Thus, it is gathered from a contemporary source that no sooner had Aurangzeb ascended the throne than he started harassing the Hindus by imposing taxes and demolishing temples. It is corroborated by his iconoclastic activities in 1661 and 1662 A.D. In 1661 the famous temple of Kuch Bihar was razed to ground and in its place a mosque was built. In 1661-62 Abdul Nabi, faujdar of Mathura, destroyed a Hindu temple and constructed a mosque on its site. Therefore, there should be no surprize that Fedai Khan demolished the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D.

The Jum’a Masjid at Irach (in Bundelkhand) is assigned to Aurangzeb’s reign. It is said to be built of materials taken from a Hindu temple. While passing through Udaipur in Bundelkhand (about 1681) Aurangzeb is said to have ordered the Saiva temple there to be demolished. The orders were however modified and the temple was converted into a mosque. The temples at Gayaspur near Bhilsa and the temple of Khaundai Rao in Gujarat were also destroyed.

Aurangzeb’s religious policy had created a division in the Indian society. Communal antagonisms resulted in communal riots at Banaras, Narnaul (1672) and Gujarat (1681) where Hindus, in retaliation, destroyed mosques. Temples were destroyed in Marwar after 1678 and in 1680-81, 235 temples were destroyed in Udaipur. Prince Bhim of Udaipur retaliated by attacking Ahmadnagar and demolishing many mosques, big and small, there. Similarly, there was opposition to destruction of temples in the Amber territory, which was friendly to the Mughals. Here religious fairs continued to be held and idols publicly worshipped even after the temples had been demolished.64 In the Deccan the same policy was pursued with the same reaction. In April 1694, the imperial censor had tried to prevent public idol worship in Jaisinghpura near Aurangabad. The Vairagi priests of the temple were arrested but were soon rescued by the Rajputs.65 Aurangzeb destroyed temples throughout the country. He destroyed the temples at Mayapur (Hardwar) and Ayodhya, but “all of them are thronged with worshippers, even those that are destroyed are still venerated by the Hindus and visited by the offering of alms.” Sometimes he was content with only closing down those temples that were built in the midst of entirely Hindu population, and his officers allowed the Hindus to take back their temples on payment of large sums of money. “In the South, where he spent the last twenty-seven years of his reign, Aurangzeb was usually content with leaving many Hindu temples standing… in the Deccan where the suppression of rebellion was not an easy matter… But the discontent occasioned by his orders could not be thus brought to an end.” Hindu resistance to such vandalism year after year and decade after decade throughout the length and breadth of the country can rather be imagined than described.

In the ninth year a magnificent temple built by Bir Singh Bundela at Urchha was destroyed during the course of military ; operations against Jujuhar Singh Bundela. Several other temples suffered the same fate or were converted into mosques. When the ' fort of Khata Kheri was conquered and taken from its Bhil ruler Bhaglrath in 1632, Muslim rites were performed there just as had happened in the temple of Kangra on its conquest by Jahangir. The fort of Dhamuni under Jujuhar Singh was similarly desecrated in A.D. 1644-45 (1045 a.h.). Earlier, in a.d. 1630-31 (1040 a.h.) when Abdal, the Hindu chief of Hargaon in the province of Allahabad, rebelled, most of the temples in the state were either demolished or converted into mosques. Idols were burnt. Prince Aurangzeb while viceroy of Gujarat (February, 1645 to January, 1647) was responsible for the demolition of several temples. In Ahmedabad and elsewhere in Gujarat and Maharashtra many temples were destroyed, among them being the temple of Khandai Rai at Satara, and the temple of Ghintaman close to Sarashpur. Probably after Aurangzeb’s departure in 1647 many of these temples were again taken possession of by the Hindus.

...demolition of Hindu temples remained Aurangzeb’s pastime during his long campaign in the South... That was in 1687 AD. In 1690 AD, he ordered destruction of temples at Ellora, Trimbakeshwar, Narasinghpur, and Pandharpur. In 1698 AD, the story was repeated at Bijapur.

The question then arises as to who demolished the temple, if any, and built the mosque. All the three major Hindu shrines at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvāra, Tretā Kā Thākura and Janma-sthána temples were intact during the entire Sultanate period and the major part of the Mughal rule. But they could not survive after the accession of Aurangzeb to the Delhi throne in 1658 A.D.There are many evidences to prove that the Svargadvāra temple was demolished by Aurangzeb when Fedai Khan was Governor there. Fedai Khan was the Governor of Oudh twice; first in 1658-1662 A.D. and thereafter in 1669-1670 A.D. (...) the temples at Ayodhyā were razed to ground during the first stint of Fedai Khan. The demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque on the Janma-sthána site during the reign of Aurangzeb was known to the general public till 1813-14 A.D. when Buchanan made the survey and was misled by a claimed inscription which was not properly examined by him.

