Was Mathura Renamed Islamabad By Bigot Aurangzeb?

Mathura Renamed Islamabad: Aurangzeb’s Attempt to Erase a Sacred Hindu Legacy

The city of Mathura, revered in Hinduism as the birthplace of Lord Krishna, has endured centuries of historical transformation. Among the most controversial episodes in its history was its temporary renaming as “Islamabad” by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. This symbolic act, recorded in Mughal-era chronicles, was part of a broader campaign by Aurangzeb to reshape India’s religious and cultural landscape through Islamic orthodoxy, temple destruction, and repressive policies targeting non-Muslims. Though the name “Islamabad” never gained popular usage or long-term administrative status, its mention in contemporary sources reveals much about the ideological character of Aurangzeb’s rule.

Aurangzeb and His Religious Vision

Aurangzeb Alamgir (r. 1658–1707), the sixth Mughal emperor, is remembered for reversing the syncretic policies of his predecessors like Akbar and Jahangir. His reign marked a period of increased Islamic conservatism, with a notable emphasis on the Sharia and the re-imposition of the jizya tax on non-Muslims in 1679. More significantly, he issued a royal farman (edict) in 1669 directing provincial governors to demolish Hindu temples across the empire.

This was not a sporadic order but a sustained policy. The Keshav Dev temple in Mathura, one of the most sacred sites in Vaishnavism, became a target. Built during the reign of Jahangir by Raja Veer Singh Bundela of Orchha, the temple stood as an architectural and spiritual marvel.

Destruction of the Keshav Dev Temple

In 1669–70, under Aurangzeb’s orders, the Keshav Dev temple was razed, and in its place, a mosque known as the Shahi Eidgah was constructed using materials from the destroyed temple. This demolition was no mere administrative move—it was a theological statement, asserting Islamic supremacy over one of Hinduism’s most sacred cities.

The temple’s destruction is detailed in Maasir-i-Alamgiri, a contemporary Persian chronicle written by Saqi Mustaid Khan, who documented the political and religious policies of Aurangzeb. The text clearly states that after demolishing the temple, the emperor ordered the construction of a mosque and renamed the city as Islamabad.

The Renaming to Islamabad

The decision to rename Mathura as Islamabad is explicitly noted in Persian administrative documents and court histories of Aurangzeb’s reign. The name “Islamabad,” which translates to “City of Islam,” was ideologically motivated, reflecting the emperor’s desire to Islamize regions considered central to Hindu identity.

Historian Jadunath Sarkar, in his translations and analyses of Mughal sources, confirmed the renaming of Mathura to Islamabad as a symbolic move rather than a deeply entrenched administrative change. Furthermore, Sita Ram Goel, in his comprehensive work Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, references this renaming as part of Aurangzeb’s wider campaign to obliterate the visible presence of Hindu civilization.

Short-Lived and Rejected

Despite the imperial order, the name “Islamabad” did not survive beyond Aurangzeb’s lifetime. It was never fully accepted by the local population, who continued to use the name Mathura. Even during Aurangzeb’s reign, Mughal correspondence often reverted to the city’s original name. The British East India Company, which gained influence in the region in the 18th century, made no reference to the city as Islamabad in their records, maps, or dispatches.

This highlights the resilience of cultural identity against forced political and religious impositions. Like other renaming attempts by Islamic rulers, such as referring to Banaras as Muhammadabad, these changes rarely stuck in the long term.

Historical Precedents of Religious Renaming

Aurangzeb’s attempt to rename Mathura fits a broader pattern of Islamic regimes renaming prominent Hindu cities and landmarks as a form of ideological domination. Examples include:

  • Banaras (Varanasi) allegedly being called Muhammadabad during temple destruction campaigns.
  • Ujjain, where several temples were demolished under the supervision of Mughal governors.

However, like Mathura, these names were administrative anomalies, rarely accepted by locals or preserved in collective memory.

Modern Debates and Denials

In recent decades, the episode of Mathura being renamed Islamabad has become a contentious point in Indian historiography. Some secular and Marxist historians have downplayed these acts, claiming they were either exaggerated or purely military-political moves rather than religious bigotry. However, the existence of primary source documents such as Maasir-i-Alamgiri, Aurangzeb’s farmans, and archival Persian manuscripts render such denials implausible.

Scholar Audrey Truschke, though generally defending a more nuanced view of Aurangzeb, admits that he did engage in religiously motivated temple demolitions, though she frames them within the broader context of political consolidation. Nonetheless, the symbolic significance of renaming Mathura cannot be dismissed as mere political expediency.

Implications and Legacy

The attempted erasure of Mathura’s Hindu identity through renaming and temple destruction is emblematic of Aurangzeb’s larger project—one that sought to redefine India’s cultural fabric through an Islamic lens. While his efforts ultimately failed to transform Mathura into “Islamabad” in any enduring way, they left a deep historical wound that is still remembered today.

The Shahi Eidgah mosque, built from the ruins of the Keshav Dev temple, stands as a lasting monument to this cultural violence. Modern-day disputes over the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Eidgah complex reflect the unfinished legacy of those 17th-century policies.

Conclusion

The renaming of Mathura to Islamabad during Aurangzeb’s rule, though short-lived and ultimately rejected, was a powerful symbolic act of religious conquest. It was not just a change of name, but a declaration of intent—to redefine the sacred geography of India and to impose a new cultural hierarchy under Islamic supremacy.

This episode serves as a stark reminder of how political power can be used to manipulate historical and spiritual identity. In a time when historical narratives are increasingly contested, acknowledging such uncomfortable truths is essential for an honest reckoning with India’s past.

Footnotes and References

Let me know if you’d like this formatted into a PDF, or adapted into a speech or blog post.

Footnotes

  1. Sarkar, Jadunath. History of Aurangzib, Vol. III. Calcutta: M.C. Sarkar & Sons, 1916. ↩
  2. Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol. I. Voice of India, 1990. ↩
  3. Khan, Saqi Mustaid. Maasir-i-Alamgiri, translated by Jadunath Sarkar, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1947. ↩
  4. Sarkar, Jadunath. Maasir-i-Alamgiri (Introduction and Notes), Calcutta University Press, 1947. ↩
  5. Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol. I, pp. 62–65. ↩
  6. Truschke, Audrey. Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth. Stanford University Press, 2017. ↩

Comments are closed.