Presentation on Richard Eaton\'s paper on Temple desecration on Indo-Muslim states PDF

Preview

Summary

I have attached the notes of my presentation on Richard Eaton's paper on Temple desecration in Indo-Muslim states. Clarifies why this practice was undertaken, while giving political context for why this remains a contentious issue in South Asia....

Description

Presentation on the Temple Desecration in Indo-Muslim States - Richard Eaton Section 1:

Slide 1: Temple desecration, or the destruction of temples, remains a politically charged topic to this day.

Slide 2: there was this Babri Masjid controversy. the controversy is that there is a believed to be temple in Ayodhya which was allegedly destroyed under the Mughal Rule and the babri Masjid mosque was made on top of it. so this Temple is alleged to be a Hindu temple, and is thought to be very important to Hindus because the city this where this Temple was situated, is the birthplace of a prominent Hindu deity-- Lord Ram Slide 3: in the 1990s the BJP, a Hindu nationalist party which is currently in power started to gain more traction and Hindu nationalionalists destroyed the babri Masjid. Slide 4: Now, A temple for Lord ROM is being built here. so this trend of Hindus alleging destruction of temples by Muslim rulers has been a contentious Topic in a country divided by sectarian tensions.

Slide 5: this paper looks at weather temples were desecrated, who desecrated them and for what purpose This is especially important to understand because the British framed Indian history to depict Muslim rulers as cruel and oppressive. The British argued that Hindus were discriminated against under the Muslim rulers of India, where their Muslim rulers massacred them, destroyed their temples and confiscated their idols. in this way, the British intended to delegitimize Indo Muslim rulers who had preceded English rule.

Section 2: Slide 6 :  Persianianized Turks systemically raided South Asia, sacked temples and Hauled immense loads of movable property to power bases Eastern Afghanistan. similarly subsequent invasions seem to appear to be undertaken for material reasons. the early Ghaznavid rulers raided and looted Indian cities, including their richly endowed temples which were loaded with movable wealth. So, this endeavors helped them finance their larger political objectives. Section 3: Slide 7:



Clearly we see a link between Muslim monarchs and the Sufi Sheikh or fakir

   

for example, Chishtis were most closely identified with political fortunes of Indo Muslim states In this way shrines and tombs were patronized by Indo Muslim rulers in the same way that they were frequented by Muslim devotees a ruling dynasties patronage of Chisthi shrines could bolster its claims to being both legitimately Islamic and authentically Indian We see that Mughal rulers often seek the blessings of Chishti shaikhs, because they believed it underpinned is their worldly success

Section 4: Slide 8:



A lot of times, the legitimacy of Hindu rulers was associated with a royal Temple, who h typically housed the image of the ruling dynasties “State Deity”. these State deities were usually either Vishnu or Shiva. so when another ruler conquered the territory, they also looted destroyed or redefined any temples that were associated with the glory of the king or Raja. it's also important to remember that these Grand buildings were often built as status symbols, demonstrating the power of the king or emperor and so destroying them is symbolically destroying the Emperor as well.



temples that didn't carry the symbolic meaning usually weren't destroyed because there was no need to commit this symbolic Act. for example, this is the case with the cultural Temple in South which was abandoned by the Candela Royal patrons before it Turkish armies reach the sea in the 13th century.



Attacks on images or idols patronized by enemy Kings would be susceptible to attack ,and this behavior was integral to Indian political Behavior. In this way, Royal Temple complexes weren't just religious places--they were political institutions. It is also important to remember that Temples were attributed to having special relationships to the particular geographical site they were located in. Temple narratives do show that even physically removing the image or Idol from its original site could not break the link between the deity and the geography that they were found in .



In this way Temple desecration happens in instances of inter dynastic conflicts. Unlike how many understand temple descration, it didn't just occur across religious lines.



temples become natural sites for the contestation of kingly authority even before Muslim Turks even come to India. When Turkish Invaders did come, they also started engaging in these established patterns of the subcontinent.



We cannot ascertain the number of temples that were desecrated. While Hindu Nationals claimed that 60,000 temples had been desecrated by Muslim ruler, the evidence found spanning more than five centuries only identifies 80 such Temple desecrations.



Firstly, Temple desecration was carried out by ruling authorities or Military Officers.



We also see instances where the need for wealth drives Temple desecration, and Temples serve as a source for plunder. We also see Temple desecration happens when newly emerging successor States sought to expand their own political Frontiers in areas, which is reflected in instances of Temple desecration in those areas



It is also interesting that we don't see Temple desecration in North India by the mughals under babur and Akbar because they grew at the expense of defeated of afghans, while in South India Muslim rulers had been expanding at the expense of non-muslim states.



However, whenever Mughal armies pushed beyond the frontiers of territories formerly ruled by the Delhi sultans and sought to annex the domains of Hindu rulers, we again find instances of temple desecration.



All of these instances of temple desecration occurred in the context of military conflicts when Indo-Muslim states expanded into the domains of non-Muslim rulers. Form of desecration. Showed the most continuity with pre Turkish practice was the seizure of the image of a defeated Kings stay Daddy and it's abduction to the victor’s capital as a trophy of war



Section 5: Slide 9:

    

so now, Trying to answer the question-- what happened once the land and the subjects those enemies were integrated into an Indo- Muslim state? According to time-honored traditions of Islam and Indian statecraft, these temples that laid within States were left unharmed. we see that from Akbar’s time, Mughal Emperors treated temples within their Sovereign domain as State Property, and undertook Measures to protect the physical structures and their Brahmin functionaries. We also see that moguls deeply patronized Indian religions. Akbar allowed high-ranking rajput officers to build their own Monumental temples in their provinces Even Aurangzeb, who remains a controversial figure in India, protected brahmins or other Hindus of the region.

Section 6: Slide 10:

  

Similarly, indo- Muslim rulers were very aware Politico and religiously charged relationship between a royal Hindu Patron and his client Temple. Thus, when a non Muslim officer showed signs of disloyalty or engaged in open Rebellion, the state often desecrated the temple clearly identified with that officer. evidence suggests that ruling authorities attacked public monuments like mosques or Sufi shrines, patronized by disloyal or rebellious officers. However, disloyalty could demote in rant or be punished by as execution.

Section 7, Slide 11:   

It is also important to note shrines had very different political meanings than Royal temples in Hindu States. monuments or shrines were not seen as underpinning the authority of a Indo-muslim King. mosques in India were considered detached from sovereign Authority and were thus politically inactive

Section 8: Slide 12     

We often see temple desecration Being Framed as indiscriminate indulgences and religious fanaticism. if this was the case, Muslims in India would be destroying temples everywhere, including ordinary Village temples. However, we see that Temple desecration was highly selective. This is because Temple desecration was pragmatic and non-ideological. The misunderstanding about Temple desecration in Indian history results from a failure to distinguish rhetoric from practice of indo-Muslims states. in this way Temple desecration was an Indian political practice....