Fedai Khan, who was Aurangzeb’s foster brother and favourite on account of Fedai’s unflinching support to him in the war against Dara and his worthy son Sulaiman Shukoh, was made Governor of Ayodhyā in August 1658 and it was Fedai Khan who demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvārī, Tretā Kā Thākura and Rāma-janma-bhūmi temples and built mosques at all the three places. Svargadvari temple’s demolition by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Joseph Tieffenthaler, C. Mentelle, Mirza Jan and many subsequent Muslim authors. The demolition of Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Tieffenthaler (1670 A.D.), Mentelle (1800 A.D.) and J.R. M’culloch (1842 A.D.). The perception that Aurangzeb demolished Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was prevalent during the visit of Buchanan also.

Unfortunately, if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed' by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzebe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Bena- res and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill founded. The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is as- certained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given) to have been built by Babur, five generations before Aurungzebe.

Aurangzeb’s dealings with the Rathors of Jodhpur resulted in the Rajput War. Udaipur offered unique opportunities for harassing the Mughals. The Maharana fled to his mountains leaving Udaipur to pass into the hands of the Mughals, The royal temple in front of the palace was destroyed. When Aurangzeb visited Udai Sagar on 24 January, 1680, he ordered that the three temples that were standing on the edge of the lake be demolished. On 29 January, it was reported that the number of temples destroyed in and around Udaipur (of course including the four already mentioned) was 172. Aurangzeb’s visit to Chitor on 22 February, 1680, was followed by the destruction of 63 temples there. Thus in the state of Udaipur alone 235 temples were reported to have been destroyed. These probably did not include the temple at Somesvara in Western Mewar.

After initially denying that there was even a temple at the site, contesting that it was not even Aurangzeb who got this temple demolished, and even denying the legitimacy of the Masir-i-Alamgiri, the plaintiff side tried other tactics to deflect the issue. In the process, they ended up exposing the demolition of so many temples by Aurangzeb that it contradicted their original claims, and also those of Faruki in his hagiographical account that Aurangzeb was a very tolerant and inclusive ruler. For instance, the plaintiffs argued that there was another temple on the banks of the Ganga called Madhodaska Dharahara, which too was demolished by Aurangzeb in his time and a mosque with high minarets constructed over it. The Muslim side argued that it is possible that it was this temple that might have been the one spoken about in Masir-i-Alamgiri.

What are the facts? The official court chronicle, Maasir-i-Alamgiri, fills many pages with items like this “His majesty proceeded to Chitor on the 1st of Safar. Temples to the number of sixty-three were here demolished. Abu Tarab, who had been commissioned to effect the destruction of the idol temples in Amber, reported in person on the 24th Rajab, that threescore and six of these edifices had been levelled with the ground.”2 It says in so many words that Aurangzeb “ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices”. Moreover, it records: “Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed”, etc. Aurangzeb’s supposed intolerance can be deduced from his actual policies, known to us through his own chronicles as well as other sources. ...About Benares/Varanasi, we learn from the Maasir-i-Alamgiri: “News came to court that in accordance with the Emperor’s command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras”.

The chief temples destroyed by King Aurangzeb within his kingdom were the following: Maisa (? Mayapur), Matura (Mathura), Caxis (Kashi), Hajudia (Ajudhya), and an infinite number of others ; but, not to tire the reader, I do not append their names.

Soon, however, Aurangzeb began to act even without the provocation of military necessity. The temple of Somnath was destroyed early in his reign.* This seems to have been one of the results of the order sent to his officials in Gujarat dated 20 November, 1665, Aurangzeb gave directions for the destruction of such temples in Gujarat as had at one time been destroyed or desecrated by him as the prince viceroy of Gujarat but had later on been resumed by the Hindus. It is difficult to understand why these temples in Gujarat were singled out for attack. Aurangzeb probably felt that he was thus initiating no new policy, but simply carrying out Shah Jahan ’s original policy which had been later reversed.

Aurangzeb destroyed the temples at Mayapur (Hard war) and Ayodhya. ‘All of them are thronged ' with worshippers, even those that are destroyed are all venerated by the Hindus and visited by the offering of alms.