Ramarajya: Envisioning the Future and Entrenching the Past 97destroyed the Jagannatha temple at Puri as the finale of a campaign in
Orissa. The chroniclers tried to show that the sultan was making life dif-
ficult for the infidels and to earn him the respect of the orthodox section
of his community.^100
Iconoclasm helped with impressing the superiority of the foreign rulers
on the native population. Muslims were still a fraction of the total popu-
lation, and the Muslim elites could not have felt very secure. The rulers
called the subjects infidels, and the subjects considered the rulers barbar-
ians. For Muslims, a Hindu temple was not just a symbol of pagan reli-
gion with its false gods, but also a sign of exclusion. Despite their political
power, Muslims were strictly denied access to several spheres of Hindu
life. Hindu temples reminded the ruling Muslim elite of this exclusion
because "the temple had long been the center of Hindu social life in the
village. The temple was a place where Hindus congregated, and congre-
gations ... [could] become centers of revolt The temple was the bank,
the landowner, the employer of innumerable artisans and servants, the
school, the discussion centre, the administrative centre for the village, and
the place for major entertainments in the form of festivals."^101
All the above factors may have contributed to the temple breaking and
looting. It is also important to note the instances of Muslim rulers facilitat-
ing temple repairs, threatening to destroy mosques in enemy territory, and
patronizing non-Muslim buildings. For instance, a letter from his superior
to Muhammad bin Qasim, the Arab conqueror of Sind, clarifies,The letter of my dear nephew Muhammad bin Qasim has been received and the
facts understood. It appears that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had peti-
tioned to be allowed to repair the temple ofBudh and pursue their religion. As they have
made submission and agreed to pay taxes to the Caliph, nothing more can be properly
required from them. They have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in
any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property. Permission is given them
to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden or prevented from following his
own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like, (italics
mine)
Sultan Sikandar Lodi "wished to destroy" the mosques of Jaunpur in order
to demonstrate his power to a fellow Muslim ruler. Firuz Shah admired
the pillars of Ashoka at Meerut and Topra so much that he transported
them to Delhi. He placed one of them in a prominent position on the roof
of his citadel in spite of his being told that it was a magical charm and was
associated with religious ritual.^102
The communalist theory, however, would emphasize the religious dif-
ferences between Hindus and Muslims and ascribe the temple destruc-
tion to that difference. Hindu communalists claim that most of the Muslim
monuments were originally Hindu monuments. For instance, they claim
that the Qutub Minar in Delhi was originally Vishnudhvaja, built by