is misleading — it connotes a sudden and complete change. All your previous identities are thrown out. That’s not how it happens. When you talk about an entire society, you are talking about a very gradual, glacial experience.

You also examined at length the destruction of temples in this period. What did you find?
The temple discourse is huge in India and this is something that needs to be historicised. We need to look at the contemporary evidence. What do the inscriptions and contemporary chronicles say? What was so striking to me when I went into that project after the destruction of the Babri Masjid was that nobody had actually looked at the contemporary evidence. People were just saying all sorts of things about thousands of temples being destroyed by medieval Muslim kings. I looked at inscriptions, chronicles and foreign observers’ accounts from the 12th century up to the 18th century across South Asia to see what was destroyed and why. The big temples that were politically irrelevant were never harmed. Those that were politically relevant — patronised by an enemy king or a formerly loyal king who becomes a rebel — only those temples are wiped out. Because in the territory that is annexed to the State, all the property is considered to be under the protection of the State. The total number of temples that were destroyed across those six centuries was 80, not many thousands as is sometimes conjectured by various people. No one has contested that and I wrote that article 10 years ago.

Even the history of Aurangzeb, you say, is badly in need of rewriting.
Absolutely. Let’s start with his reputation for temple destruction. The temples that he destroyed were not those associated with enemy kings, but with Rajput individuals who were formerly loyal and then become rebellious. Aurangzeb also built more temples in Bengal than any other Mughal ruler.


  1. The link below helps us in reading the original firmans issued by Aurangzeb


    Pray tell, why should I give more credibility to your gibberish, than the original edicts of Aurangzeb.

  2. We got this author and his/her as tip of the ice berg and we need to trace who are all behind this ‘LIES’ propaganda. Its same old islamic deceptions like TAQIYYA=lie etc to cover up the history.

  3. In the current image of Islam perceived by others, destruction of a temple (or the matter of fact, any place of worship from other religions) should be a glorious issue. If that is true, it has to be documented by those who have destroyed it, and if it is such a glorious thing, such claims would even be exaggerated by the same rulers. Are you aware of such documented evidences? I am simply curious and not taking sides, just want to know the truth.
    Also, Mr Eaton is pointing towards Muslim rule and not Muslim invaders.

  4. “Yet, the numerically most important body of data presented by him concurs neatly with the classic (now dubbed �Hindutva�) account. In his oft-quoted paper �Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim states�, he gives a list of �eighty� cases of Islamic temple destruction. �Only eighty�, is how the secularist history-rewriters render it, but Eaton makes no claim that his list is exhaustive. Moreover, eighty isn�t always eighty.

    Thus, in his list, we find mentioned as one instance: �1094: Benares, Ghurid army�.[1] Did the Ghurid army work one instance of temple destruction? Eaton provides his source and there we read that in Benares, the Ghurid royal army �destroyed nearly one thousand temples, and raised mosques on their foundations�.[2] This way, practically every one of the instances cited by Eaton must be read as actually ten, or a hundred, or as in this case, even a thousand temples destroyed. Even Eaton�s non-exhaustive list, presented as part of �the kind of responsible and constructive discussion that this controversial topic so badly needs�[3], yields the same thousands of temple destructions ascribed to the Islamic rulers in most relevant pre-1989 histories of Islam and in pro-Hindu publications.”

  5. Richard eaton is a “last word” on this matter? You mean he is the latest known liar and apologetic trying to hide the barbaric bloody gory record of Islam in India?

  6. This is what my take is on it:

    1. Many temples were destroyed by Muslim rulers – but not all, the sheer number of temples in India makes it amply clear that it was not at all possible to destroy all temples. But I think, 3,000-5,00 propagated by Hindutvawadis is actually a lower number, it is probably more.

    2. Destruction was very much prevalent during conquests. This is not just an Islamic trend, this happened all over the world. Historically, invaders destroyed the temples of conquered nations to prove the superiority of their Gods, so that the conquered can be subjugated. Romans did it, Greeks did it, Cannites did it, Isrelites did it. At home in India, Hindu/Buddhist kings did such things to prove the superiority of their creed over enemies. In South, shaivites and Vaishnavites did it.

    3. Early Islamic rulers could not have imposed Islam completely, they came with a small invading army, which was sufficient to defeat enemies but not enough to rule countrysides. They were mostly raiding parties, which attacked temples and looted the properties. However, when they stayed on and had to recruit Hindus in their armies, these practices stopped since looting and destruction of Hindu temples would have resulted in mutinies.

  7. I respect Mr Richard Eaton’s scholarship but I am 100% sure that he is totally wrong that ‘It’s A Myth That Muslim Rulers Destroyed Thousands Of Temples’. In time, I hope he will realize his blunder and come clean. In the meanwhile I pray to the gods that they forgive Mr Eaton for his sins.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.